I was KJVO for decades. One false friend that I stumbled over for years was the word "conversation". In Contemporary English the commonly used definition for "conversation" would be: our words, our speech. In my ignorance I applied that contemporary meaning to Philippians 1:27 "Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ". I stumbled across the Greek meaning of this word one day and was surprised to discover that it means: Conduct, manner of life. That is a LOT different than just words and speech! I then consulted several newer English translations and to my chagrin discovered that they all used "conduct" or "manner of life". These days I still have the KJV loaded up in my Logos Bible app, but mainly bounce back and forth between the ESV, NASB, NET, and CSB. I also have several other translations that I consult, but mostly use those 4 translations. I still celebrate the rich heritage of the KJV and love its eloquence but feel that I am able to profit more from some of the more contemporary translations.
@@markwardonwords When my wife and I were living in Spain I used a Spanish translation quite a bit and was surprised at some of the differences between the Reina Valera and the KJV. Since I was strongly KJVO at the time I started looking into the Greek in order to "prove the RV wrong." My Greek skills are more limited than yours but I was surprised to find that the RV was more accurate than I thought. I also noticed that some of the differences between the RV and the KJV were also reflected in some of the modern English translations. That was not a pleasant discovery. I struggled with that for a few years and then watched a debate here on RU-vid between Dr James White and Jack Moorman. I was SHOCKED at how the strongest talking points of KJVOism fall apart when confronted by true scholarship. I then dug out my old copy of Gail Riplinger's book and was shocked at the lack of scholarship. My KJVO days had come to an end. However, I am not a KJV hater. The KJV translators did a GREAT job with the limited resources they had available at the time, but due to a lot of archeological discoveries in the last 100 years of ancient Greek writings we just know a LOT more about Greek today than we did 400 years ago.
@@RT-gv6us you went through a thoughtful process. The KJVO position sounds good---until it is really looked at closely and then the question becomes "why not the Geneva or the Bishops, etc"? Some take it to the extreme that the KJV is BETTER than the Greek or Hebrew. Others insist no translation in ANY language is the Word of God other than the KJV. The KJVO position is a huge deviscive issue that does no one any good.
@@flintymcduff5417 the problem with the modern translations like the ESV is that they come from new manuscripts that were buried for 1800 years…if they were the true Word of God then God wouldn’t have let them be lost for so long…
As someone who struggles with reading, reading comprehension, and language comprehension difficulties, growing up KJV only was a nightmare to understanding the Bible even though I love, and still love to this day, the sound of the KJV. I'm currently trying to teach myself through use of easy to read translations and hope to one day be able to more easily read the KJV. This is how I found your videos. So glad I did :)
I still love the sound of the KJV, too! But I long ago trained my ear and heart-and then later my mind-to see that God's word is not bound to Elizabethan forms.
Linguistics 101. Its needed by everyone who wants to make an argument about "versions" of the text. Well done. People forget that although God did speak at one point, the language each generation uses is historically changed. And since God changes that history, we would do well to reflect the work of God in our translations. Amen.
One thing that helped me a whole lot reading the KJV was receiving a reference KJV as a graduation gift. A managed to learn the meaning of a lot of dead words and false friends through the use of that KJV Bible.
Thank you so much for your courage and the incredible amount of detailed work you put into this topic. Honestly, your patience and humility to just state the obvious is a blessing and encouragement to me. While I do most of my Bible reading in the KJV I will usually daily go to another version to understand some of the meanings. Appreciate you brother!
In 1 Kings 18, I naturally assumed "halt" in that instance meant "pausing" and being "indecisive" about whether to follow God or follow Baal. "Limping" never occurred to me. Also, the NKJV uses the word "falter" instead of "halt".
The KJV helped my vocabulary grow tremendously. I learned to look words up and, in turn, my interest in linguistic material grew. As you pointed out with your beeves anecdote, it doesn’t take long to learn a few words. I have yet to come across any version of the Bible that doesn’t require a dictionary from time to time.
Wonderful! And you're totally right in that last line. But there are versions of the Bible that do not contain one *kind* of difficult word that the KJV does contain many of: archaic words. And the problem is not just dead words, words people know they don't know. It's false friends, the topic of this video.
The KJV translators themselves declared that their intention was not to make a new translation but to make a good translation better. This in and of itself debunks those who are KJVO .
I attended KJV-only churches up to my early thirties, and I witnessed the kind of misundertanding of the occasional word on the part of preachers, teachers and laymen to which you appeal. Today, I also primarily use the ESV, and am sometimes startled by the reaction I hear from laymen in my new circles who didn’t grow up familiar with the KJV as I did. They tell me when they try to read the KJV, they cannot understand it at all. Maybe they were overstating, but I daresay, for the most part, it is at least fair to say that leaving linguistic hurdles in the way of 21st readers was not the intention of the translators. It has been years since I read “The Translators to the Reader” (KJV’s original preface), so I can’t cite the location of the statement, but I recall reading them specifically not saying theirs would be the final word in Bible translation, and in fact commended the use of many translations to get a better grasp of the original languages than one translation alone can provide. This is reason enough to resist the urge to enforce a tradition that is tantamount to returning to the days of imposing one version on the people which the vast majority cannot read, as was the case in the middle ages with the Latin Vulgate. “Edification requires intelligibility.” Truer words were never spoken!
You're exactly right, and I love the way you put it. I translated and (drastically) abridged that preface here: blog.logos.com/2017/09/new-translation-bible-translation-preface/ I drew some lessons from it here: blog.logos.com/2017/09/new-translation-bible-translation-preface/ Hope these can be helpful to someone!
People with little education have been reading the KJV for hundreds of years. They understood it, but not the new educated? If an it don't make sense, ya know there is a buck in it. Ruckman A new English perversion out every year? As if English has gone archaic each year. If an it don't make no sense, ya know there is a buck in it. Face it, you are jealous of the authority of only ONE book, and it is the standard. It is the final exemplar! Purified 7 times.
Chaucer is in English. But his English has drifted so far from ours it needs a translator. Elizabethan English which the Jacobite scholars of the kj v used is rapidly heading that direction and it's even more obvious if you were to read it in o.p. ( original pronunciation) . 700 words? That's a lot! When you add in the false friends as your concept describe, yeh. Almost a different language.
If you attend a Bible believing, Bible teaching church, these words will be explained and defined for you as a matter of course. When I went to my English teacher to ask her what a word meant, I was told to go look it up in a dictionary; that's how you learn. Too many people use other versions as a short cut commentary to avoid much study, which Ecclesiastes 12:12 declares "...is a weariness of the flesh." Nevertheless, Paul admonishes Timothy (and by extension us) to "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (II Timothy 2:15, KJV)
So as a former cowboy we would call cows "beeves". I paused the video at 1:37 to write this and now will unpause and see if that's what the KJV meant. And I am right ha We still use the term in the West.
Right! Part of the definition of "archaic" is that a word may move to the margins of the language. It may be known only by a narrow group. A bovine podiatrist in my church knew that word. But nearly no one outside of cattle work does.
A big hello from Northern Ireland. Perhaps in the UK we still understand some old words like 'want', while we may not use them. I use the ESV translation personally, but preach from the NIV because this is the translation used in most congregations here. Some people ask which is the best Bible translation to read, my answer is the one that you can read and understand! I am of the Reformed faith, for me reformation sho be continually happening, we should as ourselves why be do something and does it bring glory to our king Jesus. The KJV is majestic in its style and language, but in my opinion most people struggle to read it and therefore it's beauty becomes a tripping point to the reader A man once said that "if the King James was good enough for Jesus to use it's good enough for me". Perhaps this story is an example of fans of the kJV who don't fully understand why they argue it is the only translation of the Bible. Some hardcore supporters of the KJV could be verging on legalism.
Mark, I think you're focusing too much on the minority of your critics, the KJV-Onlyists. You're never going to please them so don't even try. You're helping the vast majority of Christians immensely.
This is helpful. I need to hear this. However, they're the brothers and sisters (although extremely few women watch or read my content) I want to win over-and I'm willing to be patient. This will be a long slog. God was merciful to me to bring me out of KJV-Onlyism without destabilizing my faith in Christ and in Scripture; I want to be God's tool for him to do the same for others.
"HALT, verb intransitive 3. To hesitate; to stand in doubt whether to proceed, or what to do. How long halt ye between two opinions? 1 Kings 18:21." -1828 Webster's Dictionary-
Samuel Johnson's 1755 dictionary says much the same thing. Definition 3: *To hesitate; to stand dubious.* *How long halt ye between two opinions?* *1. Kings xviii.* However, it's likely that Johnson and Webster recognized that Elijah was using the word "halt" figuratively. It's also possible that they didn't go back and check the Hebrew. The word "halt" is seen as early as John Wycliffe's translation from the 1380s. Wycliffe based his version on the Vulgate, and the Latin version of this text reads, "Usquequo claudicatis in duas partes?" The word "claudicatis" does mean "limp" (in agreement with Johnson's first definition of the verb "halt").
I don't know whether this has been mentioned yet or not (I truly tried to look at previous comments), but I heard a prosperity preacher indicate that the widow who gave her two mites did so because she wanted something (Mark 12:44 "For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living."). Context shows the contrast between the amounts she had with what others had indicating the level of sacrifice out of which each person gave, but because of the word "want" this preacher said she gave to the temple offering because she wanted something from God. He was justifying giving to God to get from God. I don't recall that the preacher also went on to say that those who gave out of their abundance did so to get more from God, but that would be the next line of logic (wrongly) applied to that text. Prosperity preacher name known, but withheld. Thank you, Mark, for your videos.
Yup. This is just the kind of thing these guys can get away with in front of simple souls-in part because of KJV archaisms. I can't put the full blame on language change here; there is a lot of ignorance (on the part of the people) and greed (on the part of the preachers) involved. But the archaisms are not helping!
Right! And how many times does this have to happen before we realize that the problem is not with "poorly educated" people, nor with the KJV itself, but with language change? 1 Cor 14:24 or so tells us we must give attention to the uninitiated man who comes into the assembly and will think we're crazy if we're speaking unintelligible language.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but hasn't there already been revision? I thought that was the entire point of the NKJV (aside from arguments that it was intended to be a "bridge translation")...to update the KJV in terms of readability? Now that being said, the NKJV still has words like "mammon" which of course no one would use today and almost anyone would need a dictionary for. But the preponderance of translations available today shows that not only do people have tons of choice now, revision already has been going on. And in one of your earlier videos that I watched, you said that 55% of the English Bibles sold today are KJV and the percentage is falling, which shows that over time buyers are looking for alternate translations. So shouldn't stand to reason that time will take care of this problem eventually? I don't think the KJV is ever going away; and people will always have the choice of which translation to read personally. I guess I'm the wrong person to raise this question because I'm just getting back into reading the Bible after almost 20 years. In fact I've never read it all the way through before. I've just recently made the decision to do so, and I'm looking for a "preferred translation" of my own, which has led me down this rabbit hole. At first I thought that I would tackle the King James version as a sort of challenge, but I found that I got annoyed at the little niggling difficulties that cropped up here and there. So right now I don't know what to pick. But there is certainly a lot of choice now. I think that only the KJV purists out there would be the ones that have an issue with progress. Because the publishers of the Bibles certainly don't, given the plethora of choices today.
You're right: that's the point of the NKJV. But it didn't succeed with the KJV purists, and in fact they have invented a set of Bible doctrines to defend their exclusive use of the KJV. The NKJV has probably lost its chance to gain their trust, through very little fault of its own. I'm glad you're getting back into Bible reading. I'd encourage you to get this set: www.amazon.com/dp/0310448123?tag=3755-20 But you can hardly go wrong with any of the major evangelical English translations.
Hello My Brother, I appreciate your sincere intentions and agree with you in so many particular points. However, I fail to see how "limp" in 1Kings 18:21 helps clear things up so that the plough boy can understand the text with ease. What, pray tell, does "limp between two opinions" mean? Is it a metaphor? An idiom? A phrase that plough boys hear and understand regularly? I trow not. "Limp between two opinions" causes me to stop and ponder for way longer than I believe your point intended. Even with your misunderstanding of the word halt in this context as "stop", stopping between two opinions gives the idea that neither opinion is decided upon. However, halt doesn't simply mean "stop", it also means "to waver between alternatives" "to hesitate", "to falter as in reasoning", etc. Since, you appear to be saying that we have choices then why not simply "waver" as in the WEB? Or "halt" as in the Authorized Version and others as well?
Good questions, presented in a good spirit. I assume it's a metaphor, though the possibility that it's an idiom can't ever be discounted, because it's impossible to prove that a given idiom *didn't* exist in an ancient language (it would be like proving a universal negative). I think "waver" is fine as a translation here. So is "hesitate." But these are functional translations. I'm fine with a more functional translation here, but if we're going to go with a formal one, as the KJV translators did here, then we should translate it into our English. The Hebrew says "limp" and the KJV translators said the equivalent "limp" in their English-we should use the word "limp" in formal translations for today's readers. This is not a big deal, of course. Missing this metaphor will not make you miss the gospel. And using "limp" won't ensure that everybody immediately gets the metaphor (or idiom!). But using "halt" will ensure that nearly everyone *will* miss it. And-though this is also minor-they'll miss the little verbal echo five verses later, where the priests of Baal "limp" around the altar. The ESV picks this up; the KJV translators chose not to. I think the KJV translators' choices were wholly defensible; I'm not criticizing them. But, on balance, I'd rather have a chance at getting the metaphor and the contextual connection rather than having no chance at either.
@@markwardonwords Hi Mark, really enjoying your videos. I came across your videos after watching Michael Jackson's podcast that you were featured in - yes, I was one of the two watching. :-) Michael worked with us in Mexico, years ago. I recently returned to the States after 35 years serving the Lord in Mexico (10 years) and Poland (25) and don't have all my books unpacked. I was just now able to get online to the OED and found this which may aid in our discussion. Quote: Halt... 3. To walk unsteadily or hesitatingly; to waver, vacillate, oscillate; to remain in doubt.Esp. in the scriptural phrase ‘to halt between two opinions’; now often associated with halt v.2 1382 Bible (Wycliffite, E.V.) 1 Kings xviii. 21 How long halt ȝe into two parties? [1611 How long halt ye between two opinions?]. Would love to discuss these issues with you in more detail - pick your brain sort of speak. My e-mail is: Mitexas@yahoo.com.
ALL of the KJV only people I have spoken with about this have no idea how many words don't mean today what they meant then. Replenish is one of the first examples in the bible. As well as your example of firmament.
I think all the major modern evangelical English Bibles fix this problem-because they translate the Hebrew and Greek of Scripture into contemporary English. If you really like the KJV tradition, then the NKJV or ESV are very close to it, and they both use contemporary English.
@@markwardonwords Thank you for taking the time to reply. I grew up on the KJV and I love it, but it can be difficult to understand at times, even for somebody like me who has been using it for so long.
I think our problem is undereducated people who are lazy and won’t use a Bible dictionary. I grew up with the KJV (I’m not KJVO) with a Bible dictionary & Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance with it.
I am always confused with how the KJV used "meat" for food when it also uses "food" for food. Do you have any idea why they use both words? Could it be that different translators used different words and we ended up with both opinions?
"Meat" used to mean "food" back in 1611. Language changes over time. I made a video on this! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-F41Bm_B1goM.html
Not all of the translators worked on the entire bible so yes, the difference could come down to which group translated which parts. Meat was a confusing one for me as well.
hello sir, I want to ask how to understand Shakespeare's English with the words thy, thyne, thou, ye and others. It is very difficult to read now that we use modern English. What kind of materials do you think there are for learning to understand the KJV Bible?
THOU, pronoun in the obj. thee. The second personal pronoun, in the singular number; the pronoun which is used in addressing persons in the solemn style. Art thou he that should come? Matthew 11:3. I will fear no evil, for thou art with me. Psalms 23:4. THINE, pronominal adj. Thy; belonging to thee; relating to thee; being the property of thee. It was formerly used for thy, before a vowel. Then thou mightest eat grapes thy fill, at thine own pleasure. Deuteronomy 32:1. But in common usage, thy is now used before a vowel in all cases. The principal use of thine now is when a verb is interposed between this word and the noun to which it refers. I will not take any thing that is thine thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory. In the following passage, thine is used as a substitute for thy righteousness. I will make mention of thy righteousness, even of thine only. Psalms 71:2. THY, adjective [contracted from thine, or from some other derivative of thou. It is probable that the pronoun was originally thig, thug or thuk, and the adjective thigen. See Thou.] THY is the adjective of thou, or a pronominal adjective, signifying of thee, or belonging to thee, like tuus in Latin. It is used in the solemn and grave style. These are thy works, parent of good. THYine wood, a precious wood, mentioned Revelation 18:10. THYSELF', pronoun [thy and self.] A pronoun used after thou, to express distinction with emphasis. 'Thou thyself shalt go; ' that is, thou shalt go and no other. It is sometimes used without thou, and in the nominative as well as objective case. These goods thyself can on thyself bestow. THEE, pronoun objective case of THOU YE, pronoun The nominative plural of the second person, of which thou is the singular. But the two words have no radical connection. ye is now used only in the sacred and solemn style. In common discourse and writing, you is exclusively used. But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified. 1 Corinthians 6:2.
Loooove this video! The first false friend I found (in my thirties!) was “prevent.” I got the Henry Morris study bible, which had the word helps at the end of verses, which explained this one as “to prepare.” Many people view you as a threat to KJV, but you’ve been the opposite to me. You brought me back to the KJV. Your book and videos give me the tools to understand it better, and be less afraid of the risk of building my walk in Christ on misunderstanding.
I am a litter confused as to what Mark Ward wants. He keeps saying that it is time to revise the KJV. Well, hasn't that already been done many times over? The Revised Version done in the 1800s is a revision of KJV. Then we have the American Standard Version and have the NASB, NRSV, NIV, ESV, the Legacy Standard Bible all the others through the years. If you prefer the Textus Receptus, we have the NKJV and MEV. What else do we need? Just what is Mark Ward hoping to accomplish with yet another revision?
I am afraid that you won't get that with all KJV Onlyists. From what I know most KJV Onllyists are um-moveable from the KJV, especially the more extreme of them. They will trust only the KJV no matter what. I wish it were otherwise, but it is what it is. @@markwardonwords
David W.Daniels from Chick Publications put out a booklet titled , The King James Bible Companion . over 600 archaic words defined . Under a dollar not including shipping . I made a pocket on the inside back cover and slid a KJV companion in it. I'm a happy man !
The 21st Century KJV came out already and it didn't make a dent. It changes alot of archaic and dead words without changing doctrine. It just hasn't caught on.
I just came across this video of yours about dead words and false friends.I am presently reading through Psalms and I came across " moisture"in Psalm 32:4 then I look at the list of archaic words in the list of TBS KJV that I use and found out its not listed.What I did was open my NKJV and NASB and use vitality in place of moisture and in ESV and NIV has it strength.Please accept a thank you note from a "plowboy".
Thank you for watching, plowboy. =) Hmm. "Moisture." Some interesting stuff is going on with that word, possibly. I'm looking into it now. Thank you for this tip! It would not have occurred to me to look this one up.
Yes! This is true! But this would be words for difficult concepts like "propitiation" or "kinsman redeemer." Usually, translations avoid using archaic or obsolete words like "besom," "chambering," or "emerod"-when "broom," "immorality," and "tumor" are already well known.
Many videos I watch abundantly deserve the playback speed cranked up for time-efficiency reasons. But these videos I need to slow down to 50%. Mark may humorously sound a little like he’s heavily sedated, but understanding the information is more important right?
I so appreciate the work you are doing on this topic. The plowboy's voice still needs to be heard. Definitely ghetto English should be avoided, but there should always be available a Bible in simple elegant English.
Right! Now, I can't find anyone who is proposing that we translate the Bible into ghetto English-or hillbilly English, or any of a number of non-standard varieties of English. Have you seen anyone making a case for this?
I believe the TV shows Wagon Train and Rawhide used the word beeves several times, mostly coming from the trail boss when getting the drive moving again.
Good work! I think it was Tozer who said, "God did not give us the Bible to make us theologians; He gave us the Bible to make us disciples." Or words to that effect. We've made "Bible knowledge" into an idol of sorts, as if the Bema Seat judgment is a written test. I believe scripture is intended to transform our hearts. After all, the Pharisees knew the scriptures, but their knowledge did not help them. And this is where the KJV only argument goes. I think it's an idolatry issue.
I think it is idolatry for some; for me and for most of the mainstream IFB folks (like I was in high school), I think it's something we just accept and don't think a ton about. We just liked to read our Bibles, and we trusted the pastors who told us the KJV was the only trustworthy Bible. We didn't idolize the KJV at that church, not that I can recall.
9:46 I just realized this also about proverbs yesterday when I was reading chapter 4, I came to the conclusion that one of the reasons why I loved it so much was because of the syllable count and phrasing there’s a lot of single syllables and then there will be like a two or three syllable word that I’ve never heard before or haven’t heard in a long time and it’ll literally make a chapter reading that a person could go through and probably two or three minutes last an hour because I’ll sit there, thinking about a single verse over and over until it just clicks and it’s just really amazing and that’s why I love this translation
(1) I feel like modern ploughboys would be the most likely to know the meaning of "beeves;" (2) "want" used as such is fairly common amongst us hillfolk; (3) same with "halt," especially among those who often use the KJV. I use modern translations, and I even agree with the theory that modern translations may be better for public reading than older ones, but there is clearly a need to maintain them in worship at some level. This is because many of the hymns, sermons, etc., of the Christian heritage are likewise in that language. The same could be said for Kini Greek, which is the language of scripture and worship in the Greek Church, and was so for centuries after Demotic Greek became standard. (This, of itself, is one reason for the plethora of witnesses to the Bible.) What level is that? I would suggest it is for memorization, for study, for comparison, for education, etc., leaving the modern translations for public continuous reading, private study, and devotional reading.
i would suggest keeping the KJV text as it is in the running text of a bible, and to place all the difficult words in the margin... most people can read a marginal note as they read footnotes in a modern version... i think we loose something of historic value if we alter the KJV text... marginal notes seems to be the preferred way to go, and we keep the English text as it is and supply it with helps... they have done something similar in the Nelson's Premier collection edition of the KJV, where they have the NKJV renderings in the center column...
My first video shows the things of historic value that we lose as the KJV goes away. I genuinely value those things, and I’m sorry to lose them. But we cannot hold on to all good traditions and still retain other things the Bible tell us to value. The Bible tells us to value public reading of Scripture, and it tells us to value using intelligible words in church. We cannot value both of those things *and* value retaining the KJV at the same time. At the very least, we have to see that all those good values are in tension, and the biblical values must win over tradition, even an excellent tradition like the KJV is.
I appreciate what you point out in many ways regarding false friends and such but I do love the original language and do not wish the KJV to change. We have so many versions available to us today. Is it that you want to see a new version of the Textus Receptus in current english?
@@markwardonwords I have since now seen quite a few more of your videos. I realize that this is much more about KJVO folks than I had previously realized. Digging in deeper I also realized that we are in fact in need of better translations. I have been reading from the ESV for the most part and always thought of the NASB as the solid word for word translation. The KJV has always been just a prettier version to read from. In todays reading I came across David and Saul in the cave. "Saul went in to cover his feet" KJV. Of course I had to look at the ESV and then the NASB. What a bummer to see how far from the actual translation they both were. Especially once running across your 'Bad words video" and 1 Samuel 25:22 I realized how it may be hard to understand a more word for word translation may be but that is why we all must dig in and study. I don't want to lose the original feeling of a passage. I'm left wondering if the KJV is going to be my go to for a solid word for word translation now. I really don't want to have to learn a new language but maybe I ought to. Thank you for your time on all of this and for your heart for us all to have a better understanding of God's word. I appreciate you.
You're doing important work. I won't say this about your critics, (who can know their heart?) but I believe that many unconverted prefer a slightly unintelligible Bible. It makes certain things.... easier. If the whole gathered church understood the Gospel with clarity, many would leave. In the defense of some, there has been some mishandling of texts by liberal modern translators (NRSV, for example). So, many uneducated preachsrs and lay-folk don't know a good translation from a bad, so they default to what they know. But on the extreme end of that spectrum, there is a class that equates modern translations with the work of the Devil. These characters I liken to the Pharisees who blasphemed the Holy Spirit.
Boy… Only God can know if there are professing Christians who *want* a Bible they can’t really understand! That may be true, but I can’t ever know if it is. People wouldn’t admit it. But I do think your second paragraph is right: there are some problems with some translations, and some Christians are scared to get tripped up by those things. What you say in your final paragraph is very sobering and very true. They know not what they do.
Am I the only one who would like a modern version but with the thee, though, thine, ye? I like how it shows the singular or plural nature of the Greek that you miss in the words you, your, you're. Btw I am a NASB/ESV/NIV person
You should watch my INCREDI-NASB!!! video. =) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-reBR7di1Nr8.html I go into some detail on a test I did to determine how useful and necessary the second-person pronoun number distinction (singular vs. plural) is for interpretation. Of course: you can always check the KJV if you're not sure!
Agree. Thee, thou, thine and ye are not likely to be confused but do accurately reflect singular and plural. English lost something when those words dropped out of use.
I think this video says more about the lack of a community in the education system than the KJB. A community used to learn their language through their sacred scriptures. I grew up in the Reina-Valera (Spanish) 1909 and we only spoke that way (old-English like) to our parents. I began my faith on the NIV and comparing the two now there is more context in the KJB. When it comes to doctrine I propose there would be less confusion if we submit ourselves to the same translation to formulate any argument.
So, my friend, what if Swahili speakers, French speakers, and (I dunno) speakers of the PNG language of Lamogai all do the same thing? They use one translation in each language as the standard? And what if those translations themselves disagree in minor particulars-as I'm certain they all do? I'm sincerely asking!
And in 1 Kings 18:21, the word translated as "halt" has, in this context, the implication of "hesitate" as many modern version in fact translate it. And so even if someone reads "halt" here as "stop", in the context, it clearly means hesitate. As I have said before, I agree that there are words that will throw most English readers in the KJV, but to make your argument, you would be more convincing if you stuck with the clearer examples. I hope someday we see a revision of the KJV in which someone makes the changes that are really needed, but not a lot of unnecessary ones, just to facilitate copyright claims. The Third Millenium Bible is an example of one that is disappointing because it makes lots of unnecessary changes, but then fails to make some changes that really are needed.
Rarely does a false friend lead to an overtly wrong understanding of the passage in question, or certainly of a Bible doctrine. But we could say "limp" instead of "halt" (as some modern translations do) and get the image, no problem for anyone. I'm fine with "hesitate," too, but I see that as a slightly more interpretive rendering.
what about the metaphoric language of proverbs? That’s the book I chose to start reading chapter by chapter, very much simplistic language overall that I have a very hard time understanding : Prov 5:6 lest thou shouldest ponder the path of life, her ways are moveable, that thou canst not know them Also I have noted that the tiny verses it references , they read like the same verse continually throughout the whole Bible maybe why it is a living book because literally the whole thing references itself, but is also a continuation from beginning to end, that can be read inside out & outside in, so to speak… blows my mind man just absolutely beyond my understanding and the more I read it I realize I don’t understand which is very humbling & thought provoking and makes it one of the most exciting books to read ever, you could read it your whole life and learn something new from something you have read and understood 1000x over
Beeves is a old spelling of Beefs we still use the word Beefs in New Zealand and other commonwealth countries. Cattle is an American word hence why Americans may not understand Beeves. (But yes a spelling update to Beefs would be better) We refer to a Beef farmer not a Cattle farmer or Beef stock (Beef stock can mean Cattle or a Beef product added to food) or Beef jerky, Beef soup etc Interesting videos👍
I've seen some struggle with the archaic words of the KJV. I've recommended secondary translations & would like to lead our small church away from the KJV to the NKJV (my personal favorite) or equivalent. One Bible I came across that helps a lot is the KJVer Bible which removes the "thous" and so forth and in verses with archaic words, which are underlined, a modern equivalent is included in fine print at the end of each verse. Makes understanding the KJV much easier. I have to add as I "digest" the content, that this needs shouted from the rooftops
@@markwardonwords How are you doing brother I spoke to you about 3 months ago and it has been a battle in my heart of what bible translation I should I read the kjv as my studies and teach from niv I would like to use a translation that can do both I was thinking a about the esv of nkjv I know all translations are good I like the esv but I see that revelation 13:8 reads different from all other translations I don't know if that was changed because of personal theology preference or of it reads in that way in the original Greek maybe you can help me in this part of my ministry thank you Godbless
@@miguelramos1855 I know it's been three years, and you wanted an answer from Mark Ward and not from some random internet commenter, but I do like trying to be helpful! Having looked at number of translations of Rev 13:8, I'm guessing that your question has to do with "from the foundation of the world". What is John trying to describe as happening "since/from the foundation of the world"? Is it the writing of the names of the saved in the book of life (as ESV seems to say)? Or is it the slaying of the Lamb (as the KJV seems to say)? Both are possible in the Greek. It is true that "from the foundation of the world" occurs right after the word "slain". So you might say that settles it - the verse is talking about the Lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world. There are two problems here. 1) This doesn't make a ton of sense. Jesus, the Lamb of God, was not slain before the foundation of the world. You might say, "Well, God's plan of salvation (which included the slaying of the Lamb) was set in place before the foundation of the world." True, but now we're getting away from the plain meaning of "slain before the foundation of the world", I think. 2) As the NET Bible notes point out, Rev 17:8 is extremely similar to Rev 13:8 and is perfectly unambiguous: it's the *writing of names in the book of Life* that is taking place "from the beginning of the world". So I definitely don't think the ESV translation is due to personal theology preference; I think it's trying to make sense of this verse in the light of Biblical theology as a whole, and in the light of another, clearer verse. EDIT: If that's *not* your question about Rev 13:8, let me know!
Please don’t get me wrong, I would enjoy an updated English version that was faithful to the Greek text that was handed down through Church, not a text discovered 150-200 years ago that is not translated through the current geopolitical, socially aware lenses. In the introduction the publisher tell us up front that they translated with different subjects (slavery,gender and other subjects) being translated because they are touch subjects today. No please give me a translation that is faithful and publishers do not seek to control. While the Bible tells us not to muzzle the ox, jo man should own and control Gods word. Can you use unlimited quotes of a new translation without having to pay? They only allow you to personally use your copy and tell you how you may use it without their permission. Christ didn’t tell us to go and preach with the publishers permission. So while I see majority your points what are you doing to actually correct a problem that I believe can agree with in principle, instead of tearing down a tool that has been given to us?
Maybe this will help: byfaithweunderstand.com/2019/07/29/answering-a-few-more-objections-to-authorized-part-1-the-modern-versions-are-copyrighted-theyre-in-it-for-the-money/
Some Norwegian believers I've come in contact with, when reading Genesis 6:6, became objectionable to the "view" or I would say observation, that God changes his mind. The Norwegian said he regretted created man. They asked what the KJV said, to me, as if it were authorative and I spoke the original Elizabethan English of God before Noah. KJV says repented, this didn't fit their scaffolding belief system
This is one reason why we need to maintain the authority of the originals and the secondary, derivative authority of the (good) translations. In matters of controversy, as the Reformers saw, we need an ultimate standard of appeal.
As a long-time KJV advocate, we are not against revision attempts. It just so happens that most revision attempts are using readability as a cover-story to sneak in underlying MS theories that were popularized by Westcott and Hort. I don't know a lot about this so far, but this presentation comes across as a good-faith attempt to revise while retaining the original intent of the translation work. I say "go for it." The dialogue itself might make the Bible come alive for new people. Let's see where this leads.
I've had a viewer or two recommend your channel to me, brother. I'd be happy to chat with you about all this, though it might be best for you to watch some more of my channel first, just to see where I'm coming from. I really appreciate your comment. It's super refreshing to be taken as operating in good faith! It's like the time a seller on Craiglist doubted that I, the guy who wanted to buy his iPad, was legitimate rather than a prankster! It was so weird having to persuade him that I had money literally in my hands that I wanted to give to him!
@@markwardonwords the use of "halt" is a great example. However, it is one of many examples that cause people to arrive at a wrong conclusion. I also bought a kjv 1611 with traditional marginal notes. This opened my eyes to what most kjvo people never mention.
@@markwardonwords I've watched all of them I think. Your story about "Put" from Genesis 24 was very funny. Today my wife I I read 6 chapters from Gen ending at 24 (from the CSB). I told her the story and showed her facsimile of 1611. So interesting
Good question. I'll refer you to the first chapter of my book, Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible (amzn.to/2r27Boz). I go into some detail. One of my answers: you don't have as many internecine fights about Bible translation when there's a common standard.
@@markwardonwords Well, that's a big plus for sure! ;-) So, disappointing that saints of God can't agree to disagree in the spirit of charity (love). When things settle down for us I'm going to order and read your book - looking forward to it.
Funny, I made that same mistake about 'want' aged about 7 in about 1975, when being taught the metrical version of the 23rd Psalm. Perhaps I wasn't paying attention to my teacher. Certainly in British usage 'want' is still found as a noun, though it is, I suppose, old-fashioned. There is an anti-poverty charity called 'War on Want'. In the part of Scotland I grew up in, 'want' was sometimes used as a transitive verb in the sense 'to be lacking or need', as in 'that soup wants salt', 'that boy wants a skelped backside' (i.e. a spanked bottom - in which case he certainly did not want it in the more common sense!). I suppose the closest to the KJV sense I have heard is the fairly common expression about someone who is well-off that they 'want for nothing'.
Excellent linguistic analysis. I have a feeling that some of those Scottish uses of “want” may exist in some regional American dialects, too, but I’m not certain. Would have to do some study.
Key Word Study Bible and Hebrew Key Study Bible KJV by AMG Publishers update spelling from beeves to beefs shew to show etc. But they don’t update whole words like wimple.
Have you ever thought of actualy rewright the king james so it would be not changed one word not one title 🤔 and clear it up . King james is the closest period but still needs revised correctly. Ile be waiting let me know
Mark, you are doing good work. If anything, you are being too accommodating. Let's be real for a minute: the KJV is woefully antiquated, has by far the worst readability of any Bible, is not anywhere near as literal a translation as most people think (which is a poor tradeoff considering how archaic the language is), and most importantly, it's textual basis is vastly inferior to that of modern Bibles. English speaking Christians would do well to toss it in a box with mothballs and place it in the attic. I think those who insist on it do so to their own spiritual detriment. Keep fighting the good fight - the more people can affectively understand God's Word the better off the church will be. This is very important.
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
You used a "false friend" in a way that annoys me. (Yeah, I know, who cares?) You said, "We are not dumb for not understanding...." when I think you intended something more along the lines of "we are not stupid" or "unintelligent" or something like that. But certainly not "dumb" which means "non-verbal" / "unspeaking" , etc. Causing the dumb to speak (Matthew 15:31, Mark 7:37) has nothing to do with stupid people. It is "Ableist" bigotry to assume that non-verbal people are stupid. There are many non-verbal people on the autism spectrum who are very intelligent, even if they don't have verbal ability.
@@markwardonwords but the fact that it has gained this new meaning proves that the word is a False Friend. The KJV never used the word to mean stupid. It only meant nonverbal.
Ah, I see what you're saying! I think I misunderstood. It's certainly not a false friend everywhere it occurs in the KJV. Like here: "But I, as a deaf man, heard not; And I was as a dumb man that openeth not his mouth." (Ps 38:13) But, arguably, even though "dumb" still means "temporarily unable or unwilling to speak" (NOAD) in contemporary English, there are a few places where some readers might think of the informal meaning first: "What profiteth the graven image that the maker thereof hath graven it; The molten image, and a teacher of lies, That the maker of his work trusteth therein, to make dumb idols?" (Hab 2:18)
@@markwardonwords - I do want to thank you for taking the time to give consideration to this and taking the time to reply. As I've been watching your various videos, I find myself largely in agreement with you and bow to your expertise since I'm just an amateur hack in my evaluation of the Scriptures (in all the various forms). However, in skimming through the various KJV usages of "dumb", it seems to me that all of them could be understood as "unable to speak" rather than "stupid". Yes, idols are "stupid", but the fact that idols are unable to actually speak is frequently mentioned (Psalms 115:5, etc). The idol being unable to use its mouth also plays into the first part of Daniel chapter 14 in the LXX where the idol Bel is shown as being unable to use its mouth to eat.
@@markwardonwords YES BROTHER, AGREE WITH YOU BUT AN APPLE 🍎IS AN APPLE 🍎AND AN ORANGE 🍊IS AN ORANGE 🍊 PEOPLE DIFFER AND TASTES DIFFER THANKS AND BLESSINGS 🙌 BRO SHAM KUMAR EVANGELIST WORLD MISSIONS 🌎 INDIA 🇮🇳
@@markwardonwords that's because we have been dumbed down as society. We have been indoctrinated by "experts" who hate God's word. They don't believe God so they become gods in their own eyes. Leading many young in the faith astray
Many people read live and preach the KJV. Not one word is dead but is quick and powerful, and sharper that any two-edged sword. This dude is using modernism and not scripture as his standard. He obviously has NO pure bible. Which means that he is calling God a liar. Thy word is very pure, therefore thy servant loveth it. But he says error! error! But when pressed? alas, it is all opinions. No proof of any actual error. The only error is opinionations & usurping God's pure word, like Satan tempted EVE to to. Congrats! You are an official EVITE choosing arbitrarily against the very words of God.
@@markwardonwords Here is one I Know you can analyze. The true biblical meaning of to "overcome". Pretty simple if you KNOW and love your creator/Saviour and his pure word.
If the church takes heed to 2 Timothy 2:15 there’s no need for revision. But modern translations readers won’t know this because the archaic word study is changed on modern translations by sincere scholars of today.
Ever watch a spelling bee? Bet those kids would be good at guessing the meanings of some of these old words. But those kids also make me feel dumb in comparison (lol) because they know a lot of Latin and are experts at root meanings.
I'm not so sure! And the whole point here, my friend, is that readers don't know to look up these false friends! I would love to see more KJV editions, however, that put asterisks next to the false friends and define them in the margin. There are a few that do this (though they don't catch all the false friends I've caught!). That's a step forward!
While there are words in the kjv that aren't commonly used now, it is much more trustworthy than the recent translations which substitute words for the sake of political correctness and because they want to simplify them. "Man" has always been understood to include women as they were taken from Adam, a man. Adam was created by God and is a creature unlike the animals. All humans are therfore a man in origin. "Seed" is another word that has been replaced in some translations by "decendents". Paul makes it clear that seed is singular, not plural, referring to Christ as being Abraham's seed. Thus if you are in Christ you are in the promise. People like to complain when it requires a little work. They'll not hesitate to expand their vocabulary when it involves investments or new technology and yet they avoid picking up a concordance to do a comparison study of an unusual word in the KJV. Once you learn it you dont forget it. It's not going to change in the next edition. I use older NASB, RSV, ASV to help out but don't trust the new stuff. Also, Oxford publisher uses different words from the American version of the RSV of same year. So compare publishers not just versions.
How DARE the translators find words that are accurate, even by bringing up archaic words that were archaic to them. As if a word is not allowed several meanings during history. And yet retaining the original meanings. * * * * * * * If an it don't make sense, Ya know there is a buck in it. Ruckman Why would any honest Christian live his life to BASH the very pure word of God? If an it don't make sense, ya know there is a buck in it.
@@markwardonwords are you THAT insane? Yes, I guess you are. WHICH dictionary, Which edition they always CHANGE?! No changing of scriptures like yer selfish heart wants to. No you go by internal evidence. They word is very pure, therefore thy servant loveth it. Only one English bible that is pure and is the standard you are jealous of. KJV PCE.
@@herbbearingseed Using your terminology and definition of "change" I must ask you, "Why did the KJV translators change the bible, by making the KJV translation?"
I was a spelling bee champion; I'm a word nerd; I can read multiple languages including Greek and Hebrew; I've read the KJV my whole life; I spent a decade in school beyond undergrad-and still, to this day, people send me archaisms in the KJV that I read right past without realizing I was misunderstanding them. I'm asking you sincerely, though of course I know what answer I'd prefer to hear: do you think I am a dummy?
Respect and Blessings; “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:” Revelation 22:18 KJV “The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel; To know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding; To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity; To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion. A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.” Proverbs 1:1-7 KJV “Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my lips shall be right things. For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips. All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them. Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength.” Proverbs 8:6-8, 14 KJV
Respect and Blessings; “There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord.” Proverbs 21:30 KJV No disrespect I’m not getting at anything “Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.” Proverbs 27:17, be careful that we don’t change words in anyway. I appreciate the study and the work that you do just a word of encouragement. Our father the creator of all things, Created everything good bad indifferent.
THE KJV IS THE ENGLISH STANDARD WITH OUT PROVEN ERROR, JUST BECAUSE PEOPLES FAITH IN THE HOLY BIBLE HAS BEEN ATTACKED CAUSING SOULS TO NOT READ IT THUS UNDERSTAND IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE TRUTH OF IT BEING TRUTH, I HAVE BEEN STUDYING THIS ISSUE FROM THE 1980S ,MY FAITH AND WALK WITH GOD HAS BEEN GREATLY HELPED AND CHANGED FOR THE GOOD AND I KNOW MY EXPERIENCE BEFORE HAVING THIS REVELATION BY BELIEVING AND SEARCHING THE TRUTH WAS SPIRITUAL CONFUSION
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
I agree, however studying God's Word is part of Christian growth and the Holy Spirit revealing the truth to us through his Word. What we need to know about ourselves from God's Word and our only hope of being justified before God: [WHY WE HAVE NO HOPE IN OURSELVES: Mk. 7:20-23 And he (Jesus) said, That which comes out of the man, that defiles the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things (sins) come from within, and defile the man.] [WHY WE NEED A SAVIOR: Rom. 3:10-28 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that does good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that what things so ever the law says, it says to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his (God's) sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ to all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believes in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Joh. 14:6 For God so loved the world (us), that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Rom. 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:]
don't we already have revisions of the KJV...? - how long before the KJV becomes sufficiently unintelligible because of language development?... maybe never, that would be my guess.... nevertheless, i would rather let the KJV stand as it is, and instead that there are produced various revisions of it, to use as companions, for i do not think (and many others with me) that the KJV will *ever* "go away" .... we should know that by now... what about "false friends"?... marginal notes or footnotes is the answer... and of course, dictionaries, there have even been made several so-called "KJV Dictionary" books... such a resource can even be included together with the concordance in the back of the bibles.... :-)
I, too, think that people who read the KJV would do well to choose editions that provide on-page glossaries and footnotes explaining dead words and false friends.
Hi Mark There are also many times the KJV makes understanding clearer, for example in Numbers 12. Most modern translations say Moses married a Cushite woman, whereas the KJV just says Ethiopian woman. Ask any modern person, athiest or unlearned child, or anyone, what a Cushite is and they won't know, but ask them if they know what an Ethiopian is and they most likely will. So there are unused words even in modern translations NET translation at least makes an attempt to explain this by using both
@@markwardonwords yes, because the Hebrew word הַכֻּשִׁ֖ית hakkusit, meaning Cushite. Just saying to make things clear for the newbie who might not know Cush = Ethiopia, it might pay for translators to do either what NET has done, or just the KJV. And yes, literally it means "the Cushite", the "ha" prefix meaning "the" as in "Hashem", or "the Name"
@@markwardonwords I appreciate you discussing this with me, and I ask that you allow me to elaborate. My first Bible was a Good News Bible when I was 5yo (I'm now 51), which my parents gave to me for Christmas, you know the ones that had the outline drawings? I read it from cover to cover that year. Since then I have read many of the English translations. From the age of 18, I received a NASB1977 version which I used for multiple years. I used it through Bible college, and for preaching in Church and on the street. I had also read KJV, NIV, NRSV, ESV, Amplified, Message, CEV, NLT, Jerusalem Bible, The Complete Jewish Bible, as well as studied much of the Hebrew and the Greek, some Syriac Aramaic. I even read The Book Of God by Walter Wangerin, though not a Bible translation as such but a reimaging of the text as a novel, and when at Uni I also read parts of the 1560 Geneva Bible as part of my thesis on John Bunyan. During my Bible colllege days, I encountered some British Israelite cult that stressed KJV onlyist views, and sharply rebuked them and used a word from the KJV to tell them to pee off, though I do realise on reflection that it wasn't the Christian thing to do. So I am by no means KJV only, many translations can shed valuable light and be used to preach God's Word, the Gospel. And I do agree it uses dead words, like gins, unicorns, concupiscence etc. I just don't think we should kick it to the curb so to speak, or try disparage it as it can yield insightful meaning. For example, in Numbers 9:2, following the Tyndale and Coverdale Bible translation of this text, it reads, "Let the children of Israel also keep the passover at his appointed season". "His" appointed season. Ie, Jesus, when it was His season to die for us. The Hebrew allows for it, bemowadow having a 3rd person masculine singular suffix, very similar to the suffixes in Deuteronomy 25:9, relating to the man who would not take his brother's wife to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel. It talks about spitting in "his face", taking "his shoe" off "his foot", and "his brother's house", all composite Hebrew words with 3rd person masculine singular endings. Just a thought... God richly bless you!
Good on the Hebrew! But does Cush = Ethiopia? Are you sure? I looked it up, and it seems that the equal sign you gave is either false or a vast oversimplification. I've always been told that the two were the same, but I never looked into it in detail till today. My hypothesis before spending the requisite hour or two: I'll bet that the NKJV and other translators who chose "Cush" or "Cushite" did so precisely because they do not think that ancient Cush is equivalent to modern Ethiopia. Those who chose "Ethiopia" do so because a recognizable label that's in the ballpark is better in their mind than an unrecognizable one. That's what I would guess at this stage!
@@markwardonwords oversimplification, Cush could have also covered an area consisting of parts of Egypt and Sudan etc. Additionally, Cush had several sons who settled in many different places, Nimrod's kingdom was Babel and he built Nineveh, so technically he could be called a Cushite, as well as some commentators suggesting Cushan could be synonymous with Midian, so could be talking about Zipporah (see for example 'Concordia Self-Study Commentary: An Authoritative In-Home Resource For Students of the Bible' by Roehrs and Franzmann, Concordia Publishing House 1979, p.110). So yes, I could see it being misleading as Ancient vs modern Cush or Ethiopia might be describing slighty different geographic regions and even people. Valid point, mate! (Yes, I'm Aussie). Interesting that the NET makes that connection though in their Full Notes? And I'm currently reading through a Harper RSV Study Bible I inherited from dad, and was intrigued by a phrase they used in Exodus 17:13, which my dad had highlighted, where it says, "And Joshua mowed down Amalek and his people". Little gems like these tickle me a bit, sort of like when the NASB77 has ""flaming missiles" in Ephesians 6:16. I also have the NASB95 which changed this to a less aggressive? "flaming arrows" to my dismay but oh well :)
Beeves an asses are not that archaic they are still used today in the Texas cattle industry. I could be wrong, but I don’t think the meaning of the word heart has changed. When somebody limbs they have a halting gate so technically it really is the same thing. I also want to say I really enjoy this channel. It seems that I have been using your methods for the last 15 years. I have many sources for translations and transliteration of the King James Bible. Looking forward to the rest of your videos. PS: between the king James Bible in the book of common prayer, I don’t think better pros has ever been written.
Glad you're enjoying the videos! Now… "archaic" means "having the characteristics of the language of the past and surviving chiefly in specialized uses" (Merriam-Webster). Sounds exactly like "beeves" to me. I don't have to demonstrate that no one alive knows or uses a given word, only that it has fallen out of *common* usage. Indeed, who outside of the cattle industry knows the word beeves? And perhaps I *should* have understood "halt" in 1 Kings 18:21. Perhaps the 50 or so people I've checked with-pretty well all of whom grew up on the KJV and many of whom had advanced Bible training in college and graduate school-should have understood it, too. But only 4 people I've checked with, three of whom had OT PhDs, understood what the KJV translators meant. It never even occurred to me that I was wrong.
The thing about "is it time for a revision" is that it has been answered Its the NKJV & yes if you care about the Textus Receptus of the NT so much , the NKJV also uses it , so KVJ-Onlies , you "are without excuse"
Nonsensical statement. Just because you want to call the NKJV a revision of the KJV does not make it so. I think it is ridiculous how some people even call the KJV the "Old KJV" just because someone decided to publish something called the New KJV. The KJV is the KJV. And no, I am not on someone's KJV only bandwagon. And what is this about excuses? Are you saying that those who rely on the KJV do not have the right to do so?
You’re still not getting it. The issue is preservation and inspiration, not just translation. Your modern versions are corrupt based on corrupt texts. The negative impact to sound doctrine and theology caused by the modern versions based on the corrupt Critical Text is profound. Compare 1 Timothy 3:16’s KJV “God was manifest in the flesh” to the NIV’s “He appeared in the flesh.” Which one easily demonstrates the deity of Jesus? The Jehovah’s Witnesses cult would love your NIV version. There are dozens of such examples. You are misleading people and propagating ignorance.
My friend, I get it better than you know. I have worked very hard on the questions related to the preservation of the New Testament text, especially. See my kjvparallelbible.org project, for example. But if the issue is preservation, and therefore what you're concerned to protect is the continued use of the same Hebrew and Greek texts used by the KJV translators, then the NKJV and MEV should both be useful for you-they both use those same texts. But they translate them into fully intelligible contemporary English. I commend them to you!
@@markwardonwords Radmacher and company did a good job but still missed a few things. I have read extensively from the NKJV and consider it far superior to the NIV, NASB, RSV, etc., but I’ll take the KJV’s version of Rev. 4:11 over the NKJV’s version any day. That’s just one example. There are more but too much for this venue to cover.
I just saw that 2 mos. ago you asked to email me and I didn't reply. So sorry about that. My blog, byfaithweunderstand.com, has a contact form. I'd be happy to hear from you there.
I wouldn’t change the Word of God, it takes away the importance of 2 Tim 2:15. Precept upon precept. The Holy Spirit will show you the truth. If you go to other modern bibles, then you’ll get mixed up in doctrines, as well as have a lack of discernment for Gods Word.
Friend, you are equating "the Word of God" completely with a translation. The KJV translators did not view things as you do. In their preface they argue for the necessity of revision.
Has anyone googled BESOM? Do it. Look at the images that appear. Is this the soft nylon bristled broom you may have? Which would be more appropriate for the enactment of the phrase, "and I will sweep it with the b**om of destruction", your soft nylon brush or these stiff-twigged weapons against grime and filth? I'm no Ruckmanite. I'm just seeking equity. Do we stick with "besom" which is one of the words one would need to learn/look up or go contemporary "I will sweep it with 'witch's broom' of destruction"? After all what else would we call it in everyday modern language?
I've given some thought to this. "Broom" does not mean "soft nylon brush" in contemporary English. Here's the definition in the New Oxford American Dictionary: "a long-handled brush of bristles or twigs, used for sweeping."
Thank you@@markwardonwordsfor your considered reply. It was interesting to learn besoms are still made my side of the Atlantic and yours and highly favoured by professional grounds people. Possibly not the right platform, however, one of your projects the KJVparallelbible advocating for the similarity between TR & CT and your desire for an(other) update of the KJV - what style of English would you wish to see, that utilised in the website or more contemporary? 🇬🇧 Thanks again
How can they hear without a preacher? Without translation, what tool can the Spirit use to speak? The Spirit could speak directly to individuals, but he has chosen to do so instead through his word.
@@markwardonwords peradventure people would be receptive to Jesus parables too? Shouldnt everyone understand his parables? “don’t you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable?” Mark 4. the inability to comprehend his parables could be viewed as rejection of Jesus see Matthew 13:15. I take issue is the source, the source matters. A 1 ounce silver coin looks like a 1 ounce platinum coin but one has more value. Psalms 12 6-7 were modern Bible versions preserved every generation? Modern bibles were mainly translated from two manuscripts, those two manuscripts were uncovered centuries later. how shall we keep them when they are not available to the people throughout time? Only the Greek manuscripts of the KJV was available throughout every generation. I can create an exact replica of the ark of the covenant, but that would not be the same as the actual ark of the covenant
My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
I think you are assuming a low level of education on the part of a good many English speakers, and if that is so it is due, maybe, to the Edukashun system; which seeks to dumb us all down, rather than to the Authorised Version (1611) itself. Using a dictionary or wordbook would give us the meaning of most of the 'dead' words, but the same could be said about a lot of books using 'contemporary' English. I think that using the AV expands our wordstock; that is one reason, maybe, to leave it alone, or rather to take it up and use it a bit more.
When the Bible describes two different deaths of Judas Iscariot, how do you look that up? When the Bible gives two different reasons for Peter wanting to make three tabernacles, how do you look that up?. You don't know. And as such perhaps you should should cease.
Um, back in the day of the "plow boy" they coudn't read! So what did the "plow boy" do to read the Bible? Hum LEARN to read. As so be it if you don't know what a word means LOOK IT UP. That is why you study. I don't understand much of today's terminology due to computer lingo taking over by using abbreviations like "lol" and for a long time I didn't know what "lmao" meant or "smh". I got a feeling, given enough time, somebody will come up with another uninspired version of The Bible translated to abbreviations! I am King James only and proud to be. There is a special excitement when you study and draw close to God by showing him your willing to dig in and search for Him regardless of the obstacles man poses or the sands of time cover. But to look for versions that gives you an easy read is like taking the broad road is it not?
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
@@markwardonwords THANK YOU FOR READING THE COMMENTS REMEMBER JESUS IS THE AUTHOR AND FINISHER OF OUR FAITH, HE FINISHED THIS WORK, I PRAY THAT YOUR EYES MAY BE OPENED TO THE TRUTH READ ALAN OREILLY BOOK O BIBLIOS HE WAS A FORMER CORRUPT BIBLE USER FROM GREAT BRITIAN
@@markwardonwords I CAN'T SPEAK FOR WILLIAM, BUT I'VE KNOWN SEVERAL PERSONS WHO ONLY USED CAPS BECAUSE THEY HAD POOR EYESIGHT AND IT MADE IT EASIER FOR THEM TO READ WHAT THEY WERE WRITING. I USED TO CONSIDER THOSE WHO WROTE ENTIRE COMMENTS IN CAPS TO BE RUDE, BUT NOW I KNOW IT SOMETIMES JUST MAKES COMMUNICATION EASIER FOR SOME.
