Yes. But not if that “learning” is basic word definitions of archaic words, or obscure grammar syntax, or clarified idioms. That is a hindrance to hearing what God inspired. Spiritual truths? Yes, that is where we’re to be stretched and elevated.
I was about to make note of the timestamps on the comments 🤣🤣🤣. Glad you found it worthwhile to watch through :) keep an eye out for the two remaining parts.
I agree with Dr. Riddle. I'm tired of White and Ward mischaracterizing, using pejorative rhetoric, ad hominems, and strawmen arguments to use against KJV and TR users and advocates. Ruckman's critique and exposé of White's KJV only controversy book was superb. Burgeon, Hills, Holland, and Waite adequately answered and retorted White's and Ward's attacks. Sam Gipp and Gail Riplinger are poor examples of our camp. Ruckman is not given fair treatment. He is educated. He is smarter than most who criticize him. He could read Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, along with other languages. Indeed, he was the Lord's junkyard dog.
@@TheJesusNerd40 I think the main difference between Peter Ruckman and people like Dean Burgeon would be, Dr. Ruckman took more of an English priority position if I understand his stance properly. But he was unquestionably an intelligent man. This is one thing that people misunderstand. They feel like to discredited someone’s ideas they need to impugn their intelligence.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Well said! I'm starting to realize that most peoples positions make sense if you take they're underlying presuppositions into account!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews read Scholarship only controversy by Ruckman. He ousted White thoroughly. Also, I've seen Ruckman read, parse, and translate Hebrew and Greek in his preaching and conferences. As far as your statement above, I agree. Nutty ruck went English priority but he had a basis for it. Ward brings legit criticism to that stance but he goes about it the wrong way and also straw Manning Ruckman. Sam gipp and gail riplinger are light years divide from Ruckman and Anderson.
Hey James! I think the sentiment is the same, but the way I understood Dr Riddle's position was that it is TR only, but he doesn't like the label because it brands the confessional text position in a similar way as "KJV only". The underlying philosophy between the two are different and it seems Dr. Riddle wants to distance his position from the Ruckman/Riplinger style KJV onlyism.
Grace and peace brother if you have some digital ebook supporting majority text please send to me I from Brazil and I can't buy these books in English because it's almost my salary
Around the 18 minutes mark he says the KJV isn’t hard to read and understand… Then he immediately contradicted that by mentioning resources that help to understand it. The book by TBS is about 14 pages of archaic words.
I think his overall point is that it's no harder than many other modern translations if so, its marginally so. This goes to your other question about some things are hard to understand. The argument is that 'some things are hard to understand' doesn't mean that the whole is unintelligible.
I still need a dictionary to read the ESV, NASB and NKJV. It didn't take me long to settle into the KJV, a lot of the archaic words are repeated so it becomes second nature eventually.
Dr. Riddle seems like a smart and nice guy, but he's not selling his side very well imho. If its really about the TR or whatever name we want to use being the better texual basis then why be hesitant when speaking of other translations based on that texual basis outside of the KJV? It makes it seem like he is more partial to the KJV than the textual basis itself. Also the KJV is clearly a difficult read at times for the modern reader otherwise it would'nt be as important to have word lists readily handy. You may personally like the KJV better, and for good reason its an awesome translation. But why seemingly be hesitant to recommend a well made alternative translation on the same texual basis?
Hey I enjoyed your videos. I like the NKJV but still trying to decide what's more of gods will. Other translation I kinda feel that other denominations put their beliefs in to other translation. If I'm wrong correct me
I have so many questions… The first… With this argument… Does this mean we didn’t have a text until we got the TR? Meaning we didn’t hav the true word of God until the 15 and 1600s…
@@lloydcrooks712 The TR agrees *mostly* with the Byzantine text. I found a TR minority reading in Revelation 1:6. The TR Reads "He made us kings and priests to God" Whereas the Byzantine reads "He made us a kingdom, priests to God."
Riddle: KJV is easy to read. But…you going to need this and that word lists, a specific KJV version, believe the 1689 Confession of Faith and just ignore that KJV-only stuff. That’s all. 😂
If those who are so TR only, are so correct then why don't they spend less time talking and more time seeking how to bring the Masoretic and TR into modern elegant language that the plowboy or the repent gangbanger can understand? That's my challenge to you folks.
Perhaps it's time to define terms, Dwayne. "What we should do is simply reclaim the traditional text, the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament, and that will provide for us a stable authoritative text. Because, it is (huh) the original-it is the autograph. When we have the Received Text we are reading the autograph, we don't need to work at restoration." - Dr. Riddle Well...I wonder which TR Riddle is talking about? If it's the 1881 Scrivener, then he certainly *is* KJVO by default. Perhaps you should have asked him for a list of errors within the KJV before claiming that Riddle is not KJVO.
My point of contention here is not to label anyone KJVo, I simply heard of the "Confessional/Traditional text" position a while ago and wanted to get some more information on it. If you're not convinced and think its rebranded KJVonlyism, by all means.
@@Dwayne_Green FWIW, Dr. Riddle has recently given *his* definition of KJV-Onlyism. It reads: "I think if the term is to have any meaning the "Only" in KJVO must mean such a person who holds this position believes that the KJV is the ONLY Bible that can be used, even by those who do not speak English. This would mean it was specially inspired." Unfortunately, this would exclude Chick Publications and even Peter Ruckman from being considered as "KJVO!" Which, (1) is ludicrous, (2) shows that Dr. Riddle hasn't thought this through, and (3) makes his personal opinion in regards to whether his position can be categorized as KJVO IRRELEVANT! (Considering that he simply doesn't know what he's talking about, period.) I get the feeling that you tend to try and get along with everyone, and stay out of the hot debates. And that's fine. Unfortunately, you already got yourself into this.
17:30 -20:38 range.."KJV is not hard to read or understand.." Then closed out by saying the Bible has a sense of being unreachable by the lost or immature. We aren't talking about confusing spiritual matters. That's a category error. We are talking about the basic English. I reject the notion that we need to "huddle up with the dictionary and shape ourselves by the KJV.." This is simply wrong. And continuing to declare this error is placing a burden upon people that is unnecessary. I find it interesting that they'll say "oh, yes there are other acceptable translations" but when one is proposed, these errors of pressure come back up, and the more accessible translation is resisted.
Well said...A good English translation of the Bible should have two things: 1) Translate from the original language as accurately as possible. 2) Translate into English as clearly as possible. KJV may be accurate, but it is not clear.
The thing to me thats mistranslated is the word teacher which the old KJV uses and the NKJV which I use most now anyways NKJV uses the word tutor and others esv and others use the word guarding so to me these 2 words have a totally different meaning. The verse in these are Galatians 3:24
Couldn't disagree more with Dr Riddle regarding the intelligibility of the KJV. No other translation that I'm aware of has booklets published to define the archaic words.
@@Dwayne_Green I would love to see an actual KJV update that eliminated the archaic words. Several have been produced in one form or another. I've used the KJVer some, not a complete update but it's much easier to understand. I've since made other TR translations my primary go to Bibles.
Those who refuse to use other TR translations like ylt, lsv, nkjv, mev and are kjv preferred already qualify as kjvo bec some of these believers actually believe 1611 translators are better than 2022 translators. My guess is translators do learn something new every year.
Kinda sort of :) the term "Majority text" has shifted meaning significantly over the last 100 years... Before it was essentially synonomous with the TR, but now with a number of 'new' Greek New Testaments based of the Byzantine text, the term 'majority' doesn't quite capture the nuances.
There are bible examples of jews and gentiles reading OT on their own. For archaic kjv, can pretty much understand most of archaic words on your own without the help of parents and preachers, if you use annotated kjvs like defined king james and or TBS westminster.
That's not true, The KJV is difficult to understand. You can't deny that. I don't come from a church background. When I first looked at the KJV Bible, I was scared off at first and I asked the bookstore person if there was something else that I could understand. God allows people to come to Him as they are. This man is wrong. It is Archaic language. And people with learning disabilities have especially a difficult. I didn't grow up with words like justification or sanctification. People shouldn't need the church to explain the Bible. That's Catholic. The Bible should be accessible to sinners who are seeking salvation. Should the Bible still be chained to the church?
I agree with your take on the KJV's readability, but be careful you don't overshoot. We don't want to "chain the Bible" to the Church, yes I suppose, but we were transferred from the kingdom of darkness into a new community. In other words, we do read the Bible as a community, and God did give us teachers and leaders to help us along the way. Not saying you necessarily disagree with that...just wanted to offer that take.
I understand what Dr. Riddle is saying... When people here "Only" in conjunction with a Biblical text, often what people hear is the Riplinger/Ruckmanite views. I can see why Riddle, and of Confessional Bibliologists want to maintain distance from their ideas!
@@Dwayne_Green I understand those connections may sting for him, but doesn't my point remain? He still really is an onlyist however different his "kind" is. I grew up in and for 26 years I was a KJV onlyist fundamentalist (I'm now a confessional Reformed Baptist) and so I see right through the rhetoric. For him to try and side-step what he really is is disingenuous.
@@adamjones7843 I don't believe Riddle would claim perfection for the KJV (though he'd only use the KJV), in another interview he suggested that the Geneva Bible is good... I think there's significant difference between Confessional Bibliology and KJVonlyism to justify not using the term KJVonlyism. KJVonlyism has been branded something else (an extreme form of Ruckman/Riplinger kjvonly) and really doesn't accurately represent his views....
Dr. Riddle wants to distance himself from KJV onlyism which is irrational and does not correspond to reality...which is exactly what Dr. Riddle's position is. I can definitely see why he doesn't like the appropriate and accurate label of TR Only. It's exactly what it is: ridiculous and grounded in willful ignorance.
@@adamjones7843 Exactly. 100% This is one reason why I gave up a long time ago trying to have a good faith dialogue with these folks. They're either dishonest or just as blind and irrational as KJV-onlyists. Not the same exact thing...but the same camp.
That modern translations have just as many archaic words as the archaic kjv is a common lie from kjvo and kjv preferred. There are modern translations with probably no archaic words such as nlt, ncv, erv, gnt, cev, nlv, voice, message.
This is a great channel, but I wish you would stop treating "TR-Only" proponents as if they offer a reasonable and legitimate viewpoint, or as if they even try to represent those they criticize with any fairness whatsoever. They espouse TR onlyism, and disingenuously cry "foul" when they're labeled that way as if it's everyone else's blunder for calling them exactly what they are. They don't even attempt to address the very thing that undermines their entire position: variation within the TR tradition, and yet they continue to use "the" perfect TR as a selling point. It's dishonest. It misleads lay people who don't know anything about this field. It's not a valid viewpoint, and it's wrong to present it as if it is.
The super geniuses of the KJV were used by God to PERFECTLY preserved His very important words for man's spiritual nourishment and growth, if anyone dare to be a critique of these out of this world intelligence then he or she better be sure that God has equip him with intelligence par or above than these humble KJV workers. The KJV is the PURE and PERFECT words of God, all modern bibles are inaccurate, deceiving and fake bibles.
