What Does the Bible Say about Bible Translation? RFP Interview 2/4 

Love the song at the beginning. There’s actually been scientific studying on productive conversations start with something unifying. The one I read about was saying the pledge of allegiance at the beginning of the day, but singing also brings us together, and sets our heart on the same focus in Christ. I’m really not a big advocate of elaborate worship services, but a few songs on deep truths do hold a special place in the service, and conversations such as this.

What a tremendous help. I’ve researched for a few years now & am finely resolved that I’ll read & listen to Bible versions I understand. I was locked in on KJV tradition & felt guilty for straying from it & would always go running back to it. It will always be a part of me but I’m seeking to learn more about my Lord so I’m digging my heels into every version that helps me. NKJV, ESV, CSB, NASB, NIV & NLT.

I used to use the KJV only, and i found i was limiting myself, now i use ESV,CSB,NASB and NKJV and my relationship with God has really grown

Brother Mark, I'm really enjoying your discussions. Very informative. Thanks so much. 🙏✝️

I doubt that the King James translators would have considered the English of their day to be timeless.

I saw The Statesmen Quartet and The Blackwood Brothers at Medinah Temple in Chicago in the '60's. Heyday of gospel quartets. Bass for the Blackwoods was JD Sumner and for the Statesmen was James 'Big Chief' Wetherington. The Stamps and the Imperials were good too.

The first time I read, 'fetched a compass' in Acts 28:13, I thought it meant that they went and got a compass! I didn't know until years later after reading the NKJV that it meant we circled round, or made a circuit(ESV). They didn't have a compass as we know them in Paul's day or in 1611.

The open of the podcast was great! I'm not going to lie, I was shocked to find out Mr. Ward was the bass.

I had a chuckle when I was reading Psalms 22:21 and it said unicorns wow mythical creatures. But alas it’s translated in other version as wild oxen or wild bulls. Apparently the word unicorn meant something different then.

It is not communication... until the message is understood.

It occurred to me while listening that what translators do today is the same what the early fathers did in the process of canonization only on an exponentially smaller scale. They weren’t declaring the 66 books we have to be the Bible. They worked hard to recognize those 66 books as God’s Word. Modern textual critics and translators are engaging in that same process on the micro-level. We start from the premise that those 66 books are Bible, and we are working to recognize, among the miniature variations, which words are Bible. I know your focus is that edification requires intelligibility, but as a pastor I engage at the textual level as well when I translate. Great conversation, thanks!

Excellent brothers! Love the song!

NASB, ESV, NIV and NLT.

I've always assumed that the KJV's marginal note at Acts 12:4; i.e., "Easter: Gr. Passover" was provided in the 1611 KJV because the original revisers wanted the reader to know an alternate rendering. But I forgot that many of KJV's marginal notes were created in later KJV editions. In this case, the 1611 edition does not provide the marginal note; so now I busy trying to confirm which edition first provided the note. Notwithstanding, the word Easter (in various forms) has existed in Germanic Bibles (whole or partial) since at least the 10th century. We find "eastre" in the Wessex Gospels, "Oster*" in Luther, and "ester*" in Tyndale, Coverdale, Great, Geneva, and Bishops' (the KJV base text). Luther probably "went too far" and used Oster* in the OT; e.g., Exo 34:25, Num 33:3, and 2Chr 30:18. In the 27 places in Tyndale's NT were ester* appears Oster* appears in Luther's NT; suggesting Luther's influence on Tyndale, IMHO. Mat 26:2; 26:18; 26:19; Mar 14:1; 14:12; 14:14; 14:16 Luk 2:41; 22:1; 22:7; 22:8; 22:11; 22:13; 22:15 Joh 2:13; 2:23; 6:4; 11:55 (2x); 12:1; 13:1; 18:39; 19:14 Acts 12:4; 20:6; 1 Cor 5:7 Heb 1:18 Since the 1611 KJV was based on the 1568 or 1602 (the revision dates are debatable) Bishops' Bible, it makes sense why Easter would be present; however, why leave one of the three instances of Easter unchanged? An intentional relic? Idk, but if you have ever visited the Grand Central Station in New York, you may have been told to look up to see the small dark square on the ceiling. That's actually a decades old dark brown tobacco smoke stain; which was left untouched to remind us the way things were.

A lot of great points in this video. The one about some KJV-Onlyst holding a kind of superstitious or magical/mystical view of the KJV is something that I've been struggling to articulate for some time. I suspect there's an appeal to "understanding" the semi-cryptic words and phrases of the KJV; which may be construed as the attainment of a higher level of spiritual growth. Writers like Gail Riplinger further fuel that kind of KJV-Only quest with statements like "The KJV has a hidden built-in dictionary, which defines each word as it is introduced. (Matt. 11:25). The KJV uses powerful sound symbolism (phonaesthesia) to communicate meaning. The KJV's vocabulary is precise and internationally recognizable."

How many times the word chariot is used in the Bible! At one time, all of us had to have the word defined for us. Chariot warfare is an antiquated form of battle. But I can't imagine the Bible without it!

When God accused His people of their whoredom, He was trying to be offensive.

Hi guys I an Anglican born and raised sorry,

21:28 This was worth the ticket. :D

Loved the singing. Do you take requests? If so please sing "At Calvary" but substitute "the skull" for Calvary.

Allison who?

Im enjoying these interviews, but after a while, I ask why we're even arguing about this kind of thing. I understand this KJV stuff is your line of work, and Im choosing to watch it, but eventually one must admit that the hard core KJVO people are not in it becuase of thw Bible but, like Christian nationalists or white supremacists, are caught up in the authoritarianism of the entire KJVO movement. An "English" translation-only movement is only a few degrees from white (anglo saxon) supremacy, and most of the Independent Baptist and southern history proves as much. I think thats why a lot of KJVO (and colleges) are opposed up to recently interracial marriage.

I do not think that we should bring the Bible to the people, I believe that we should bring the people to the Bible.

People that hold to the KJV are being asked to sacrifice caring about accuracy for the sake of unity. They know that the 50+ English versions on BibleGateway, differing in doctrine as compared on a verse-by-verse basis to the KJV, cannot all be ‘the Bible.’ They know that important differences in the versions result from the fact that they have different textual bases and reflect different translation philosophies and methodologies. Because of these things they cannot, in good conscience, recommend their use. The KJV does have a sufficient number of known words, even today, to be understood by English speakers. The KJV does have words one may need to look up, but modern versions advocated for here do, too. In fact, the KJV has so many common one and two-syllable words that it is hard to believe that it is not perceived as a child’s first grade reader in many places! It is one thing to expound upon or explain the Bible in preaching, teaching, or evangelism; it is another to advocate for simplification of the Bible to the lowest common denominator. We do not grow past the point of simplification. As with other resources, the Bible is a teaching tool. People do not approach other resources with the thought, “I already know everything in this book.” To learn the vocabulary of any given subject is to grow to know your subject. The Bible has simple things for babes and strong meat for the mature; it also has things ‘hard to be understood.’ Many modern versions do not retain these. One writer said to the effect that some of today’s versions translate the heart out of some of those harder things in Romans and Galatians. KJV adherents find themselves with their feet on two ice floes that separate the more-they seek to cling to God’s word and seek to interact with brethren that are unaware of just what has been going on with the Bible since the many-spawned offspring of Westcott and Hort’s Greek text have fanned out into our homes and churches.

Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism. I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin, but not the Greek so out it goes. Good will towards men Doxology in Matthew Without cause God manifest in the flesh Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin, so out they go The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek and Latin so out they go. Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8 some throw out. If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem, what would you see as a problem?

You do understand English at its best during that time, coincidence? How you make an example out of a word ass* as it been hard to understand? You do understand there are easier words like stuff which modern translation make it hard to understand. These are single out words which with context can be easy to understand. The issue is not why KJV only and why can’t we continue making new translation, it’s the UNDERLYING TEXT. If those translation would be changing old words to new it would be perfectly fine as long as they don’t take away “without a cause” in Matt 5:22 condemning God along with everyone else. The point is modern translation have shifted to CRITICAL TEXT, which ARE CORRUPTED! God gave the oracles to JEWS, not Rome or Egypt which theologians say are “oldest” and “best” (Vaticanus & Siniaticus)