Because of your videos, I bought a CSB paragraph Bible and started reading through it this morning. The ease for me to work thru the text and not having to stop and look up words from the KJV blew me away. I could actually just sit there and READ it. I will probably always be KJV preferred just because I’ve spent so much of my life in it, but I am really appreciative of your encouragement to get acquainted with readable translations. I think I am going to spend MORE time reading the Bible because of this. Thank you, Mark!
KJV 20:49 2 Timothy 2:15 tells us to STUDY... all new Bible versions remove the word STUDY!! czcams.com/video/XBJM8sSPTLU/video.htmlsi=fgChMd2r-giktsRH
Without the NASB & the ESV, I wouldn't be reading the Bible. I'm an intelligent man but I can't "stay" in the text of the KJV. It likens (to me) that of Catholism where Latin was the only translation of & was used in their sermons. The average person can't understand anything they are saying. God intended for The Word to be readable & understandable to everyone. Not everyone can understand "gutter english" so the 2 afore mentioned Bibles are a God send to me (and I'm sure many others). Most Americans can now read & understand God's Word. Thank you Dr Ward for all your hard work.
@1611savedmatthew So if you one day discovered that you misunderstood something in the KJV--especially something important--you'd have to conclude that you're not saved? Our hope in Christ should not be built on such unstable sand. We can indeed trust in the Holy Spirit to guide us in our reading of the Scriptures. However, we should not become like those who would refuse medical care because they insist on being healed miraculously, ignoring the fact that the miracle can come alongside the modern medicine. We are blessed with modern English translations to assist in our understanding of the inspired texts. We are not being faithless if we use some of these versions rather than insisting on reading a 400-year-old translation all the time.
@1611savedmatthew You realize that this argument makes no sense, right? If their goal was to remove the teaching against bearing false witness, they'd remove it from *all* places it appears, not just this one verse. But Exodus 20.16 is still there in the NASB, as are Deuteronomy 5.20, Matthew 19.18, Mark 10.19, and Luke 18.20. So perhaps you should ask yourself who's really bearing false witness here.
@1611savedmatthew so once a person becomes saved they instantly understand every word in the bible? Why then do we need preachers and teachers? Why did God assign those roles?
You are right brother , I am Fundanentalist Baptist and I use the New King James, 95 NASB, and am now finding the CSB 2020 a very good translation in my humble opinion. Im not a theologin.....I do have Bachelors degree in Criminal Jusrice..... 37 years as a Police Officer / Police Sergeant. Born again Christian. KJV only in my opinion is a form of heresy. I know thats strong but its my opiniin. Thank you for true and honesty. I have learned much from you and apprecie your courage.
I have a pretty simple litmus test. Do I hear my fellow Walmart, Home Depot, and AutoZone shoppers speaking in KJVish? No, I don't. Love your work. "shake off the dust of your feet."
Wow you are brave you don't fear the judgment seat of Christ. You are going to be accountable for every word you said and so is the one that agree with you
@notsatch "I have a pretty simple litmus test. Do I hear my fellow Walmart, Home Depot, and AutoZone shoppers speaking in KJVish?" Really? That's your idea of making a point??? I see you VERY conveniently forgot the most important one! "Attentioneth, K-Mart Custumers!" We crave to bring to thy remembrance that K-Mart is thy retainer of coins in thy purse shoppe!" Yeah, I think it's pretty obvious why you left that one out! 🤪
Many claim today that since the Authorized Version was printed in the common English of that day, that the Bible should be retranslated into the common English of today, but this is not a valid claim. It must be remembered that the English used in the Authorized Version was not only the common language, but it was also the English language in its purest form. The English language has degenerated from what it was in 1611 to what it is today. Those claiming to put the Bible in "modern English" are actually, though possibly not intentionally, trying to force the pure words of God into the degenerated vocabulary of today! What a disgrace to God's Word! What a shame to those who propose such a thing! A charge often brought against the Authorized Version is that it is full of "archaic" words. But are we to make the Bible pay the penalty of our own irresponsibility in not keeping our language pure and descriptive? Would we not be richer to learn the meaning of those nasty, old, "archaic" words and add them back into our own vocabulary? Would we not be making the Bible poorer by depriving it of its descriptive style? Are these words truly "archaic?" I have seen stores today that still advertise "sundry" items. Perhaps the store owner didn't realize that it was supposed to be archaic. Perhaps it is like the fish caught off the Atlantic Coast a few years ago which was supposed to have been extinct for over one million years. Of course it was extinct! It just didn't know it! Science said it was extinct, so it must be. (They first had better prove that the world was here one million years ago.)
Your KJV narration of the translators preface was phenomenal! Could you please record yourself reading the entire preface like that? I need that I my life. I love your work Dr. Ward. The way you speak, without ‘ums’ or ‘uhs’, really speaks to your credibility and carefulness of your speech. Would love to mee you someday
Mark, you were instrumental in helping me leave KJV onlyism and I am now in a healthy church that is not controlled by fear (as my IFB church was). I thank the Lord for you and the influence you, your book, and Tim had on me. Thank you!
I found myself continually looking old word definitions when reading the KJV. The words used to define the old words were the very words the NKJV are using. That's when I made the change.
Use as many translations as it takes until you and the Holy Spirit are completely satisfied that you truly and deeply understand what each verse means.
@@Proverbspsalms Don't you know how to be led by the Holy Spirit??? Don't you know the Holy Spirit will teach you all things, and give you discernment??
Mark, your work has been a godsend and the Lord has used you to bring many of the more "silent masses" away from King James Onlyism and into a deeper love and understanding of scripture.
Brother, I will join in praying for you that God would give you direction for the future of your ministry. All that you've done so far has been a tremendous blessing. Thank you. - Smiles
Traditions die hard but die regardless of fervor. The Vulgate is a witness to what will transpire over the next few decades. The goal must never be lost. Reaching people for His kingdom with available tools. 🙏🏼
Either the KJV-only churches will end up like the Catholic Church in the middle ages (with scriptures that only the clergy can understand), or they will end up like the Greek Orthodox churches and synagogues and the mosques and the Hindu temples (with scriptures that are learned by studying a foreign language). One path or the other is inevitable, as KJV-only-ism stays the same while our language doesn’t. On either road (the one that was taken by medieval Catholicism, or the one that was & is taken by Greek Orthodoxy and Judaism and Hinduism and Islam), I invite each KJV-only-ist to ask himself or herself (and to ask the pastor, too) - how far along that road can a KJV-only-it’s believer (or church) travel and still honestly claim to be a Protestant?
Indeed. In order to be truly faithful to the original, why don't we all learn Latin so we can read the Vulgate? For that matter, why not just learn Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic so we don't need any translation at all?
Everyone must acknowledge that Mark has a very good spirit, tone, amount of patience and a touch of good humor. He engages in a very friendly way, and has less sarcasm and anger than many theologians and pastors. He is easy to listen to and understand. I very much look forward to his discussions in the future on soteriology, ecclesiology, eschatology, church history, etc. etc. 😀
...or he has the same spirit of error that the vast majority have! Let's not omit that kjv explained probability. Remember "narrow is the way and few there be the find it"... Or doesn't his Bible say that?
Mark, I just want to say thank you so much for all the work that you have done. I grew up in differing levels of KJV-onlyism and remember when I first started to understand that other translations were God's words as well. As a young adult, I attended a church meeting in which a missionary to a Spanish speaking country was the guest speaker. After the service, I expressed an interest in reading one of the Spanish New Testaments that he that shared and he was gracious enough to give me one. I was excited to have the copy but remember thinking - “how sad it is that Spanish-speaking people did not have the “true” Bible as English-speaking people do.” I immediately understood that there was something wrong with that thought, and slowly grew out of KJV-onlyism. Through the years, I have missed the King James Version though. It is the version that most of my memorized verses come from. I was so excited then when I discovered your videos about a month or so ago. I have created a “KJV Gloss” notebook in Logos, with notes about false friends and the like that are anchored to the appropriate KJV verses. I plan to take my time, slowly going through your videos as I build this notebook. Growing in my knowledge of these words that you share has helped to rekindle my love of the King James Version. While it will never be my primary study Bible, I am taking great joy in this renewed study within its pages. Again, thanks so much, Sam
I wonder if the KJV-only people actually also think that Israelis don’t have the actual Hebrew Bible, and that Greeks don’t have the actual Greek Bible!
When you read from “To The Reader” it sounded like you got the UK pronunciation of “Isaiah” right, lol! I really enjoy your videos and hope you keep making them!
Ipso facto, presto chango, where's Waldo 🤣 I'm sorry they're not listening to you. It seems much like the flat earth "debate" any evidence is dismissed, any proof is contrived by the infamous "they"
I have had plenty of interactions with flat earthers and I have to say, so far all of the Christian ones were very firm on using the KJV. They love their "firmament".....too bad the first edition KJVs printed in England, by the kings printer, contains that dreaded "marginal note" on the first page of Genesis......"firmament. Hebrew. Expansion" And with that the dome collapses, never to be found again.
As it has been said: *Nobody becomes a King-James-Onlyist on their own. Nobody.* It is the result of a believer accepting this man-made theology. The urge to defend such a theology must be powerful. But I am thankful for those who forsake this toxic deception, and return to the feet of our Glorious Savior to walk in humility. "They're not listening to you" has definitely been my experience as well.
I'm not saying anything new here, but I will never understand the mindset of the KJV-only crowd. It's wonderful that they love it and use it, but it's a shame that they disregard and even condemn any other effort to reach people with more understandable renderings of the word of God. As for the more radical among them, at what point does their obsession interfere with the greater evangelistic mission of the Church?
It amazes me that the people who regard the English language as the only true or holy language because it was used in 1611 for the KJV (the “double inspiration“ folks, and so on)do not themselves undertake to speak in KJV English at all times, or to rear their children to speak in that tongue. After all, if present-day English is too base and corrupt for God to employ, how can present-day English be proper in any way for the people of God to use?
I think that they are in a strange way being like the critical text proponents who they are at odds with. The CT people trust what they believe to be older manuscripts because the originals were obviously correct (I offer no opinion on CT vs TR etc). The KJVO crowd do the same thing, it’s just like they think time didn’t exist before 1611 so for them, their TR based KJV is the CT. Let them keep it. (See what I did there? The KJV crowd will see let as preventing them from having it and modernists will see it as allowing).
@@bretclement3197 but the KJV people will see preventing as meaning "to go before".... So they can't keep it because of "let" but it will go before them due to "prevent".....
I was KJV only for a long time. I'm just speaking for myself, but at the heart of it was the idea that if the Bible I was using had an error in it, then it was capable of containing error. If it was capable of having error then there could be all sorts of errors I was not aware of yet, and then I couldn't trust any of it at all.....and then I was taught that this would mean I could not trust God, or even have assurance of my faith in Christ. I believe that when someone like myself is subjected to these ideas from a young age, it becomes the basis for salvation. And then it risks imploding one's entire faith if they come to believe this KJV only teaching was wrong. It's like being strapped to a bomb that is set to detonate If you believe there is anything less than perfection in the KJV. The truth is that it was extremely jarring to me when I finally believed that there was a single thing in the KJV was less than perfection. It shook me. And what finally gave me some sense of peace was when I spent time reading what the KJV translators and William Tyndale had to say. So I adjusted my belief to what they had before 1611, and that allowed me to finally disconnect the bomb from myself, and step away where I could get back to focusing on the other things I needed to. I'm no longer KJV only, and I'm able to move forward in my relationship with Jesus.
Do you remember the episode of The Brady Bunch about “your exact words?” Ross’s bit about Old English reminded me of that. He knows very well what people mean when they say the KJV is in old English, but instead of discussing the substance of the argument, he belittles people for their choice of words.
I admire your scholarly approach to the KJV-Only debate. I always struggled with this. Mainly because I was raised by Christian parents who used the NASB primarilly. I was aware of the KJV but didn't encounter KJV-Only zealots until much later in life. I'm puzzled by the arguments. I too see the 1611 English as readable but difficult at times. I tried reading William Bradford's "Of Plymouth Plantation" written on or about 1630. I tell you, it is a struggle and requires modern resources to fully grasp and comprehend the differences with modern English. I am by no means a language expert, but I do get quite a rewarding experience when I approach difficult scriptures prayerfully and compare various English translations like KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, Septuagint, etc. Many times, that approach leads me to more clarity, not confusion. My question for these KJV-Only people, what about Germans, or Japanese, Korean, French, or Russian people today? Do they have to be able to understand 1611 English to read God's Word? Or does God, in his grace provide the Bible in those languages so EVERYONE can read it? KJV-Onlyism seems a bit high minded and arrogant to me. KJV is not a bad translation and I don't think we should abandon it completely like some seem to think we want to do. But, there are many good, modern English translations that are perfectly reasonable and reliable to get the original message to as many people as possible. I reject the accusation that "Modern translations like NASB are satanic new-age Bibles designed to deceive and lead people astray." We need to move away from cult-like attitudes and not arrogantly think that one person, or organization has a corner on the truth. I've dealt with enough Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses to realize we don't need that kind of error and blind faith in "the one true translation" that all these cults claim.
Thank you for speaking as a nerd to us nerds! I packed up all my translations of the Bible and put them on a shelf upstairs. I am now using the Tyndale House Greek New Testament. Yes I have my iPad and use that as a backup when I need to read something aloud in English or I need to read the Old Testament. I am not all that far in Koine Greek, but Greek is a foreign language just like English and I know from experience languages can be learned and well understood. Aside from having no desire to learn Elizabethan English, the terminology that has changed meaning puts an obstacle to truly understanding what is said. When someone reads from KJV, I also notice that comprehension goes down considerably. I know what is being said, but for the finer details I would need to slowly re-read the passage. If you start focusing on something different, that is fine. Just address anything new that comes your way with respect to KJVO. Thank you for the fine work you have done in this area.
I have been told many times that the KJV preface cannot be trusted. That they did not know the translators were being inspired. That they were so inspired that they were replacing and fixing the Hebrew and the Greek. That English is the world’s language and therefore Gods true language.
5:37 The KJB retained old ecclesiastical words specifically because it was to be the ecclesiastical text for use in King James' churches. As the head of the Church, he was specifically trying to build up the Church of England by supporting the ecclesiastical language of the time while superficially agreeing with the Church's detractors that the translation in use at the pulpit was in need of an update. If a member of the congregation couldn't understand an ecclesiastical word used in a sermon, of course they could ask the clergy what it meant. 7:14 King James specified that the new revision of the Bible should be "as little altered as the truth of the original will permit" -- the translators weren't copy editors and if it wasn't incomprehensible at the time they were instructed to leave it alone. It makes perfect sense that outdated language would be retained in such an update as long as the words could be understood. 11:46 This is an amazingly, wonderfully ironic argument considering the translators wrote their prologue in a much higher form of English than their translation of the Bible -- given different instructions, they could've rewritten the Bishops Bible into a higher form of English along with taking into account the newest scholarship they had available to them, but that was beyond the scope of their work. The KJB isn't written at the lowest level of English possible, but it purposefully wasn't written in the highest register of English possible, either. 16:20 I've always thought the rejoinder that the KJB is written in Modern English, not Old English, to be a bit silly or purposefully tongue-in-cheek and so not a serious rebuttal, but perhaps I've been wrong: I thought people who made this argument were purposefully misunderstanding those who said the KJB uses old English, as in older English, not as in Old English. If people saying it is written in old English are mistaken about the type of English it is, I would expect at least as many critics of the KJB (for use as one's only translation) to mistakenly state that the English of the KJB is Middle English as those who meant to state it is written in Old English. I thought it was apparent that those criticizing the KJB translation were using the word "old" colloquially, e.g., "that 1990 car is old" -- a car made in 1990 is unobjectionably old and no one who heard or read such a statement would think that the speaker or writer were claiming that such a car is among the oldest cars to ever exist. If this is a serious argument instead of a joke, then those who put it forth are either mistaken in their understanding of the criticism they are responding to or they are deliberately misconstruing it
Thanks Dr Ward for your thoughtful work on the KJVO issue. You are a guide for those questioning the validity of the position. I also know that eventually you won't hear any new arguments because you have covered them all in your videos. May God give you wisdom as you consider future ministries and topics.
Highly anticipated video. I'm excited about these 3 videos. All three rebuttals in this video were good, even if the attacks really missed their mark anyway.
This was a very well measured response and I truly do see your desire to be helpful and kind rather than reactionary and vitriolic. It's refreshing. I look forward to whatever new things you want to talk about. It seems to me that Thomas Ross' point on Old English is a false equivalence, but you saw what he was doing and explained it well. Not all old is the same old in the same way. Chauser's English is older and far less comprehensible than Elizabethan and we all grant that, but Elizabethan is still old with its own difficulties. He's equivocating on the term old and sets up a straw man that he then knocks down. Both are old but for different reasons and are to understand for those different reasons.
I think a lot of times when people say the King James is "old English" they're just saying it's English that is old (which is true!) but people love jumping in and correcting people to feed their own ego so they automatically assume those people are making a categorization error in the context of academic labels of points in our language's evolution
Sports ball is nuts. I sniffed a fallacy of equivocation, but you are being remarkably gracious. I might not have found you (until you were on my friend , Steve Schramm’s podcast) without doing KJV stuff, but I’m looking forward to whatever you’re getting ready to discuss next because it doesn’t get much better than nerding out about the Bible!
I recall flicking through a copy of an NEB (1970) many years ago, noticing some turns of phrase that were different to the "English" I'm accustomed to.
Dr. Ward I think posting a quick False friend fire round every now and then when you find them in the AV is definitely helpful for the future. It really helps with training in hermeneutics and understanding the different routes translations go to capture the meaning of the original languages. Just a suggestion! Thank you!
I’m excited to see what you decide to do next!! I asked about tools I could use besides Logos (because of budgetary constraints) and what you recommended is GREAT! So maybe a video or two about affordable tools for those of us that love digging in the word and/or how we can find the historical context of what we’re reading to make more sense (at least that helps me). I’m praying the door the Lord wants you to walk through is clearly seen!
I think a good theory for the use of archaisms in the KJV was because it was created to be a conservative revision of the string of English translations beginning with Tyndale's. The translators clearly wanted to retain language that sounded beautiful, recognizable, and "biblical" when read out loud. Shakespeare also used this poetic, elevated manner of speech in his plays.
@@politereminder6284 I meant to the people who read it when it was first published early in the 17th century. They would have been accustomed to the Bishop's Bible or some other descendant of the Tyndale Bible which used older, more formal language to sound elevated: or "biblical" to their ears.
Dr. Ward, thank you for the diligence with which you have engaged this topic. I believe you have helped a lot of people achieve a greater love for and deeper understanding of the Bible as a result. I was raised in a KJVO church and while I never fully embraced their arguments, I could also not help but feel as if modern Bible versions were somehow in need of extra caution as I read them. You are doing a good work and I believe the measure of your success is not in how the KJVO proponents respond to you (I believe many of them would argue with Jesus Himself if He instructed them to use a modern version), but in the impact you are having on regular Christians. That impact may be harder to see and measure, but I believe it is real and valuable and have benefited from it myself. I am excited to see what direction you take in the future and pray that God will make it successful and personally fulfilling to you.
Your work on this has been fantastic, and has been of great help to me personally. But I get it; it's tough to know what else there is to say. Look forward to whatever else God puts on your heart.
Biggest issue with the first argument: Ross quotes a passage from the passage from the preface that talks specifically about not changing ecclesial vocabulary, and most modern translations do not either. To apply this argument to regular words is beyond what the preface is even saying. 3rd argument is literally argument over terms/equivocation. Just silly.
I believe the leaders are most at fault here. As you said, it's not the people trusting him that are sinning, it's the leaders. They have so much invested in this argument, so much built upon it as a foundation, that they cannot allow themselves to be moved, no matter what evidence or argument presented, either for fear or because of pride. Very sad.
Do not go I enjoy your channel very much. It has lead me to purchase a NKJV single column wide-margin. I am not and have never been a KJV -Onlyist but I had tended to use my KJV Thompson Chain rebind exclusively, although now my Olive Tree App. The church I am attending know has moved from the NASB to the NLT, most of our staff are Dallas Theological Seminary grads, I was somewhat appalled at this but I did not care for the NASB either. I am not opposed to the Critical Text anymore but tend to lean towards the byzantine text because of listening to you. Thank you for your content it has helped me greatly.
Thanks for your diligent efforts to respond to the KJV only crowd, Dr. Ward. You help to bring scholarly criticism to the common man so we can be prepared to respond to those whose claims aren’t founded in truth.
I’m really looking forward to this series. Ross was actually one my Greek and Hebrew professors at Baptist College of Ministry and Seminary. Even then I wasn’t KJV only and argued with him many times during class discussions. I appreciate your approach and taking time to respond even to extremists.
Mark, Tim Frisch had Dave Brunn on his channel discussing Bible translating, and it is very good. His arguments are very reasonable. I appreciate you and Tim having these types of conversations on your channels. I’ve learned a lot from your discussions. Thanks for the hard work.🙏🏻✝️
Hey Mark! Hope you're doing well! It's been a while since I've commented in one of your videos. Great video by the way, thank you for putting it out. I just came here to say I was shocked as I heard the first argument. I felt as if the whole world was going in slow motion and I was going to fast. As I heard him state there's a difference between the KJV being in the language of the common people and being understood by the common people; before half the sentence left his mouth I thought "please don't tell me he's going to say what I think he is going to say!.... Nevermind, he said it." I heard it, I saw it, and still some part of me is still in shock and can't believe he actually said that and made an "elaborate" point on it. This is shocking to me because, and correct me if I'm wrong, it's an abuse of semantics-not to mention making the fact that the forms "eth and est", for example, were for some reason kept in the KJV at the time more consequential than it actually is. This whole point really just blew my mind. How can someone deliver such argument with a straight face is always beyond me. Not a personal attack on him, it's just something baffling to me. Kudos to you for being professional and not losing your cool. I loved the vertical and horizontal line analogy. It made me think back to when I was younger. My childhood church would do socials every other week and there were always two games in particular we'd play: the telephone game, which were I come from we call it "the gossip game" and hot potato. As I listened to your argument about how on a vertical line, modern English is not today where it was when it started four or five hundred years ago, I thought of how much I dreaded being the last person on the line of the gossip game, thinking the person right in front of me is going to tell me something so far removed from what the first person said, or how much anxiety I get when I'd hear the referee chanted "hot potato" faster and faster, so fast they would trip over the own words and the hot potato hadn't pass through my hands yet. Always dreaded the possibility that the moment "it" would fall on my lap, the referee would not be able to keep chanting and would have to stop just before I had the chance to pass it on. As I consider this cherished childhood memory a rather rhetorical question came to mind-I wonder if KJVonlyists would prefer to be at the back of the line during the telephone game? Would they rather have the hot potato land on their lap when the referee stops chanting? Or would they rather be at the start of the line, would the rather be one of those passing the potato as the referee is still chanting slowly? I think you can see where I'm going, at least I hope it makes sense. I think anyone would rather be at the start of the line of Bible translation, not at the end. I think Bible revisions allows all of us to be at the front of the line. No anxiety about being left with a cold potato (translation) after everyone who came before me have warmed themselves with, leaving me to make due with whatever lukewarmth there is left. There's a lot of good that has been done with the KJV, and still a lot of good is being done, but as you know and have pointed out many times, language changes and the KJV is not as intelligible as it once was. The level of work that is done with it at both a corporate and personal level is going down, and as it continues to do so it gains momentum. I became aware of the King James only issue four, almost five years ago, and as you know, not because I was KJVonly, but I was just in a Spanish environment at the time, and have always been part of a global church where particular Bible translations have no place in church creed or dogma. But I can tell you that since my initial KJVonly cultural shock almost five years ago, I've notice the chasm between the two ends of modern English become wider and definitely more noticeable by the average reader. As always, thank you so much for what you do! your ministry is not only so entertaining, but such a blessing and very edifying. I've always said Christians should be at the forefront of understanding how language works. Without dismissing or minimizing the work of The Holy Spirit, our understanding of the Bible depends a great deal on our awareness and willingness to accept of the charging nature of language.
Honestly, I think you won the day when you released your King James readability study. Everything else is just minor clean up. I don't see how honest King James onliests who are aware of this research can continue to deny that readability is a concern. They can deny the principle of 1 Cor. 14 that edification requires intelligibility or deny that God has provided us with any reliable Bible translations in contemporary English if they wish. But I don't believe it is possible to prove that a translation is reliable. I'm grateful for this video and look forward to parts 2 & 3, but I agree that it's nearly time to move forward to other nerdy topics, because you have made your point conclusively. I look forward to where you will take this channel in the future.
Mark, I'm delighted to hear that you may be moving away from KJV issues to other topics, not least translation/language. You've done a great job but I agree - time to move on. God bless you and your ministry.
There are many words that are mistranslated or not translated from Hebrew/Greek to English in the KJV. The context will always clear up the confusion with the help of dictionaries, lexicons etc. ALL scripture must be studied on each topic to understand the meaning of the truth being conveyed. This is where the Holy Spirit will guide one (John 16:7-13). “Sanctify them through your truth: your word is truth”(John 17:17).
I have to laugh at the “chambering” 😯 🤭. These days, I would think that would mean being at a Chamber meeting, ie. Chamber of Commerce, since the word “chamber” now means meeting room (not the archaic “private room”). Thank you for all you do and it has given me a new appreciation for language studies.
In 382 AD, Jerome began translating the Bible into the everyday language of the western Roman Empire; Latin. He wanted ordinary people in Spain, France and Italy to understand the Bible for themselves. Then, over the next few hundred years, Latin slowly changed into Spanish, French and Italian, but the Latin Vulgate was considered so holy, so familiar, such a bond of unity that eventually only priests sufficient training to learn Latin could understand and interpret God's word. Meanwhile, the ordinary people of Spain, France and Italy had no Bible that they could read in Spanish, French and Italian. In the late 800s AD Cyril and Methodius went as missionaries to the Slavic tribes of Eastern Europe. In 863 AD they began translating the Bible into the common Slavic language of the tribes they were evangelising. Then, over next few hundred years, the Slavic language separated into Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian, Bugarian, etc, but Cyril and Methodius' translation was considered so holy, so familiar, such a bond of unity that eventually only priests sufficient training to learn Old Church Salvinic only they could understand and interpret God's word. Meanwhile, the ordinary people of Slovenia, Serbia, Croatia, Macedonia and Bulgaria had no Bible that they could read in Slovinian, Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian and Bulgarian. In the early 1600s AD, King James authorised a new translation of the Bible into the everyday language of England.... (I think I starting to notice a pattern here: Why do God's people keep making the same mistakes?)
@@markwardonwords We'll I'm deeply grateful for the work you're doing. I've got a friend who's putting his head down that rabbit hole and now that I've found your channel, I've got somewhere I can point him before he gets stuck. May God bless your ministry. Oh, and thank you for the irenic way you present your arguments.
I always appreciate your content even if some of it goes over my head! It helps me as I navigate only recently being AWARE of KJO. My new church family, that I love dearly only uses KJV, and though I think they would not 9:00 call themselves KJV "onlyists", I think that some people there are. So your work helps me watch out for pitfalls (false friends) and to be confident in my use of other versions in my studies.
Possibly write a book FOR the KJV reader - to help them understand (not replace) the KJV. Include the ‘false friends’, archaic words, KJV grammar forms (eth, est, thee, thou, etc.). This would help the KJV Onlyist, the KJV preferred, or even the multi-version (including the kjv) reader. Don’t ‘attack’ the textual base. Don’t make a case for using multiple versions. Just focus on helping the KJV reader.
That is EXACTLY what I have just done! Finished on Friday! And I'm working to get endorsements from KJV-Only leaders to see if I can get this into the hands of regular KJVO readers. I don't talk about KJV-Onlyism at all; I don't even mention modern versions other than the NKJV and MEV (which are based on the TR).
As a NKJV reader / other version compared person, I will DEFINITELY get your book as soon as it is available on Kindle (I have no room for many physical books). 🙂
I am a jock first and then a nerd but very much both. If you hide I will call you out then give you a swirlly. lol You do a great work but I too would hope we come to the end of this. While we aurgue the world is lost.
There's a documentary on youtube that my mother in-law believes where this man, I forget his name, is speaking about the KJV 1611 (and only the 1611). Could you find that and refute that?
I can understand that trying to argue over this would be exhausting, but it's good that you've done as much as you have. People won't be persuaded by arguments they never hear.
From a short video on another channel, I learned that the word "tyrant" was avoided in the KJV, even though it appears in other translations. This is an intentional distortion of the Word of God. While it doesn't pull the KJV down to the level of, say, the New World Translation, I would say that this is pretty serious.
Just like language changes I am pretty sure when people use the term "Old English" they are using the technical term. That seems a pretty weak argument to force that definition of Old English into a technical term. Perhaps it too needs to be updated
I'm happy that the volume on your videos is getting a little louder, compared to other videos, your old videos required +10% volume. This is better. A little, teensy bit more might be even better, perhaps. Anyone feel the same?
Great video, Mark. And while I don't want you to lose heart about the great work you have done in regards to the KJV, I do look forward to what you can do with other topics in the world of Bible translations!
I love this. I really like you. I've tried to argue these points several times being raised KJV only. Why spend all the extra time trying to define and understand difficult words when many good translations already have it? Love your stuff. I also enjoy your somewhat witty/sarcastic humor. Keep on keeping on
The Authorised Version, aka the "King James Version" was authorised by that king for use in public worship. He 'authorised' it because it suited his political and regal ambitions. How does a mere man 'authorize' the Word of God? He turned the Bible into a political tract which we still struggle to escape from. He certainly repudiated much of Coverdale's wonderful Christian translation ('congregation' for 'church', for example).
What baffles me, and I'm genuinely curious as to how they would respond to or answer this, but most KJV only people are also hard core anti calvinists. But the kJV translators would have been mostly largely calvinists. I don't know if the IFB guys would just flat out deny that as they don't seem to have issues with rewriting a lot of history to fit their views or if they would say something else like "it doesn't matter because God was just using them to create a translation." If anyone knows the answe to this question or has experience with hearing KJV only people adress this I would love to hear. Thank you.
I just want to say im very thankful for your work concerning this topic. In my limited experience there are two camps, a) those who are KJV only and wont listen to arguments b) those who use multiple translations but don't necessarily take the time to explain why not KJV only because it feels silly and like a waste of time But, for those of us who bump shoulders with both groups and don't exactly know where to land, your work is extremely helpful! ❤
Hahaha that ending was excellent sir!! :) I just finished reading your excellent book Authorized and found your channel after that. Really appreciate the work you are doing and so excited for the next videos in this series! I found your book incredibly insightful and helpful and planning on using it in an upcoming video in Bible translations for my own channel. It’s helped so much in formulating my own thoughts/opinions on the matter and I can’t tell you how much I appreciate the work you put into it
I can't comprehend the audacity of a person who cannot read the Bible at all declaring that one particular translation must be the best or most accurate. How are they making that determination?
I’m rather amused that the preacher on the film you showed (who was talking about Old, Middle, and Modern English) not only mispronounced the name “Geoffrey” (which is simply an older spelling of the name “Jeffrey” and is pronounced just like “Jeffrey” and NOT.like his concocted guess of “Gee-OFF-ree.”) I’M even more used that, when the preacher in the film was reading the Prologue to Geoffrey Chaucer’s CANTERBURY TALES, he garbled the reading by jumping from the middle of the third line to the middle of the last line, without indicating in anyway that he was skipping anything. Since this happened right after he’d severely garbled and mumbled a word and a half in the middle of the fourth line, I think he may have done it to conceal having forgotten how to read the language that he was telling us about.
Hi Mark can you address the Swanson argument that “ lines of text in the UBS have no manuscript support” Ross brings this up repeatedly, and White didn’t have a sufficient opportunity to reply to it.
The worst part of the debate was when he was trying to say that where the KJV says that Jesus was "slew and hanged on a tree" was fine. The thing is....when I look at that phrase in Greek.....it just doesn't say that. It says he was killed hanging on a tree..... and those two statements are just not the same no matter how long people say they are.
KJV-onlyists believe it is a divinely inspired translation. Many of them think it was the first ever English translation, and many of them think it towers above the original languages. What can you do.
Mark ward after he completes 100 false friends, "IT IS FINISHED". I would imagine you'd have to transition to other topics because the KJonly stuff will eventually play itself out. On another note, I'm making my way through the Tyndale bible and when I'm done I plan on making a parody tract in Riplinger style through the eyes of Tyndale-onlyism and use the same arguments they do for the KJV to defend Tyndales translation. I think it'll be pretty funny to some and enlightening to others to show the falacy of the arguements.
I'm viewing the Frisch Perspective now. There are plenty of scholarly individuals to take up the mantle of addressing translations, brother. Take a well-deserved rest from the KJVO issue. The fight for effective Bible translation will definitely continue! God bless, man!
I'm not sure if there's really an irrefutable argument against their view--at least, not one that they would find convincing. You'd probably need to make an appeal to Christian history itself. Which form of Christianity was the one that spread throughout the Roman world? The Pauline form. Which form survived many years of persecution, only to be adopted by the very empire that sought to stamp it out? Same one. Which form endured and thrived throughout the Middle Ages and into the modern world? Take a guess. But if they don't place any trust in Christian tradition, then such an argument won't hold much currency with them, nor would the argument that all of these apostolic letters were quickly accepted as part of the same New Testament catholic canon as the four Gospels. Those same Gospels make no certain and explicit reference to Paul, so these people technically can accept (three of) the Gospels without accepting the epistles. But considering that Luke and Acts share the same author, the third Gospel really should be off-limits to such people. Surely an author who endorses Paul's ministry could not be a trustworthy source if Paul is a false prophet, right?
@@MAMoreno true enough but although we might not be able to make an argument about those who are ardent believers of that heresy, we can at least prepare an armory of spiritual weapons to use when someone we know is just beginning to get into that anti-Paul weirdness. I figure Mark could perhaps make a dent and light a single candle.
Mark, can you address why the ESV doesn’t include Acts 8:37? I see a note in my NASB1995 that some early manuscripts don’t contain it…thanks for all you do!
The short, short version: Acts 8.37 has very weak support in the Greek manuscript tradition, including both the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts (though it can be found in manuscripts that use the Western text). If it is an authentic reading, it was preserved throughout the Middle Ages primarily in Latin rather than Greek, and most translations don't give much weight to Western/Latin readings. The strongest case for its inclusion is a number of partial citations in early Christian writings. At the very least, it's a traditional expansion of the text that goes back to the second century. If the shorter reading (w/o v. 37) is correct, then it's likely that some early Christians weren't thrilled with Luke's decision to end the exchange with a rhetorical question, and they quickly supplemented it with the sort of question-and-answer dialogue that would have been common practice during a baptism in the early churches.
Because of your videos, I bought a CSB paragraph Bible and started reading through it this morning. The ease for me to work thru the text and not having to stop and look up words from the KJV blew me away. I could actually just sit there and READ it. I will probably always be KJV preferred just because I’ve spent so much of my life in it, but I am really appreciative of your encouragement to get acquainted with readable translations. I think I am going to spend MORE time reading the Bible because of this. Thank you, Mark!
Awesome! I love this!
KJV 20:49 2 Timothy 2:15 tells us to STUDY... all new Bible versions remove the word STUDY!!
czcams.com/video/XBJM8sSPTLU/video.htmlsi=fgChMd2r-giktsRH
Without the NASB & the ESV, I wouldn't be reading the Bible. I'm an intelligent man but I can't "stay" in the text of the KJV. It likens (to me) that of Catholism where Latin was the only translation of & was used in their sermons. The average person can't understand anything they are saying. God intended for The Word to be readable & understandable to everyone.
Not everyone can understand "gutter english" so the 2 afore mentioned Bibles are a God send to me (and I'm sure many others). Most Americans can now read & understand God's Word.
Thank you Dr Ward for all your hard work.
The NIV, NLT, CSB and other Bible translations are also Godsends.
@1611savedmatthew So if you one day discovered that you misunderstood something in the KJV--especially something important--you'd have to conclude that you're not saved? Our hope in Christ should not be built on such unstable sand.
We can indeed trust in the Holy Spirit to guide us in our reading of the Scriptures. However, we should not become like those who would refuse medical care because they insist on being healed miraculously, ignoring the fact that the miracle can come alongside the modern medicine. We are blessed with modern English translations to assist in our understanding of the inspired texts. We are not being faithless if we use some of these versions rather than insisting on reading a 400-year-old translation all the time.
@1611savedmatthew You realize that this argument makes no sense, right? If their goal was to remove the teaching against bearing false witness, they'd remove it from *all* places it appears, not just this one verse. But Exodus 20.16 is still there in the NASB, as are Deuteronomy 5.20, Matthew 19.18, Mark 10.19, and Luke 18.20.
So perhaps you should ask yourself who's really bearing false witness here.
@1611savedmatthew so once a person becomes saved they instantly understand every word in the bible? Why then do we need preachers and teachers? Why did God assign those roles?
czcams.com/video/XBJM8sSPTLU/video.htmlsi=fgChMd2r-giktsRH
You are right brother , I am Fundanentalist Baptist and I use the New King James, 95 NASB, and am now finding the CSB 2020 a very good translation in my humble opinion. Im not a theologin.....I do have Bachelors degree in Criminal Jusrice..... 37 years as a Police Officer / Police Sergeant. Born again Christian. KJV only in my opinion is a form of heresy. I know thats strong but its my opiniin. Thank you for true and honesty. I have learned much from you and apprecie your courage.
I've never said this, but it must be said. Your 1611 bible translator voice is amazing. Exactly how I imagine them speaking! Great work as always.
Ha! I found a little known recording at the Bodleian library at Oxford! ;)
God bless you, Brother Mark. I've greatly benefited from your careful and considerate work. Muchas gracias y buena suerte en todo.🌹⭐🌹🌞🌹⭐🌹
I have a pretty simple litmus test. Do I hear my fellow Walmart, Home Depot, and AutoZone shoppers speaking in KJVish? No, I don't. Love your work. "shake off the dust of your feet."
Great point!
Wow you are brave you don't fear the judgment seat of Christ. You are going to be accountable for every word you said and so is the one that agree with you
@@ernestbailey6617 Why didn’t you write that in KJV English, IF KJV English is so great?
@notsatch "I have a pretty simple litmus test. Do I hear my fellow Walmart, Home Depot, and AutoZone shoppers speaking in KJVish?"
Really? That's your idea of making a point??? I see you VERY conveniently forgot the most important one!
"Attentioneth, K-Mart Custumers!" We crave to bring to thy remembrance that K-Mart is thy retainer of coins in thy purse shoppe!"
Yeah, I think it's pretty obvious why you left that one out!
🤪
Many claim today that since the Authorized Version was printed in the common English of that day, that the Bible should be retranslated into the common English of today, but this is not a valid claim. It must be remembered that the English used in the Authorized Version was not only the common language, but it was also the English language in its purest form. The English language has degenerated from what it was in 1611 to what it is today. Those claiming to put the Bible in "modern English" are actually, though possibly not intentionally, trying to force the pure words of God into the degenerated vocabulary of today!
What a disgrace to God's Word! What a shame to those who propose such a thing!
A charge often brought against the Authorized Version is that it is full of "archaic" words. But are we to make the Bible pay the penalty of our own irresponsibility in not keeping our language pure and descriptive? Would we not be richer to learn the meaning of those nasty, old, "archaic" words and add them back into our own vocabulary? Would we not be making the Bible poorer by depriving it of its descriptive style? Are these words truly "archaic?" I have seen stores today that still advertise "sundry" items. Perhaps the store owner didn't realize that it was supposed to be archaic. Perhaps it is like the fish caught off the Atlantic Coast a few years ago which was supposed to have been extinct for over one million years. Of course it was extinct! It just didn't know it! Science said it was extinct, so it must be.
(They first had better prove that the world was here one million years ago.)
Your KJV narration of the translators preface was phenomenal! Could you please record yourself reading the entire preface like that? I need that I my life. I love your work Dr. Ward. The way you speak, without ‘ums’ or ‘uhs’, really speaks to your credibility and carefulness of your speech. Would love to mee you someday
Ha! Thanks! This is very kind!
I second this! Love it when he does the king James accent.
I too would to meet Dr Ward
Mark, you were instrumental in helping me leave KJV onlyism and I am now in a healthy church that is not controlled by fear (as my IFB church was). I thank the Lord for you and the influence you, your book, and Tim had on me. Thank you!
Thank you so much for this! I love hearing that Tim also played a role. He's a key friend.
Can’t believe you called me a nerd. Never before have I been so offended by something with which I completely agreed.
Ha! Yes!
I found myself continually looking old word definitions when reading the KJV. The words used to define the old words were the very words the NKJV are using. That's when I made the change.
Profoundly simple. Excellent.
czcams.com/video/XBJM8sSPTLU/video.htmlsi=fgChMd2r-giktsRH
good job are you saved yet? lol
Use as many translations as it takes until you and the Holy Spirit are completely satisfied that you truly and deeply understand what each verse means.
Very stupid - trying to make yourself equal with the Holy Ghost
@@Proverbspsalms Don't you know how to be led by the Holy Spirit??? Don't you know the Holy Spirit will teach you all things, and give you discernment??
@@theextreme7134 Very stupid - trying to make yourself equal with the Holy Ghost
Mark, your work has been a godsend and the Lord has used you to bring many of the more "silent masses" away from King James Onlyism and into a deeper love and understanding of scripture.
Amen.
Brother, I will join in praying for you that God would give you direction for the future of your ministry. All that you've done so far has been a tremendous blessing. Thank you. - Smiles
Traditions die hard but die regardless of fervor. The Vulgate is a witness to what will transpire over the next few decades. The goal must never be lost. Reaching people for His kingdom with available tools. 🙏🏼
Either the KJV-only churches will end up like the Catholic Church in the middle ages (with scriptures that only the clergy can understand), or they will end up like the Greek Orthodox churches and synagogues and the mosques and the Hindu temples (with scriptures that are learned by studying a foreign language). One path or the other is inevitable, as KJV-only-ism stays the same while our language doesn’t.
On either road (the one that was taken by medieval Catholicism, or the one that was & is taken by Greek Orthodoxy and Judaism and Hinduism and Islam), I invite each KJV-only-ist to ask himself or herself (and to ask the pastor, too) - how far along that road can a KJV-only-it’s believer (or church) travel and still honestly claim to be a Protestant?
Indeed. In order to be truly faithful to the original, why don't we all learn Latin so we can read the Vulgate? For that matter, why not just learn Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic so we don't need any translation at all?
Everyone must acknowledge that Mark has a very good spirit, tone, amount of patience and a touch of good humor. He engages in a very friendly way, and has less sarcasm and anger than many theologians and pastors. He is easy to listen to and understand. I very much look forward to his discussions in the future on soteriology, ecclesiology, eschatology, church history, etc. etc. 😀
...or he has the same spirit of error that the vast majority have!
Let's not omit that kjv explained probability.
Remember "narrow is the way and few there be the find it"... Or doesn't his Bible say that?
Mark, I just want to say thank you so much for all the work that you have done. I grew up in differing levels of KJV-onlyism and remember when I first started to understand that other translations were God's words as well. As a young adult, I attended a church meeting in which a missionary to a Spanish speaking country was the guest speaker. After the service, I expressed an interest in reading one of the Spanish New Testaments that he that shared and he was gracious enough to give me one. I was excited to have the copy but remember thinking - “how sad it is that Spanish-speaking people did not have the “true” Bible as English-speaking people do.” I immediately understood that there was something wrong with that thought, and slowly grew out of KJV-onlyism.
Through the years, I have missed the King James Version though. It is the version that most of my memorized verses come from. I was so excited then when I discovered your videos about a month or so ago. I have created a “KJV Gloss” notebook in Logos, with notes about false friends and the like that are anchored to the appropriate KJV verses. I plan to take my time, slowly going through your videos as I build this notebook. Growing in my knowledge of these words that you share has helped to rekindle my love of the King James Version. While it will never be my primary study Bible, I am taking great joy in this renewed study within its pages.
Again, thanks so much,
Sam
Thank you for the kind word!
I wonder if the KJV-only people actually also think that Israelis don’t have the actual Hebrew Bible, and that Greeks don’t have the actual Greek Bible!
When you read from “To The Reader” it sounded like you got the UK pronunciation of “Isaiah” right, lol! I really enjoy your videos and hope you keep making them!
Dude. You could totally pull off a KJV audio bible with your Elizabethan-ish voice Dr. Ward. 😂
How about newly baptized Russel Brand reading in his nasal 'low' English accent?
Seconded!😁
More like gayish soyboyish voice 😂
That being an RP/somewhat posh Elizabeth II accent!😂 we spoke very differently in the 17th C
Ipso facto, presto chango, where's Waldo 🤣 I'm sorry they're not listening to you. It seems much like the flat earth "debate" any evidence is dismissed, any proof is contrived by the infamous "they"
I have had plenty of interactions with flat earthers and I have to say, so far all of the Christian ones were very firm on using the KJV. They love their "firmament".....too bad the first edition KJVs printed in England, by the kings printer, contains that dreaded "marginal note" on the first page of Genesis......"firmament. Hebrew. Expansion" And with that the dome collapses, never to be found again.
As it has been said: *Nobody becomes a King-James-Onlyist on their own. Nobody.* It is the result of a believer accepting this man-made theology. The urge to defend such a theology must be powerful. But I am thankful for those who forsake this toxic deception, and return to the feet of our Glorious Savior to walk in humility. "They're not listening to you" has definitely been my experience as well.
I'm not saying anything new here, but I will never understand the mindset of the KJV-only crowd. It's wonderful that they love it and use it, but it's a shame that they disregard and even condemn any other effort to reach people with more understandable renderings of the word of God. As for the more radical among them, at what point does their obsession interfere with the greater evangelistic mission of the Church?
It amazes me that the people who regard the English language as the only true or holy language because it was used in 1611 for the KJV (the “double inspiration“ folks, and so on)do not themselves undertake to speak in KJV English at all times, or to rear their children to speak in that tongue. After all, if present-day English is too base and corrupt for God to employ, how can present-day English be proper in any way for the people of God to use?
I think that they are in a strange way being like the critical text proponents who they are at odds with.
The CT people trust what they believe to be older manuscripts because the originals were obviously correct (I offer no opinion on CT vs TR etc). The KJVO crowd do the same thing, it’s just like they think time didn’t exist before 1611 so for them, their TR based KJV is the CT.
Let them keep it. (See what I did there? The KJV crowd will see let as preventing them from having it and modernists will see it as allowing).
@@bretclement3197 but the KJV people will see preventing as meaning "to go before".... So they can't keep it because of "let" but it will go before them due to "prevent".....
I was KJV only for a long time. I'm just speaking for myself, but at the heart of it was the idea that if the Bible I was using had an error in it, then it was capable of containing error. If it was capable of having error then there could be all sorts of errors I was not aware of yet, and then I couldn't trust any of it at all.....and then I was taught that this would mean I could not trust God, or even have assurance of my faith in Christ.
I believe that when someone like myself is subjected to these ideas from a young age, it becomes the basis for salvation. And then it risks imploding one's entire faith if they come to believe this KJV only teaching was wrong. It's like being strapped to a bomb that is set to detonate If you believe there is anything less than perfection in the KJV.
The truth is that it was extremely jarring to me when I finally believed that there was a single thing in the KJV was less than perfection. It shook me. And what finally gave me some sense of peace was when I spent time reading what the KJV translators and William Tyndale had to say. So I adjusted my belief to what they had before 1611, and that allowed me to finally disconnect the bomb from myself, and step away where I could get back to focusing on the other things I needed to. I'm no longer KJV only, and I'm able to move forward in my relationship with Jesus.
@@KateGladstone I've never heard anyone say that English is the Holy language. Who have you heard say that?
Do you remember the episode of The Brady Bunch about “your exact words?” Ross’s bit about Old English reminded me of that. He knows very well what people mean when they say the KJV is in old English, but instead of discussing the substance of the argument, he belittles people for their choice of words.
I have to agree.
You deserve far more viewers and subscribers than you currently have! Keep up the good work. You are appreciated!
Thank you much! I think my topic is too niche. That is planned to change.
I admire your scholarly approach to the KJV-Only debate. I always struggled with this. Mainly because I was raised by Christian parents who used the NASB primarilly. I was aware of the KJV but didn't encounter KJV-Only zealots until much later in life. I'm puzzled by the arguments. I too see the 1611 English as readable but difficult at times.
I tried reading William Bradford's "Of Plymouth Plantation" written on or about 1630. I tell you, it is a struggle and requires modern resources to fully grasp and comprehend the differences with modern English.
I am by no means a language expert, but I do get quite a rewarding experience when I approach difficult scriptures prayerfully and compare various English translations like KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, Septuagint, etc. Many times, that approach leads me to more clarity, not confusion.
My question for these KJV-Only people, what about Germans, or Japanese, Korean, French, or Russian people today? Do they have to be able to understand 1611 English to read God's Word? Or does God, in his grace provide the Bible in those languages so EVERYONE can read it?
KJV-Onlyism seems a bit high minded and arrogant to me. KJV is not a bad translation and I don't think we should abandon it completely like some seem to think we want to do. But, there are many good, modern English translations that are perfectly reasonable and reliable to get the original message to as many people as possible.
I reject the accusation that "Modern translations like NASB are satanic new-age Bibles designed to deceive and lead people astray." We need to move away from cult-like attitudes and not arrogantly think that one person, or organization has a corner on the truth. I've dealt with enough Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses to realize we don't need that kind of error and blind faith in "the one true translation" that all these cults claim.
Thank you for speaking as a nerd to us nerds! I packed up all my translations of the Bible and put them on a shelf upstairs. I am now using the Tyndale House Greek New Testament. Yes I have my iPad and use that as a backup when I need to read something aloud in English or I need to read the Old Testament. I am not all that far in Koine Greek, but Greek is a foreign language just like English and I know from experience languages can be learned and well understood. Aside from having no desire to learn Elizabethan English, the terminology that has changed meaning puts an obstacle to truly understanding what is said. When someone reads from KJV, I also notice that comprehension goes down considerably. I know what is being said, but for the finer details I would need to slowly re-read the passage.
If you start focusing on something different, that is fine. Just address anything new that comes your way with respect to KJVO. Thank you for the fine work you have done in this area.
you guys are literally a meme like youre so lost
I have been told many times that the KJV preface cannot be trusted. That they did not know the translators were being inspired. That they were so inspired that they were replacing and fixing the Hebrew and the Greek. That English is the world’s language and therefore Gods true language.
That sounds like extremist, cultish beliefs.
@@IndianaJoe0321also it's heresy lol
@missinglink_eth
Your comment is vague & flits w/ambiguity
5:37 The KJB retained old ecclesiastical words specifically because it was to be the ecclesiastical text for use in King James' churches. As the head of the Church, he was specifically trying to build up the Church of England by supporting the ecclesiastical language of the time while superficially agreeing with the Church's detractors that the translation in use at the pulpit was in need of an update. If a member of the congregation couldn't understand an ecclesiastical word used in a sermon, of course they could ask the clergy what it meant.
7:14 King James specified that the new revision of the Bible should be "as little altered as the truth of the original will permit" -- the translators weren't copy editors and if it wasn't incomprehensible at the time they were instructed to leave it alone. It makes perfect sense that outdated language would be retained in such an update as long as the words could be understood.
11:46 This is an amazingly, wonderfully ironic argument considering the translators wrote their prologue in a much higher form of English than their translation of the Bible -- given different instructions, they could've rewritten the Bishops Bible into a higher form of English along with taking into account the newest scholarship they had available to them, but that was beyond the scope of their work. The KJB isn't written at the lowest level of English possible, but it purposefully wasn't written in the highest register of English possible, either.
16:20 I've always thought the rejoinder that the KJB is written in Modern English, not Old English, to be a bit silly or purposefully tongue-in-cheek and so not a serious rebuttal, but perhaps I've been wrong: I thought people who made this argument were purposefully misunderstanding those who said the KJB uses old English, as in older English, not as in Old English. If people saying it is written in old English are mistaken about the type of English it is, I would expect at least as many critics of the KJB (for use as one's only translation) to mistakenly state that the English of the KJB is Middle English as those who meant to state it is written in Old English. I thought it was apparent that those criticizing the KJB translation were using the word "old" colloquially, e.g., "that 1990 car is old" -- a car made in 1990 is unobjectionably old and no one who heard or read such a statement would think that the speaker or writer were claiming that such a car is among the oldest cars to ever exist. If this is a serious argument instead of a joke, then those who put it forth are either mistaken in their understanding of the criticism they are responding to or they are deliberately misconstruing it
Thanks Dr Ward for your thoughtful work on the KJVO issue. You are a guide for those questioning the validity of the position. I also know that eventually you won't hear any new arguments because you have covered them all in your videos. May God give you wisdom as you consider future ministries and topics.
Mark out here calling me a nerd. 😂 IYKYK Great response to those arguments. Looking forward to the next installments. 👍🏼
Mark, I love your videos and explanations, so very helpful.
And you are hilarous in your nerdy way
Interesting that no ones speaks in King James English when arguing with you, probably because they would not be understood. Just saying....
I agree.
Highly anticipated video.
I'm excited about these 3 videos.
All three rebuttals in this video were good, even if the attacks really missed their mark anyway.
Thank you!
I'm surprised he quoted Chaucer, and not Wycliffe, although Chaucer is generally the example _par-excellence_ of Middle English.
This was a very well measured response and I truly do see your desire to be helpful and kind rather than reactionary and vitriolic. It's refreshing.
I look forward to whatever new things you want to talk about.
It seems to me that Thomas Ross' point on Old English is a false equivalence, but you saw what he was doing and explained it well. Not all old is the same old in the same way. Chauser's English is older and far less comprehensible than Elizabethan and we all grant that, but Elizabethan is still old with its own difficulties. He's equivocating on the term old and sets up a straw man that he then knocks down. Both are old but for different reasons and are to understand for those different reasons.
I think a lot of times when people say the King James is "old English" they're just saying it's English that is old (which is true!) but people love jumping in and correcting people to feed their own ego so they automatically assume those people are making a categorization error in the context of academic labels of points in our language's evolution
Sports ball is nuts.
I sniffed a fallacy of equivocation, but you are being remarkably gracious.
I might not have found you (until you were on my friend , Steve Schramm’s podcast) without doing KJV stuff, but I’m looking forward to whatever you’re getting ready to discuss next because it doesn’t get much better than nerding out about the Bible!
Ha, yes!
I recall flicking through a copy of an NEB (1970) many years ago, noticing some turns of phrase that were different to the "English" I'm accustomed to.
Oh, yes. The NEB is so aggressively British that it was doomed from the start in the States.
Dr. Ward I think posting a quick False friend fire round every now and then when you find them in the AV is definitely helpful for the future. It really helps with training in hermeneutics and understanding the different routes translations go to capture the meaning of the original languages.
Just a suggestion!
Thank you!
A very good suggestion.
I’m excited to see what you decide to do next!! I asked about tools I could use besides Logos (because of budgetary constraints) and what you recommended is GREAT! So maybe a video or two about affordable tools for those of us that love digging in the word and/or how we can find the historical context of what we’re reading to make more sense (at least that helps me). I’m praying the door the Lord wants you to walk through is clearly seen!
Good call. I like this idea.
I think a good theory for the use of archaisms in the KJV was because it was created to be a conservative revision of the string of English translations beginning with Tyndale's. The translators clearly wanted to retain language that sounded beautiful, recognizable, and "biblical" when read out loud. Shakespeare also used this poetic, elevated manner of speech in his plays.
Biblical? How?
It only sounds "biblical" to us because it is so outdated nothing else sounds like it.
@@politereminder6284 I meant to the people who read it when it was first published early in the 17th century. They would have been accustomed to the Bishop's Bible or some other descendant of the Tyndale Bible which used older, more formal language to sound elevated: or "biblical" to their ears.
Dr. Ward, thank you for the diligence with which you have engaged this topic. I believe you have helped a lot of people achieve a greater love for and deeper understanding of the Bible as a result. I was raised in a KJVO church and while I never fully embraced their arguments, I could also not help but feel as if modern Bible versions were somehow in need of extra caution as I read them. You are doing a good work and I believe the measure of your success is not in how the KJVO proponents respond to you (I believe many of them would argue with Jesus Himself if He instructed them to use a modern version), but in the impact you are having on regular Christians. That impact may be harder to see and measure, but I believe it is real and valuable and have benefited from it myself.
I am excited to see what direction you take in the future and pray that God will make it successful and personally fulfilling to you.
Your work on this has been fantastic, and has been of great help to me personally. But I get it; it's tough to know what else there is to say. Look forward to whatever else God puts on your heart.
Biggest issue with the first argument: Ross quotes a passage from the passage from the preface that talks specifically about not changing ecclesial vocabulary, and most modern translations do not either. To apply this argument to regular words is beyond what the preface is even saying.
3rd argument is literally argument over terms/equivocation. Just silly.
I believe the leaders are most at fault here. As you said, it's not the people trusting him that are sinning, it's the leaders. They have so much invested in this argument, so much built upon it as a foundation, that they cannot allow themselves to be moved, no matter what evidence or argument presented, either for fear or because of pride. Very sad.
Yes it is. I don't think any of these leaders are self-consciously telling falsehoods, of course. That's not the way it works.
Laughed too hard at the outro 🤣
Do not go I enjoy your channel very much. It has lead me to purchase a NKJV single column wide-margin. I am not and have never been a KJV -Onlyist but I had tended to use my KJV Thompson Chain rebind exclusively, although now my Olive Tree App. The church I am attending know has moved from the NASB to the NLT, most of our staff are Dallas Theological Seminary grads, I was somewhat appalled at this but I did not care for the NASB either. I am not opposed to the Critical Text anymore but tend to lean towards the byzantine text because of listening to you. Thank you for your content it has helped me greatly.
My friend Dwayne Greene will be glad to hear this! I don't mind Byzantine preference at all! May the Lord bless your Bible reading in the NKJV!
Thanks for your diligent efforts to respond to the KJV only crowd, Dr. Ward. You help to bring scholarly criticism to the common man so we can be prepared to respond to those whose claims aren’t founded in truth.
Thank you-this is meaningful to me.
The NASB 2020 really hits a sweet spot between formal and functional equivalent rendering of the biblical languages that is perfectly readable
I’m really looking forward to this series. Ross was actually one my Greek and Hebrew professors at Baptist College of Ministry and Seminary. Even then I wasn’t KJV only and argued with him many times during class discussions. I appreciate your approach and taking time to respond even to extremists.
Let us pray that the students who were persuaded by him will be unpersuaded!
Mark, Tim Frisch had Dave Brunn on his channel discussing Bible translating, and it is very good. His arguments are very reasonable. I appreciate you and Tim having these types of conversations on your channels. I’ve learned a lot from your discussions. Thanks for the hard work.🙏🏻✝️
I referred Brunn to Tim. ;) Dave should be coming on the channel next month.
Hey Mark! Hope you're doing well! It's been a while since I've commented in one of your videos. Great video by the way, thank you for putting it out.
I just came here to say I was shocked as I heard the first argument. I felt as if the whole world was going in slow motion and I was going to fast. As I heard him state there's a difference between the KJV being in the language of the common people and being understood by the common people; before half the sentence left his mouth I thought "please don't tell me he's going to say what I think he is going to say!.... Nevermind, he said it."
I heard it, I saw it, and still some part of me is still in shock and can't believe he actually said that and made an "elaborate" point on it. This is shocking to me because, and correct me if I'm wrong, it's an abuse of semantics-not to mention making the fact that the forms "eth and est", for example, were for some reason kept in the KJV at the time more consequential than it actually is. This whole point really just blew my mind. How can someone deliver such argument with a straight face is always beyond me. Not a personal attack on him, it's just something baffling to me. Kudos to you for being professional and not losing your cool.
I loved the vertical and horizontal line analogy. It made me think back to when I was younger. My childhood church would do
socials every other week and there were always two games in particular we'd play: the telephone game, which were I come from we call it "the gossip game" and hot potato.
As I listened to your argument about how on a vertical line, modern English is not today where it was when it started four or five hundred years ago, I thought of how much I dreaded being the last person on the line of the gossip game, thinking the person right in front of me is going to tell me something so far removed from what the first person said, or how much anxiety I get when I'd hear the referee chanted "hot potato" faster and faster, so fast they would trip over the own words and the hot potato hadn't pass through my hands yet. Always dreaded the possibility that the moment "it" would fall on my lap, the referee would not be able to keep chanting and would have to stop just before I had the chance to pass it on.
As I consider this cherished childhood memory a rather rhetorical question came to mind-I wonder if KJVonlyists would prefer to be at the back of the line during the telephone game? Would they rather have the hot potato land on their lap when the referee stops chanting? Or would they rather be at the start of the line, would the rather be one of those passing the potato as the referee is still chanting slowly?
I think you can see where I'm going, at least I hope it makes sense. I think anyone would rather be at the start of the line of Bible translation, not at the end. I think Bible revisions allows all of us to be at the front of the line. No anxiety about being left with a cold potato (translation) after everyone who came before me have warmed themselves with, leaving me to make due with whatever lukewarmth there is left.
There's a lot of good that has been done with the KJV, and still a lot of good is being done, but as you know and have pointed out many times, language changes and the KJV is not as intelligible as it once was. The level of work that is done with it at both a corporate and personal level is going down, and as it continues to do so it gains momentum. I became aware of the King James only issue four, almost five years ago, and as you know, not because I was KJVonly, but I was just in a Spanish environment at the time, and have always been part of a global church where particular Bible translations have no place in church creed or dogma. But I can tell you that since my initial KJVonly cultural shock almost five years ago, I've notice the chasm between the two ends of modern English become wider and definitely more noticeable by the average reader.
As always, thank you so much for what you do! your ministry is not only so entertaining, but such a blessing and very edifying. I've always said Christians should be at the forefront of understanding how language works. Without dismissing or minimizing the work of The Holy Spirit, our understanding of the Bible depends a great deal on our awareness and willingness to accept of the charging nature of language.
Thank you for the kind words! The telephone game analogy is effective!
Ross is actually equivocating on the term modern.
Right.
Honestly, I think you won the day when you released your King James readability study. Everything else is just minor clean up. I don't see how honest King James onliests who are aware of this research can continue to deny that readability is a concern. They can deny the principle of 1 Cor. 14 that edification requires intelligibility or deny that God has provided us with any reliable Bible translations in contemporary English if they wish. But I don't believe it is possible to prove that a translation is reliable.
I'm grateful for this video and look forward to parts 2 & 3, but I agree that it's nearly time to move forward to other nerdy topics, because you have made your point conclusively. I look forward to where you will take this channel in the future.
I would love to here about the Septuagint and Samaritan pentateuch.
The NETS has some really interesting things in it.
And Josephus!
Mark, I'm delighted to hear that you may be moving away from KJV issues to other topics, not least translation/language. You've done a great job but I agree - time to move on. God bless you and your ministry.
Good stuff, brother Mark!👍
There are many words that are mistranslated or not translated from Hebrew/Greek to English in the KJV. The context will always clear up the confusion with the help of dictionaries, lexicons etc. ALL scripture must be studied on each topic to understand the meaning of the truth being conveyed. This is where the Holy Spirit will guide one (John 16:7-13). “Sanctify them through your truth: your word is truth”(John 17:17).
I have to laugh at the “chambering” 😯 🤭. These days, I would think that would mean being at a Chamber meeting, ie. Chamber of Commerce, since the word “chamber” now means meeting room (not the archaic “private room”). Thank you for all you do and it has given me a new appreciation for language studies.
In 382 AD, Jerome began translating the Bible into the everyday language of the western Roman Empire; Latin. He wanted ordinary people in Spain, France and Italy to understand the Bible for themselves. Then, over the next few hundred years, Latin slowly changed into Spanish, French and Italian, but the Latin Vulgate was considered so holy, so familiar, such a bond of unity that eventually only priests sufficient training to learn Latin could understand and interpret God's word. Meanwhile, the ordinary people of Spain, France and Italy had no Bible that they could read in Spanish, French and Italian.
In the late 800s AD Cyril and Methodius went as missionaries to the Slavic tribes of Eastern Europe. In 863 AD they began translating the Bible into the common Slavic language of the tribes they were evangelising. Then, over next few hundred years, the Slavic language separated into Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian, Bugarian, etc, but Cyril and Methodius' translation was considered so holy, so familiar, such a bond of unity that eventually only priests sufficient training to learn Old Church Salvinic only they could understand and interpret God's word. Meanwhile, the ordinary people of Slovenia, Serbia, Croatia, Macedonia and Bulgaria had no Bible that they could read in Slovinian, Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian and Bulgarian.
In the early 1600s AD, King James authorised a new translation of the Bible into the everyday language of England.... (I think I starting to notice a pattern here: Why do God's people keep making the same mistakes?)
I have asked the Lord this question over and over. All I know to do is keep patiently instructing those who set themselves in opposition.
@@markwardonwords We'll I'm deeply grateful for the work you're doing. I've got a friend who's putting his head down that rabbit hole and now that I've found your channel, I've got somewhere I can point him before he gets stuck. May God bless your ministry. Oh, and thank you for the irenic way you present your arguments.
I always appreciate your content even if some of it goes over my head! It helps me as I navigate only recently being AWARE of KJO. My new church family, that I love dearly only uses KJV, and though I think they would not 9:00 call themselves KJV "onlyists", I think that some people there are. So your work helps me watch out for pitfalls (false friends) and to be confident in my use of other versions in my studies.
Your right in that the english of that day is of commen use today. Only in movies, or a dream.
Possibly write a book FOR the KJV reader - to help them understand (not replace) the KJV. Include the ‘false friends’, archaic words, KJV grammar forms (eth, est, thee, thou, etc.). This would help the KJV Onlyist, the KJV preferred, or even the multi-version (including the kjv) reader.
Don’t ‘attack’ the textual base. Don’t make a case for using multiple versions. Just focus on helping the KJV reader.
That is EXACTLY what I have just done! Finished on Friday! And I'm working to get endorsements from KJV-Only leaders to see if I can get this into the hands of regular KJVO readers. I don't talk about KJV-Onlyism at all; I don't even mention modern versions other than the NKJV and MEV (which are based on the TR).
As a NKJV reader / other version compared person, I will DEFINITELY get your book as soon as it is available on Kindle (I have no room for many physical books). 🙂
You helped me move away from kjvo. I still love it and use it but no longer believe it’s the only good translation out there.
Praise God. May he help us both to read and understand and obey!
I am a jock first and then a nerd but very much both. If you hide I will call you out then give you a swirlly. lol You do a great work but I too would hope we come to the end of this. While we aurgue the world is lost.
There's a documentary on youtube that my mother in-law believes where this man, I forget his name, is speaking about the KJV 1611 (and only the 1611). Could you find that and refute that?
I can understand that trying to argue over this would be exhausting, but it's good that you've done as much as you have. People won't be persuaded by arguments they never hear.
Agreed! Well stated.
From a short video on another channel, I learned that the word "tyrant" was avoided in the KJV, even though it appears in other translations. This is an intentional distortion of the Word of God. While it doesn't pull the KJV down to the level of, say, the New World Translation, I would say that this is pretty serious.
Just like language changes I am pretty sure when people use the term "Old English" they are using the technical term. That seems a pretty weak argument to force that definition of Old English into a technical term. Perhaps it too needs to be updated
I'm happy that the volume on your videos is getting a little louder, compared to other videos, your old videos required +10% volume. This is better. A little, teensy bit more might be even better, perhaps. Anyone feel the same?
Great video, Mark. And while I don't want you to lose heart about the great work you have done in regards to the KJV, I do look forward to what you can do with other topics in the world of Bible translations!
Thanks for that, Tim!
You should do accents more often. 😂
....if the KJ English is modern English why wasn't he speaking it?....
Good question!
I love this. I really like you. I've tried to argue these points several times being raised KJV only. Why spend all the extra time trying to define and understand difficult words when many good translations already have it? Love your stuff. I also enjoy your somewhat witty/sarcastic humor. Keep on keeping on
Thank you for the kind words! The humor is actually all CGI; it's not actually funny.
The Authorised Version, aka the "King James Version" was authorised by that king for use in public worship. He 'authorised' it because it suited his political and regal ambitions. How does a mere man 'authorize' the Word of God? He turned the Bible into a political tract which we still struggle to escape from. He certainly repudiated much of Coverdale's wonderful Christian translation ('congregation' for 'church', for example).
The Geneva Bible had already gone in this direction, so I wouldn't put all the blame on King James.
What baffles me, and I'm genuinely curious as to how they would respond to or answer this, but most KJV only people are also hard core anti calvinists. But the kJV translators would have been mostly largely calvinists. I don't know if the IFB guys would just flat out deny that as they don't seem to have issues with rewriting a lot of history to fit their views or if they would say something else like "it doesn't matter because God was just using them to create a translation." If anyone knows the answe to this question or has experience with hearing KJV only people adress this I would love to hear. Thank you.
Hmm. This is a question for Tim Berg.
I just want to say im very thankful for your work concerning this topic. In my limited experience there are two camps, a) those who are KJV only and wont listen to arguments b) those who use multiple translations but don't necessarily take the time to explain why not KJV only because it feels silly and like a waste of time
But, for those of us who bump shoulders with both groups and don't exactly know where to land, your work is extremely helpful! ❤
Right! You nailed it!
Hahaha that ending was excellent sir!! :) I just finished reading your excellent book Authorized and found your channel after that. Really appreciate the work you are doing and so excited for the next videos in this series! I found your book incredibly insightful and helpful and planning on using it in an upcoming video in Bible translations for my own channel. It’s helped so much in formulating my own thoughts/opinions on the matter and I can’t tell you how much I appreciate the work you put into it
I can't comprehend the audacity of a person who cannot read the Bible at all declaring that one particular translation must be the best or most accurate. How are they making that determination?
What does epiousion mean would be a cool topic to cover, if you want nerdy bible linguistic topics.
I’m rather amused that the preacher on the film you showed (who was talking about Old, Middle, and Modern English) not only mispronounced the name “Geoffrey” (which is simply an older spelling of the name “Jeffrey” and is pronounced just like “Jeffrey” and NOT.like his concocted guess of “Gee-OFF-ree.”)
I’M even more used that, when the preacher in the film was reading the Prologue to Geoffrey Chaucer’s CANTERBURY TALES, he garbled the reading by jumping from the middle of the third line to the middle of the last line, without indicating in anyway that he was skipping anything. Since this happened right after he’d severely garbled and mumbled a word and a half in the middle of the fourth line, I think he may have done it to conceal having forgotten how to read the language that he was telling us about.
I edited him for length. That jump was not his fault.
What if you don’t speak or read English? The KJV is only in English. Translations in other languages are only called “comparable”.
Hi Mark can you address the Swanson argument that “ lines of text in the UBS have no manuscript support” Ross brings this up repeatedly, and White didn’t have a sufficient opportunity to reply to it.
The worst part of the debate was when he was trying to say that where the KJV says that Jesus was "slew and hanged on a tree" was fine. The thing is....when I look at that phrase in Greek.....it just doesn't say that. It says he was killed hanging on a tree..... and those two statements are just not the same no matter how long people say they are.
just a quick "thank you" for this work - I have learned much, and shared much too :)
Awesome, thank you!
I have the same Bible I love the KJV but I don’t condemn people that use a different translation.
Thank you!
That ending was something else, lol
KJV-onlyists believe it is a divinely inspired translation. Many of them think it was the first ever English translation, and many of them think it towers above the original languages. What can you do.
You can patiently instruct those who set themselves in opposition! And then stop when your time is up.
Catching up on the videos. The brown specs look great on you
I appreciate that!
🍿🍿🍿🍿 love it
Many thanks!
Honestly, you've laid waste to the bad arguments. Have a break if you like. We will enjoy the other topics equally well.
✔
17:00 he even copped the Golden Gate Bridge in the backgroumd...
Mark ward after he completes 100 false friends, "IT IS FINISHED". I would imagine you'd have to transition to other topics because the KJonly stuff will eventually play itself out.
On another note, I'm making my way through the Tyndale bible and when I'm done I plan on making a parody tract in Riplinger style through the eyes of Tyndale-onlyism and use the same arguments they do for the KJV to defend Tyndales translation. I think it'll be pretty funny to some and enlightening to others to show the falacy of the arguements.
1:54 Where did you respond? Where is the video you are taking the clips from?
Ah yes! The Bri’ish version of Mark hath returned.
Verily hath I!
I'm viewing the Frisch Perspective now. There are plenty of scholarly individuals to take up the mantle of addressing translations, brother. Take a well-deserved rest from the KJVO issue. The fight for effective Bible translation will definitely continue! God bless, man!
Could you do a series answering folks who say Paul is a false prophet? Channels like Jesus Words Only etc. Thanks so much.
I'm not sure if there's really an irrefutable argument against their view--at least, not one that they would find convincing. You'd probably need to make an appeal to Christian history itself. Which form of Christianity was the one that spread throughout the Roman world? The Pauline form. Which form survived many years of persecution, only to be adopted by the very empire that sought to stamp it out? Same one. Which form endured and thrived throughout the Middle Ages and into the modern world? Take a guess.
But if they don't place any trust in Christian tradition, then such an argument won't hold much currency with them, nor would the argument that all of these apostolic letters were quickly accepted as part of the same New Testament catholic canon as the four Gospels. Those same Gospels make no certain and explicit reference to Paul, so these people technically can accept (three of) the Gospels without accepting the epistles. But considering that Luke and Acts share the same author, the third Gospel really should be off-limits to such people. Surely an author who endorses Paul's ministry could not be a trustworthy source if Paul is a false prophet, right?
@@MAMoreno true enough but although we might not be able to make an argument about those who are ardent believers of that heresy, we can at least prepare an armory of spiritual weapons to use when someone we know is just beginning to get into that anti-Paul weirdness. I figure Mark could perhaps make a dent and light a single candle.
I’ve listen to your concerns about KJV-onlyism. I agree with you. Keep fighting the Good Fight!
Mark, can you address why the ESV doesn’t include Acts 8:37? I see a note in my NASB1995 that some early manuscripts don’t contain it…thanks for all you do!
I'd go right to Dirk Jongkind:
www.amazon.com/dp/1433564092?tag=3755-20
@@markwardonwords thank you brother!
The short, short version: Acts 8.37 has very weak support in the Greek manuscript tradition, including both the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts (though it can be found in manuscripts that use the Western text). If it is an authentic reading, it was preserved throughout the Middle Ages primarily in Latin rather than Greek, and most translations don't give much weight to Western/Latin readings.
The strongest case for its inclusion is a number of partial citations in early Christian writings. At the very least, it's a traditional expansion of the text that goes back to the second century. If the shorter reading (w/o v. 37) is correct, then it's likely that some early Christians weren't thrilled with Luke's decision to end the exchange with a rhetorical question, and they quickly supplemented it with the sort of question-and-answer dialogue that would have been common practice during a baptism in the early churches.
@@MAMoreno thank you!
Nerds are cool ❤
Keep up the good work brother.
Pray for me!
Thanks again for your work!
My pleasure!