Видео

@@capcapdepon9092 I texted you the screenshot!

Glad it was helpful!

Brother, the Bible says that the gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believers, to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Rom. 1:16). Salvation is not contingent on which Bible translation a person uses. I have no reason to believe that Dr. Ward has not sincerely believed in the the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ according to the scriptures. On that basis, I accept his profession of faith and consider him a saved man. With that being said, even saved men can be unwittingly used of the devil to cause great harm. After making his great confession that Jesus was the Son of the living God, Peter found himself rebuked, with the Lord even calling him "Satan" to underscore that Peter - unwittingly - was being used of the devil. Ananias and Saphira had their hearts filled with lies by Satan in Acts chapter 5. So, while I may accept Brother Mark as a fellow believer, I do believe that he is unwittingly being used of the devil to cause doubt upon the pure and living words of God as contained in the KJV.

@@JohnDavidHowe1611 You don't attack the word of God like Mark Ward does and be a saved person. God would unalive and take that person to heaven like this example: 1 Corinthians 5:5 (KJV) To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. and that was sins that were less serious than attacking the word of God. Mark Ward is in very heavy and serious sins. This is pretty obvious, God would have unalived Mark years ago for his attacks on the word of God. Mark Ward is very much still alive to continue his on going attacks on the word of God.

Thank you, brother! That is very kind of you to say. I am humbled by your comments! I love to teach the word of God. I am grateful that RUclips provides a platform to share God's truths with a wider audience. God bless you and thanks for watching!

Brother Will, I love and respect your work, I have enjoyed so many of your articles. And while I believe I heard you state before you don't plan on writing a book, I think your work is very worthy of that end. God bless you dear Brother in Christ. ~Daniel in Michigan

@@ShallStandForEver just gather the articles in a pdf/textfile. Then it's like a book...

@@wolteraartsma1290 easy. Oxford University prints it. Hendrickson Publishers prints it. Thomas Nelson prints it. The KJV Store sells all of them. Just place an order online. There. That was easy!

@@wolteraartsma1290 here ya go! www.thekjvstore.com/kjv-bibles/1611-edition-kjv-bibles/

I respectfully disagree with everything you have said. Dr. Ward does not want us to understand our KJV better. His stated goal is for us to REPLACE our KJV because it is no longer readable in 2024. He even went so far as to say that it is a SIN to give a child a KJV. I challenge you to list the "dozens" of dead ends that you claim to be able to give. I am calling your bluff. "Dozens" means you should easily be able to provide36-48 examples at a minimum. I won't hold my breath. You can have the OED. The Webster 1828 dictionary has every word that it in a King James Bible, let alone the 100 "false friends" Ward claims to have found. The King James Bible Companion defines over 600 archaic words. No believer - and I mean NO BELIEVER - needs the hiss of the serpent that Ward provides with his criticism of the KJV. I do not believe you when you say that Dr. Ruckman was your teacher, either. Dr. Ruckman didn't appeal to Greek or Hebrew to correct the English of the King James Bible and if you were his student, neither would you. Nice try, though!

​@@JohnDavidHowe1611 I appreciate your response brother. Please read to the end. Here’s his stated goal ruclips.net/video/-v2yjhGRmBs/видео.html @5:08
 Trying to help you see you don’t understand THE KJV as even nearly well as you think @40:28 ruclips.net/video/4LEUvGSMAfg/видео.html 
 Here’s it again ruclips.net/video/dNGK-yasnNc/видео.html @20:44 
 Dr. Ward repeatedly states the AV is not wrong in these places of false friends: ruclips.net/video/v0Rvcx5LeRk/видео.html @5:13
 Even this Ruckmanite of ours knows it ruclips.net/video/SwQFt7yi_2w/видео.html @1:04:50 Dr. Ward has said over and over even if you disagree about the KJV’s intelligibility it is fine, JUST STOP MISUNDERSTANDING IT AND USE THE TOOLS HE'S SHOWN HIS VIDEOS. Stop misinterpreting simple phrases and passages like "opposed themselves" (Acts 18:6) because of language change. “You don’t have to replace the KJV; just add to it. Grab a parallel Bible and use it for study for a year. Read all the way through the NIV. Just see what happens. If understanding God’s word is your goal, then I think you’ll have the same experience I have had and will come to the same view I hold: anything that provides repeated insight into God’s word is good and worth our time. The Christian scholars who put together all the major translations on sale at your local Christian bookstore were faithful church members who have dedicated their entire lives to understanding and teaching the Bible. They’re only trying to help you. Take them up on their offer.” Excerpt From Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible Mark Ward This material may be protected by copyright. Brother! You know this from Dr. Ruckman: take that meat (understanding the KJV English from Ward)/ and spit out the bones (that the KJV is not fully intelligible for primary use anymore) Come on brother you know that you do this with almost every non-Ruckmanite book you pick up! Now: where did I correct one word of the KJV? I just said we need to define them correctly and Ward does that. So let me get this straight Ward saying “I want people to understand their KJV in its English” is incompatible with Ward saying “when people understand their KJV in its English they will see (in my opinion) that there are too many words that people won’t realize they don’t know in common reading and therefore it should be replaced for institutional uses” Those are not logically incompatible. *His conclusion AFTER our agreement with the 1611 definitions (false friends) is what we disagree with, what we do NOT have to disagree with is the false friends from the OED that help us understand our KJV in its English.* By the way false friends is a common English term for all literature, it doesn't mean anything else than words you don't know that you don't know, you think you know them (friends) but because of language change you really don't (false). Brother, could you please not accuse me of lying about Dr. Ruckman merely because I see value in Ward’s research. I can like Dr. Ruckman as my teacher for things and Dr. Ward for other things. Dr. Ruckman taught us to take that meat and spit the bones that shines light on "the Book" & I see meat and bones in both men. Can we please do this instead? "Charity suffereth long, and is kind; ... is not easily provoked, *thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things* " (1 Cor. 13:4-8). Please brother? now as far as "I challenge you to list the "dozens" of dead ends that you claim to be able to give. I am calling your bluff. "Dozens" means you should easily be able to provide36-48 examples at a minimum." Here's more than one dozen: *the sources you listed either don't list the word or don't list a sense that matches the Hebrew or Greek while the OED has the sense that does or they provide a non-1611 definition that doesn't match the Hebrew or Greek definition while the OED has the sense that does. Remember these are SENSES/meanings of common words that you think you know but the translators didn't intend at all what we mean in 2024 or 1828 or even 1750 in America for that matter* “savourest” (Matt. 16:23) "oppose themselves" (2 Tim. 2:15) "will worship" (Col. 2:23) DOES NOT mean worship one’s own will, that’s not what the English phrase mean nor is it what the Greek word means at all, the OED has the sense that matches the Greek perfectly "conversation" (Phil. 3:20) "moderation: (Phil. 4:5) intermeddle-- Prov. 18:1 "business-Rom. 12:11 different than the sense in 16:2 where in 16:2 it means what it means today excess--Matt. 23:25 Easter--Acts 12:4 check out Bryan Ross, you won't believe this one “taken with the manner” (Num. 5:13) constantly--Acts 12:15 reprobate- Tit. 1:16; sensual--Jude 19 ministering-- Rom. 15:16 nation--Phil. 2:15 inventions--Prov. 8:12; Eccl. 7:29 purgeth-- John 15:2 seditions--Gal. 5:20 see Ward's video vain--Jas. 2:20 person for Heb. 1:3; “sincerity”-Eph. 6:24; the KJV is so beautiful in this one pictures-- Num. 33:52 sodomite-- Deut. 23:17 ironically it is the NKJV that uses this word in the way believers mean it today, not the KJV declare-- John 1:18; Deut. 1:5 so beautiful "commend" --Rom. 5:8 this one is really gorgeous, the KJV translators preserved Tyndale's meaning on this one, see Ward's video "fetch about" - 2 Sam. 14:20 practised--Dan. 8:12, 24 bruise--Ezek. 23:3; see Ward's video prevent--Psalm 59:10 different sense than 1 Thess 4 practise-- Mic. 2:1 different sense than Daniel Pygarg-Deut. 14:5; not a bird, the OED has the sense that matches the Hebrew quite well miserable--1 Cor. 15:18 offend for Psa. 119:165; sorrow--Gen. 3:16; Exod. 3:7 this is really cool deliciously--Rev. 18:7 wrought for 2 Cor. 5:5; churches for Acts 19:37 And I've got more! Again this isn't Noah Websters fault (his dictionary is from 1828, our translation is from 1611; in 200+ years language changes; also take note that Websters is an AMERICAN dictionary and not BRITISH senses certainly differ across the Atlantic lol) nor is this David Daniel's and Cambridges and Holmans fault, nor is it the KJV's fault, nor God's fault: *language simply changes. How were they supposed to know they were misunderstanding words that they don't realize their misunderstanding? Why is Webster in 1828 required to put in senses of words that in the 1600 passed out of our language, but in 1611 had not? How were they supposed to understand that common words that we use today had senses in 1611 that have become obsolete and passed out of our language? It's no one's fault, especially not the Holy Spirit's.* What I've seen most Dr. Ruckman students do, is ignore the Hebrew and Greek definitions and just force the KJV to have the common and contemporary meanings for these words, when the simply reality is... it doesn't. The KJV translators words matched God's words in the original languages (they did a perfect job) and therefore the words meant what they meant when the translators wrote them and they match the Hebrew and Greek definitions. Ironically Noah Webster said the same thing Ward said years ago, it's all in his preface to his 1833 translation: ruclips.net/video/2X8QQ4sZ0wA/видео.htmlsi=-sFaSLSJtF4dRxYN *So if you refuse to use Mark Ward's work because he think the AV should be replaced in institutional uses, then LOGICALLY you're not allowed to use Noah Websters work as well. BUt I'm saying don't reject either man's work, use them to shed light on the Book despite the fact that they both want the AV updated.* I'm feasting on the KJV's 1611 English as God and his translators intended me unto clarity in my Bible reading and edification to my soul from God’s words, and yet I disagree with Ward about setting aside the KJV for institutional use today. I can see the good AND bad he's doing.

Yes. My main KJV is the 1769 revision that nearly every KJV reader uses. But 1611 reprints and facsimiles are readily available in 2024 and have several. Google the KJV Store for options.

Thank you, sister! God bless you also!

@@mikewallace4497 thank you for your kind words! And thank you also for expressing your view on the cherubim and Seraphim. I will have to go back and take a closer look at that. What you said is very interesting.

@@larrytruelove8659 to whom do you refer?

@@DrHoweThD The guy on the video. If that’s you, it’s whom I’m referring to. Verses out of context, like Psalm 12:6-7, for example. 2 Timothy 2:15 should be translated “be diligent.” It makes more sense to say “strive to be approved” than to “study a book” to be approved. The Pharisees studied the scriptures but were not approved.

@@larrytruelove8659 you are 100% incorrect. The context is “rightly dividing the word of truth.” The only way you can be “diligent” with THAT is to STUDY. With regards to Psalm 12:6-7, God said what he meant and meant what he said and he didn’t stutter when saying it. The WORDS of God ARE pure and there is NOTHING false about them whatsoever just because men may be ignorant of their meaning. Hence the need to STUDY.

@@DrHoweThD Let me explain. Surely you know what a chiasm is. Psalm 12 represents a chiasm. What God said He would preserve goes all the way back to the first verses of the Psalm. The psalmist laments that the godly were diminishing, but that they would be preserved, not eliminated. The promise is to preserve the godly in the land, not his word. Ancient Israelites would be more concerned with their presence in the land as much as almost anything else. You’re reading INTO the TEXT and if your education is worth anything, you should know better. What’s worse, you’re convinced “God showed” you. Shoot. There’s no debating subjective interpretations that came from God. Nice try but God isn’t responsible. Buy let’s suppose hypothetically, that the text conveys the idea that it says God would preserve His Word. How would you arrive to the conclusion that it refers to the KJV and not any, or all of a dozen versions? One must exclude all the other versions, or include all the others, even if your interpretation is correct. Insofar as getting God’s approval, you’re saying that studying scripture is the ONLY way to do that. Then look at Matthew 10:32. If one denies Jesus before men, wouldn’t he be disapproved? But confessing Jesus before men would? What about our godly lives? And are you suggesting that illiterate people cannot have God’s approval? After all, they cannot study, can they? But they can strive to seek and be approved by God.

@@larrytruelove8659 you seem to like to make assumptions and to put words in my mouth. So, let me clarify the incorrect items that you have assumed wrongly. 1. Yes, I am well familiar with what a chiasm is. I have taught hermeneutics for more than 30 years. But thanks for your concern on the matter. 2. When I quoted Psalm 12 in the video, I was referring primarily to the fact that the psalmist said that the WORDS of the LORD are PURE words. I didn't even discuss anything about verse 7 and the PRESERVATION of these words. But by the way, since you brought it up, it is indeed the WORDS than are being spoken of and NOT "the people." The New Testament cross reference is Mat. 24:35, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my WORDS shall not pass away." Trying to use the excuse of a chiasm to cover up the context of God's promise to preserve his words is a ridiculous assertion, but you are welcome to your opinion. I do not share it, however, to be perfectly clear. 3. Please cite the passage in the video where I stated that studying scripture is THE ONLY means of getting God's approval. I won't hold my breath. You can't cite it because I didn't say that. In the context of rightly dividing the word of truth, the word STUDY is the appropriate way of demonstrating one's diligence. You can be diligent going to church, diligent in prayer, diligent in giving, diligent in sharing your faith, etc. So, quit misrepresenting my statement to imply something that I didn't say. You can't have a true debate with dishonesty. And you have dishonestly asserted things to me that simply aren't so. Do better.

and people actually think Mark Ward is saved? A blasphemer that continually attack the Bible. Yeah, no way he's saved.

Mark Ward is a Bible deist. The god of Mark Ward is a weak entity, most likely a figment of his own imagination.

you can slow down videos with the cog in the video.

You are very welcome! So glad to know it was a blessing.

Thanks for responding, Mr. Ward. I appreciate the opportunity to interact and discuss this with you. As I stated in the video, the Greek word spoudosan occurs four times in the Greek New Testament. 3 of these 4 times, the KJV translators rendered it as “be diligent.” I am not disputing that the word CAN be rendered in such a way. However, in 2 Tim. 2:15, the CONTEXT is “rightly dividing the word of truth.” How does one “be diligent” when handling the words of the living God? He STUDIES. He WORKS with diligence to make the divisions that God makes in order to have the correct understanding of scripture. There is only one being in the universe who does NOT want you and I to study - the devil himself. By changing “study” to “be diligent” (an appropriate translation, by the way), you are playing into his hands. In 1 Thes 4:11, philotimesthai is translated as “study” because the underlying word is similar in definition to spoudasan in the sense that it means “to strive earnestly.” So, it speaks to the level of effort you are putting forth to accomplish something. Anyone that has ever “studied” for mid-terms or a final exam understands this perfectly. Study isn’t just associated with accumulation of facts or knowledge, it also includes your WORK ETHIC and the amount of effort you are willing to put forth. You seem hurt that I “criticized” you at age 14 for not understanding the meaning of “by and by.” I mean no offense, brother, but the way you frame the argument is by directly criticizing the words of the living God! The context of how “by and by” is used explains the meaning. In Mark 6, the phrase is preceded by “straightway” and followed by “immediately.” I expect 14 year old Mark not to pick up on that. However, I expect 44 year old Mark to get this and not use it as an excuse to get rid of the King James Bible. And, no, 14 year old Mark was NOT sinning by not understanding this phrase. But I believe 44 year old Mark is sinning by using this as an excuse to plant doubts in the minds of others on the trustworthiness of the KJV in 2024. With regards to “mansions” in John 14:2 and 14:23, I do not accept the Oxford English Dictionary as the final authority on the Bible. Paul said, “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, Neither have entered into the heart of man, The things which God hath prepared for them that love him, (1 Cor. 2:9). Combined with the heavenly Jerusalem’s description in Revelation 21/22, I think we have something more than “a room” to look forward to. In 1828 (closer to 1611 than 2024), Noah Webster defined mansion as, “1. Any place of residence; a house; a habitation. 2. The house of the lord of a manor.” Then he does the craziest thing, brother. He CITES John 14:2 as the illustration of how the word is used in English. As for your test, I took your test. I got 17 of 20 correct, including the first ten questions that all dealt with the second person pronoun. I got 10 of 10 correct because I followed the simple rule of “thee, thou, thy, thine” = singular and “ye, you, your” = plural. I cannot speak for others with regards to how they performed on your test, but here is my theory. Anyone that has ever taken a multiple choice test understands that the questions and answers are weighted in a certain manner. You had ONE selection that was singular and NINE that were plural. Even though some of these preachers may have understood the rule that I stated above, they may have felt insecure about answering 9 to 1 about plural versus singular. That is just my thought. I can’t say for sure. I do know that by following the rule listed above I got 10 of 10. And let me say that the thee’s and thou’s are a great example of how the KJV is superior to ANY other English translation because NO OTHER MODERN VERSION makes the distinction between singular and plural pronouns like the KJV does. FINALLY, yes, I have used the OED. I have a nice leather bound set in two volumes that my mother left to me after she passed away in 2015. It I a great addition to any library, but there are much better resources for the KJV than the OED. Let me say THANK YOU for responding to this video. I realize that I am a nobody and you were under no obligation to respond to me at all. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this with you. God bless you.

@@DrHoweThDI appreciate your spirit here greatly. I didn’t know what to expect. I understand why you think I’m criticizing the KJV, but I am not. I am pointing to archaisms, exactly as you did with your story of the word “prevent”-only I’ve told far more such stories. May I make a small nuisance of myself and ask that you read my three key questions again? You did not answer them. The OED contains the answers. Here they are again: What did "study" mean in 1611 when used as an intransitive verb, as it is in 2 Tim 2:15? And how do you know? What did "study" mean in 1611 in 1 Thess 4:11? And how do you know? How would I know that "mansions" meant "rooms" in 1611? I really think we can make progress here. Someone warned me that you were going to go off half-cocked, but you didn’t. You brought an argument. Now I beg you to follow mine, brother!

@@wardonwords Is it more crucial to understand the meaning of "study" in 1611 than its context? Bro. Howe showed the Bible's self-interpreting nature, where context clarifies meaning. Your argument implies that knowing a word's definition is necessary to understand the Bible. Where is this precedent in Scripture? I'm less concerned with a word's meaning and more with what it says. Belief precedes understanding in the Bible; learning takes time, and there are no shortcuts. This isn't an academic book but the perfectly preserved words of God-a spiritual book. Understanding passages or words depends on humility, faith, time, study, and context. If I never grasp a word's full meaning in this lifetime, it proves this isn't a human book. I expect my ignorance to meet the Bible's demands, not the other way around. Scripture consistently emphasizes words over meanings. God wants us to believe and obey His words before understanding them. Brother John's point about "prevent" shows that accepting God's words first leads to understanding over time. I trust this more than a dictionary. I don't see the relevance in insisting on a 1611 definition. I know what the word means in 2024, and it's just as relevant. God guided the translators to select English words over 400 years ago. The debate on the Bible's readability seems disingenuous, given its subjectivity. You claim to desire unity but promote various English versions lacking congruity. One English translation as our Final Authority would unite us based on what is explicitly said. In my 30+ years of public ministry, I've seen that we must agree on what the Bible says, even if we debate interpretation and meaning.

@@wardonwords I am grateful for the dialogue. I have been in enough of these debates to know how they go. Quite often, they end up in nothing but a shew in the flesh on both sides. I have been guilty of this myself on many occasions. So, you were rightly warned that I might go off "half-cocked," LOL. I have determined NOT to do that this time, as much as is within me. I think we can have a discussion like gentlemen. I believe that Dr. Haifley and yourself achieved at least that much in your debate, while I do still wish that he would have brought up some of the points that I have tried to do. With response to your restated questions, I believe that I answered each of your inquiries already. So, I am not sure why you are still asking. If you do not agree with my responses, that is fine. Just say so and then state where you think I am in error. I am willing to listen to your arguments. Again, I will state that I am not obligated to accept the OED over the Webster's 1828.

What if you and I talk on FaceTime or Google Meet? I really think it will help. You still may reject my argument even after hearing it in more detail, but I sense we’re not there yet. I’m traveling abroad and need to wait till next week, but I’d be happy to meet Wednesday through Friday during business hours Pacific. Your determination not to go off half-cocked really showed. I see your friend request. I will message you there with a link.

Yes it did-not does.

@@ThuAnh-qd2fo I am not sure I understand your comment?

NEVER HAD NOTHING BUT A KJV❤

It’s a great question. Especially since Cambridge offers the regular sized Concord with red letters. You would think that either the Goatskin edition or the Split Calf (if not both) would have them. Oxford/Allan Bibles have never been very big on red letters. So I am not surprised that they don’t offer such.

Thank you for taking time to watch this video! God bless you!

I am not sure if I understand your comment. Neither of these Bibles were (or are) printed in China. Both were printed in the Netherlands.

NO, NO, NO! Only use Micron Pens that are bleed proof. Gel will seep through.