A KJV-Onlyist FINALLY Answers My Question!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 янв 2024
- 🎁 Help me bring the Bible to the plow boy in his own English!
✅ / @markwardonwords
✅ / mlward
✅ buymeacoffee.com/mlward
👏 Many, many thanks to the RUclips channel members and Patreon supporters who make my work possible!
▶ RUclips:
Caleb Richardson, PAClassic87 95, James Duly, Deep Dive Discipleship, Todd Bryant, M.A. Moreno, whubertx, Joel Richardson, Thomas Balzamo, Orlando Vergel Jr, ojntk, Eric Couture, Bryon Self, Average Gun Guy, Brad Dixon, Kalah Gonzalez, Derek Ralston, Brent Zenthoefer, Reid Ferguson, Dale Buchanan, James Goering, David Saxon, Travis Manhart, Josiah Dennis, judy couchman, Kimberly Miller, Jonathan Clemens, Tim Gresham, Robert Daniels, Tiny Bibles, ThatLittleBrownDog, Gregory Chase, Robert Gifford, GEN_Lee_Accepted, Lanny Faulkner, Benjamin Randolph
▶ PATREON:
Andy B, Meghan, Deborah Reinhardt, Desert Cross Tortoise Fox, Robert Daniels, Rick Erickson, Lanny M Faulkner, Lucas Key, Dave Thawley, William McAuliff, Razgriz, James Goering, Edward Woods, Thomas Balzamo, Brent M Zenthoefer, Tyler Rolfe, Ruth Lammert, Gregory Nelson Chase, Caleb Farris, Jess English, Aaron Spence, John Day, Brent Karding, Steve McDowell, A.A., James Allman, Steven McDougal, Henry Jordan, Nathan Howard, Rich Weatherly, Joshua Witt, M.L., Luc + Eileen Shannon, Easy_Peasy, Jeremy Steinhart, Steve Groom, Corey Henley, Larry Castle, Luke Burgess, Joel, Joshua Bolch, Tyler Harrison, Angela Ruckman, Nathan N, Bryan Wilson, David Peterson, Eric Mossman, Jeremiah Mays, Caleb Dugan, Donna Ward, James D Leeper, Dennis Kendall, Michelle Lewis, Lewis Kiger, Dustin Burlet, Michael Butera, Miguel Lopez, CRB, Dean C Brown, MICHAEL L DUNAVANT, Jess Mainous, Joshua Barzon, Benjamin Randolph
▶ BUY ME A COFFEE:
Someone (5x), Caleb, Scott, Darlene, Kayla, Sarah, Adam, Cody, Phil, Alan, John, Anirudh, Ben, Papa D, Robert
Mark, I had a great time discussing with you. It was truly a blessing to see some more insight from the other side-not simply from the KJV-only prospective. I do hope this video will help other KJV-onlyists to start answering the questions, not attacking the person.
Same to you, brother!
It makes me happy when Christians come together and discuss disagreements in a calm, reasonable, and peaceful manner - listening to both sides of an argument. You know, like Christ would. Love to you both.
Love this.
This warms my heart. Thanks be to God for His Spirit at work here through your charity to one another
This is a rare example of people disagreeing about serious things agreeably. Much respect to you, sir!
God gave us His Word for teaching, reproof, correction, and for training. Even at 0% it can be a challenge (and a joy) to exegete it properly. Let's leverage the tools and translations God's given us. We are living in a blessed age. And this is coming from someone who reads and loves the KJV.
Right! No need to add difficulty to a book that is already often difficult on purpose!
I've been marinating on this video for a few days. And I have to say, it's more important than it looks at first glance. The idea of the Bible being unintelligible that Mark consistently addresses isn't where we know we don't know what it says. It's where the Bible says something that we think we understand, but really don't. Imagine going through this video again, but understanding every word that Mark says (even the gibberish), but getting entirely different understandings from the text. That's the danger of not updating the KJV. Not that we'll say "OH NO I DON'T GET THIS!" but that we'll say "oh yeah, I totally get that," when we're missing the point of the text.
I officially left the KJVO mindset less than a year ago (around last Easter). I told myself that i was going to start out by only accepting versions that i could lead someone to Christ by the "Romans Road" and those verses not change the meaning/doctrine. To my surprise (because i had been taught that all other versions were evil and dishonest) i found alot of versions i could effectively do this with. Because of this realization, i started studying the actual history of the 1611 KJV, and not just go by what i had been told. Im now at a state where i own more than 20 different versions/translations, and heave read the major theological verses in all of them that i own, have read the New Testament in 9, and have completely read 3. In reading these other translations i have come to understand so much more of the Bible, and have had great joy learning things that i thought were just difficult to understand. I now use different versions in different ways, the KJV is still my favorite for memorization, formal equivalents are my study bibles, functional equivalents are preferred when doing Sunday School or talking to others about my faith, and paraphrase translations i treat more like devotional Bibles but i will also read the verses in the aforementioned translations at devotion as well. When doing all of this, I started to notice some things i had been taught all my life were not fully correct l, and decided to strip myself of all preconceived beliefs and reestablish them based solely on the Bible. My faith has grown stronger in doing all of this (even though i was told by some KJVO people that i would most likely leave the faith all together or have bad theology after i did this). Since leaving KJVO have had several discussions on the topic of "what would a perfect Bible look like?". Since humans are imperfect, my current answer is that the only way for this to happen is God sends down a divine Bible from heaven that (since He is God, he can do anything) when someone reads it, they see the words on the page written in their current language (kind of like a written form of Pentecost when everyone heard them speaking in their own language Acts 2:6) but since God did not do this, the best alternative is to constantly update (not make new translations) as the language itself changes. I would much rather understand the most that i can with my uneducated mind than to have to look at BDAG and HALOT and possibly still question if i am understanding correctly even though i know what the word would mean now.
I love this. More power to you, brother. Thank you for writing it all out.
many have the *notion* that because they use many version of bibles, they now have a better understanfing of scriptures...
only to find out 1 day, *accountability* would overtake them, and they will not have an "answer" but only "excuses" which will not even be acceptable in front of the Living God.
this i shall ask you:
*Can you say that the Table of the LORD is CONTEMPTIBLE?*
be careful and be very extremely aware of your answer.
@@albertcabrerajr992I’m guessing and could be wrong that most people who read your reply asked themselves what is this person trying to say?
@@cwalters77 yes im thinking the exact same thing. if they are really into the words and things of Scripture, then they would know. perhaps they will even be able to answer.
it will *shake them to their bones* when they face WHO it is that demands from them.
@@albertcabrerajr992 If I am to be “careful and be very extremely aware of your answer” then let us look at the context of the verse you are referring to in Malachi. This quote is from Malachi 1:7, the context is verses 6-14. This is talking about offering improper sacrifices to the Lord. I never said that me owning and reading different versions and translations was my sacrifice to God, and it shouldn’t be. Nothing I can do or offer to God would be a perfect sacrifice like He requires, the only way my sacrifice will be accepted is for my soul to be covered by the blood of Jesus in Salvation. The way you worded the statement before your question “many have the notion that because they use many version of bibles, they now have a better understanding of scriptures... only to find out 1 day, accountability would overtake them, and they will not have an "answer" but only "excuses" which will not even be acceptable in front of the Living God” seems to suggest that you expect your reading and understanding of a particular version/translation to be a part of your sacrifice, and that will not be acceptable to the Lord. I don’t profess to know anything about you or your beliefs or education, but I know mine. I don’t consider myself to be smart or educated by any means, I grew up in a small town, had a standard education in high school, went to a community college where I took trade classes, and work in woodworking. I don’t have Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic training, nor do I understand early modern English in which the KJV is written, but I do have a desire to understand as much of the Bible as I can, and some of the tools I use to do that are different translations/versions. I also use concordances and commentaries, which no one seems to have a problem with, but aren’t they even further from the Bible than translations? They help me understand and know more about God, and if that is done properly, then I don’t see how that is looked down upon by anything other than modern day Pharisees.
Excellent points. Every sermon (and this is not hyperbole) that I hear from the pulpit of my IFB church includes time wasted by the speaker attempting to define the KJ era words that they KNOW are archaic, yet are perfectly translated in the New English Translation of the Bible that is in my lap. On top of that, so many false friends are missed, and odd points are made from the words which they BELIEVE they know (but actually do not), but are properly translated in my modern English translation of the Bible. We are well past the KJV needing to be retired. Unfortunately, many are so proud of the "old paths" that want to walk that they don't see just how far just the changes in the English language have left their own understanding in the dust.
I am driven by the belief that because so many of these brothers and sisters simply don't know what they're misunderstanding, their minds will change as they're brought to see what they're missing. I'm under no illusions that my work will reach enough of them, but it will reach some. It will create a sort of meme of thought that will get passed around. "False friends" could be the idea that kills KJV-Onlyism. I pray it is!
@@markwardonwords Keep up the good work. It is so very difficult to convince people that they don't know what they don't know. Especially when they are convinced that they have a corner on the truth.
@@PhotographyByDerek Welcome (yet again-I know you're not new to this) to my world. But so many are listening. So many! And I hope and pray that that is making others curious! I'm building on common ground: KJVOs do, at some level, want to understand what God says.
That was one of the things that broke the mold for me. I realized that I was dedicating entire Sunday school lessons to my teenagers and juniors at church just to explain the development of English, when I could be teaching them about Jesus instead!
I fully expect that most of us here will live to see the KJV-Only-ite denominations and churches having to start to provide the congregants with claases in KJV-speak, the same way that synagogues offer the congregants lessons in Hebrew.
This reminds me of a demonstration by a conductor during a concert I watched. They told us "95% is a high A grade in most classes, but here's what that sounds like"
And then the 60 people in the band each played 1 out of every 20 notes wrong. The result was not something to be proud of because for every note, there were at least 3 people playing something that didn't fit.
Wow! An awesome analogy! I love that!
The problem is that we're comparing apples and oranges. Reading is a much different process than listening to music. On the surface, the analogy appears to make a convincing argument, but it is really another altogether different process.
I am sincerely grateful that I have found your channel. I have been struggling for the past year with the IFB legalism/ KJV-O culture within my church.
I was born and raised Mormon. I left the Mormon church alone at 14, and my family remains Mormon to this day. After years of forsaking religion, I found the Lord through an IFB church. I am currently still a member of this church, and I love the people of it.
However, coming from Mormonism, my understanding of how a church functions, one's ability to have their own beliefs within a church, and the authority of a leader's teachings on doctrine were all corrupted. I am now 21 and have finally found the ability to truly discern doctrine from opinion and bible from tradition. I am no longer timid of my beliefs, and the more I find myself sure in certain areas of doctrine and belief, the more discordant I feel with my church.
I am still unsure of the path moving forward, but I am so grateful for the wisdom and knowledge that you have accessable to me and for the schools of thought they have opened up. You do not know the lives you touch. The Lord is certainly using you
Reach out to me, my friend. byfaithweunderstand.com/contact
And stay humble! The Lord has done great good for you through these folks, despite their flaws. Read Rev 2-3 and be eager to point to the good among them, the way Jesus did!
Do reach out!
I also appreciate this channel. I feel the same way having come from the charismatic circle, the more you learn of the doctrines of Christ, the sweeter He becomes. I also had to go to much older books written far before my time and glean them for wisdom, as that happened I started to feel like a fish out of water in the church I came to know Christ in. But praise God he is not limited and his word is never void.
Consider all the mentions of the Angel of the Lord in the old testament, how he commissioned miracle babies to champion his cause from barren wombs, how he accepted worship and empowered those and more mundane champions to rise from bondage to purge the horrors of the world and build his legacy. Think about Hoshea/Joshua doing the work of this AoG and how he was a progenitor of Yeshua/Jesus in name and deed.... he did nothing without Moses and that AoG but who was the AoG?
Consider Joshua and his pulling kings from the cave in Mekeddah, treading upon them and hanging/impaling them as false idols, then entombing them to never rise again. Consider how snakes and deceivers are tread upon by the heels of the sons of the promise, how Jesus was hung/impaled and entombed but rose again. Hoshea/Joshua was a progenitor to the legacy of Yeshua/Jesus to do those things. Joshua burned down pagan cities and hung their kings in the gateways as broken idols too, does that sounds like Revelation to you? Why did Moses and Joshua deliver Nahustan to the weary Israelites, was it just a slap in the face or a perpetual riddle to guide the ages to the person of the Ancient of Days? A synopsis of the entire old testament can be found within the "Riddle of Nahustan". Was that snake crucified again, sin/adultery/idolatry crucified when Jesus cried eloi eloi lema sabacthani, what was left in sheol when he returned? He took on sin and it died with him, what sin? That's the cup you're supposed to drink from, the best wine saved for the end, the holy grail that has eluded the generations. Accept him for who he was since the beginning, every revelation and metaphor he has revealed and incarnated at some point and at some point you have to accept it. No denomination will teach you these things, you have to understand the bible.
@@markwardonwords I have attempted to send several, but they do not appear to have gone through. Each time I received the message, "Please refresh the page and try again."
If they have gone through, I sincerely apologize for sending so many! If not, is there another way that I can get in contact with you?
@@markwardonwords I got it and will send an email shortly. You can delete it now. Thank you so much!
Thank you, Brother Mark.🌹⭐🌹. Fantastic creativity(says the songwriter).
Mark, very good video as always. Very thankful for this gracious brother in the Lord that reached out and dialogued with you about this. Reaching the next one. I enjoyed your mental exercise on the history or maybe future of English. Listening to "The History of English" podcast it is amazing to see where English has come from (Proto-Indo-European) to where it is now. Who knows how the influence of other languages will affect English in the future. Norman-French took Anglo-Saxon (Old English) to Middle English. The Great Vowel Shift and other changes brought Middle English to Modern English. Modern English has been around for a long time, but early modern English (the time of Tyndale and the KJV) is looking more and more like a different language similar to what the King James and Canterbury Tales look like.
I absolutely love that podcast! I've listened to every episode!
Congratulations Mr. Ward it is so cool that you have been able to have conversations like this with a KJV onlyist
I'm so glad that this young gentleman engaged and addressed your actial question. It's very constructive, and I think that a lot can be learned from such a conversation.
This may not be the best place to address this because you might have a video on this somewhere else, but since I'm here, I'll go ahead and bring it up here.
I'm not a KJV only person at all, and I rarely read from it (usually ESV for me). However, I do fairly often read English language Christian classic writers like Spurgeon, Andrew Murray, or Jonathan Edwards. While I absolutely want as much clarity as possible for my Bible reading in reasonably contemporaneous language (not, for example, that useless and ridiculous Gen-Z Bible), I wouldn't want knowledge of the KJV to disappear from our churches because then you also lose touch with some of the great English speaking Christians of old. I can't really think of a solution to this problem, except maybe to start updating the language of these old dead guys also.
Basically what I'm saying is that, while I don't use the KJV much myself, I'm glad I came from a generation that did because it also renders Christian (English language) writers from the past more accessible.
I do not exaggerate when I say Hallelujah. I really needed this video in my feed today.
Mark, this is one of your best videos. Thanks for your great spirit in trying to bring balance to the extremes and raise awareness of the challenge of intelligibility.
I'm really honored to have you say these words, Cary! Thank you!
I'm kinda stuck on the KJV because, like you said, it's the language I grew up reading.
However, I pastor a church where the majority of worshippers do not use the KJV and I'm finding myself referencing the ESV or LSB, or the original languages, to explain certain passages or words. I now see, in part thanks to this video, how ridiculous it is to cling to an iteration of language that is unintelligible. Thanks for the good video, Mark!
I still have so much of it hidden in my heart; I'll never stop loving the KJV. But I have a higher value as a Bible teacher: edifying others through intelligible speech.
I think there is a little irony here in that KJV Onlyists actually use the 1769 Blayney revision which is one of many updates of the original 1611 edition. Now I realize most of the changes that were made reflect changes in spelling and punctuation but there were also words added and/or changed for the sake of clarity.
Here is how the 1611 edition translated John 3:16, Or maybe I should say Iohn 3:16:
"For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life."
I will admit this is still mostly understandable but it does require the reader to focus more on re-translating the English word rather than focus on the meaning of the verse. So, since KJV Onlyists accept spelling and punctuation updates for the sake of clarity why are they opposed to updating dead words and false friends?
✔
Brother Mark:
This video was a lot of fun.
Especially since you and Kenyon interact as brothers who agree on wanting people to understand the Bible.
............
I find some obsolete words of Middle English are worth bringing back into current usage. E.g. "trow", meaning "think, believe"; and "stow", connoting "a place, a location".
(At least to use in poetry, where you have a broader stow for creativity.)
............
Similarly, I think some of your made up words have merit. Especially the snappy one-syllable ones.
............
Yesterday on a You-Tube channel, some commenters were using the phrase "false friend" to mean "a word in another language, which means something a bit different from a similar word in English."
............
The German word "Zeitgeist", "the spirit of the age" is sometimes used in English. But why not contract it to "zeist", and get a more emphatic, one-syllable word?
(Note the potential alliteration of "zeist" with "ghost", as sometimes used in KJV.)
:--}>
I got "false friends" from broader linguistic discussions. My case is that Elizabethan English and contemporary English can be usefully regarded as different languages.
I like "trow," too!
This is one of my favorite videos. I do fear that his points will be criticized by his comrades and they will try to sway him from a more rational position.
Thank you!
Mark, thank you for your thoughtful and gracious presentation of this material. My question is this, based on your knowledge and experience, do you find contemporary English to be more stable today than what we have seen in the past.
My question is based around the idea that rules of grammar and spelling are more solidified than in times past and the prevalence of digital devices and spelling/auto correct features that possibly slow the normal slide of a language through “error or misunderstanding”.
To summarize: does modern technology slow, increase or have minimal effect on the speed at which language transforms?
I think technology *has* slowed English evolution, but that goes back a long ways to the radio and even the telegraph-and beyond that to mass media of all kinds. In other words, I don't know that this is a new situation for English. What's new may be the sheer number of English speakers, the sheer size of the spread of the language. I don't think my case rests on predictions about the future of English; I'm ready to make a conclusion about English now, the distance of our English from that of the KJV.
How fun! 😃 And I've learned one new word today in "MarkWardian". I've learned that "sorl" means "son". Yeah, I'm quick, I know.... 😂 (I know he also translated a couple of other words, but I can't remember them 😂) I wanted to study Koine Greek this year, but I might switch to "MarkWardian" because it's _so_ interesting 😉
It would be an interesting addition to this line of argumentation to utitlize one of the pidgin languages. They have tremendous overlap with modern, western, english, but it takes some effort to read through it for western english speakers. Below is John 3:16 for reference.
16 “God love di pipol wey dey dis world well-well, so E kon send di only pikin wey E get to us, so dat anybody wey bilive am, nor go die, but e go get life wey nor dey end.
I appreciated your use of Beowulf. I was hoping that you would move through real English, showing us increasing amounts of intelligibility as time passes. Perhaps you could do this with a single verse through a multitude of English translations over the centuries. Just a thought. I’m thankful to partner with you in this work!
An excellent idea! Love this.
It would be hard to make such verses fit the artificial constraints I set up: 50% unintelligible, 33%, etc.
@@markwardonwords Yes, very true
This is a great idea. I don’t know that the percentage of intelligibility is that important. Just changes are markedly different.
As a degree holder in English Literature and History, this discussion called to mind the works of Shakespeare, which were mostly written between 1589 and 1613. The KJV was written in 1611, so the language in question is the same (though Shakespeare's works were originally written in what I will call King James English (KJE), as opposed to being translated into KJE from another language like Hebrew of Greek). The question that came to my mind was "what percentage of Shakespeare's plays need to become unintelligible before we rewrite them to aid in understanding? Plays, however, have some additional information in their delivery to an audience that helps aid understanding; such as: the audience can see the actors, the audience can hear the actors deliver their lines, they can see the actor's gestures that help clarify some obscure words, they can see the props and sets, and so on. However, if 5% to 8% of the words are unintelligible, an average audience is likely on the cusp of unintelligibility (and many people find Shakespeare difficult to understand; however, once you become acclimated to the language it is amazingly understandable. Humans adapt to many things quite readily, including the KJE).
Books have been written to help understand his writing (One such is Cruces Shakespearianae: Difficult Passages In The Works Of Shakespeare, which is described as "a literary analysis book written by Benjamin Gott Kinnear. The book focuses on the challenging and complex passages found in the works of William Shakespeare. The author provides a detailed examination of these passages, offering insights into their meaning and interpretation. The book is divided into several sections, each of which covers a different aspect of Shakespeare's writing. The author also includes a glossary of terms and phrases commonly used in Shakespeare's works, making the book accessible to readers of all levels. Overall, Cruces Shakespearianae is a valuable resource for anyone interested in Shakespearean literature and the complexities of his writing.").
I found your presentation of English with 10% unintelligible to be unacceptable for regular everyday consumption. The average reader would not understand the meaning, and unless they were strongly motivated to puzzle out the meaning, they would likely not read much farther than the first paragraph, or maybe the first page, before giving up (like trying to read Finnegan's Wake, a book that sounds a lot like your 25% example - and not many people read much of that book before giving up). So, if we are currently at 5 to 8% unintelligibility, we are already dangerously close to the breaking point (which is, perhaps, why the KJV Only-ists discussion is getting more heated).
That said, I am not in favor of revising Shakespeare's plays or sonnets. However, I am also not opposed to a director changing some words in a production to make them easier for an audience to understand (or making a new version of a play, such as Romeo and Juliet changed into West Side Story, for example). However, you should still have the choice to watch Franco Zeffirelli's groovy* 1968 movie version at the theatre, on DVD, or Streaming on the internet. West Side Story and Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet provide two different experiences, and they can both be enjoyable (or good).
I grew up reading and hearing the KJV language, so something like " follow me and I will make you fishers of men" sounds much better (and with more gravitas) than "follow me and I will make you fish for people," which sounds silly to my ears (like a carnival midway game). So switching to something like the NKJV is hard for those caught in this 'time of transition,' because some things about the older (beloved) translation are being be lost, and some favorite verses and passages are, no doubt, being restated in a way that sounds odd (read that as worse) to those who love the older version.
The KJV is the 'bees knees**' to some, 'cool' to others, 'groovy*' to the children of the 60s, 'gnarly' to many, and perhaps 'sick' to 21st century KJV only-ists.
Footnotes: * cool in a hip way. ** an excellent or much liked person or thing
Mark, your diligence is appreciated all the more by your humility…thank you for modeling good behavior for all of us!
I've never actually heard of Kenyon. I'll have to look him up.
Nice job on the hypothetical state of our language in the future! A timeline of intelligibility that extends into the past of English, German, Chinese, Greek, and Hebrew as they have evolved over time would be fascinating! The percentage of intelligibility would be interesting to see regarding the text of the KJV, Bishop's, and Tyndale. Is there a chart that compares intelligibility between the major epochs in English?
Is it necessary to assume English will become 100% unintelligible in the next 500 years since it has not advanced 2% in the last 400? Since the KJV has fallen out as the common touch point of our language, I could see why we may begin seeing more rapid changes. Every day I do my utmost to introduce revolutionary developments to English usage, but Grammarly keeps getting in my way. 😆
I agree with you on the percent shorter argument many KJV defenders leverage. It makes for a good gasp, but it has never made real sense and has bugged me for years. Thank you for the video and for challenging us to think!
You're right: we don't have to assume that English will change a lot. 500 years is as much a guess as Kenyon's 100-150. Masao Morinaga's comment shows why: it's probably geopolitics that will most affect English over time.
Great experiment! Definitely got the point across.
I wonder how well the Modern Geneva Bible Translation will do with the update to the language. Have you heard of it? Thoughts? Outside of, “We do not need another English translation,” which I agree with. 😂
I really need to spend some time with it. So many English Bibles, so little time to really evaluate them fairly!
Mr. Ward, let me praise your originality in creating a believable conlang, with realistic stages of historic development, all for the sake of one video ! That’s interesting in itself but it is, to me, the most effective illustration of readability problems in the KJV that I can remember ever seeing.
I forgot that word, "conlang"! Love it! I feel sure I read it in Arika Okrent's book that I'll bet you've read, a book I LOVED: "In the Land of Invented Languages."
@@markwardonwords That’s one of my favorite books ! I’ll be hand copying your scripture illustrations into my copy of that book so they can be found quickly if the subject of translation comes up. Again, let me stress how sharply and clearly those creations of yours demonstrate the sneaky drift of language.
Brilliant experiment. When you were reading the 10% version, it actually reminded me of when I used to read the KJV exclusively. You just sort of skim over the terms that don't make sense, and you try to get the general idea of the passage. That was the first thing I noticed when I started using a modern version, the clarity of specific details within texts I was generally familiar with -- even some I had memorized in the KJV.
Love this.
Brilliant video Mark. We should maybe just start to use some local slang from Northern Ireland, where I'm from! 'You' is singular but 'Yous'ns' refers to a group. 'Yous'ns are doing my head in!' translates as 'You're all annoying me!' Needless to say, it's usually heard from mothers shouting at their children! 😂
Sounds great!
Fascinating.
✔
Mark, I appreciate thee, thee workest, and thee humilities!😀 Honestly, I really like your videos👍
Verily art thou much appreciated, and thy comment!
Hi Mark, what a fascinating thought experiment! I agree that we certainly need to consider revisions as translations become more unintelligible due to language changes. That said, what about the unintelligibility of the original Hebrew and Greek in 150 (or 500) years? Yes, we’d have the originals to compare with, but both language “streams” would have continued to evolve, right? It would seem this would make biblical translation even more difficult, let alone revisions of existing translations. This makes my brain hurt, but I’d be very interested in your thoughts. Be blessed!
A good question several have asked! Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek are static languages, because they are dead. Modern Hebrew and Modern Greek are different languages-especially the latter. There will always be people who will work to understand the dead biblical languages, I feel confident.
The problem with KJV English is that we shouldn't ask laypeople to do that kind of work, and most KJV readers simply don't realize-because they're not familiar with the ways language changes-how often language change is affecting their ability to understand the KJV.
@@markwardonwords I didn't realize that those languages are pretty much frozen in time, so that makes perfect sense. Thank you for taking a moment to respond! From someone who primarily (although not exclusively) reads the KJV, I have found your videos really helpful, especially the ones that address the "false friends". Aside from trying to grasp the biblical context and culture, I have found learning the linguistic intricacies of the older English to be very much like learning a new language. I really appreciate your gentle spirit. Thank you again!
This was very interesting! Thanks for all the work you did. Are there any KJV only people who still use the original 1620 version? It is still mostly understandable.
1620 or 1611?
@@DicelaBiblia You are correct, 1611. Thanks!
I used the 1611 for a couple of years. It was a facsimile of course and not an original. The spelling and the Roman numerals were the biggest difference.
Oh how true and correct you are. Back in the 1990's I was involved in a joint training operation with the British armed services. It was a complete disaster at the beginning. We stopped all further operations until the language gap could be amended.
✔
This was really on point man
Thank you, sir!
Bring back the Wycliffe translation(s)! I can read and understand quite a lot of it even with quirky old spellings. I miss your old glasses though. I wear similar so naturally I think they were a good choice :)
Can you imagine witnessing to an unsaved person speaking King James language.
Only if they love Shakespeare! 😂
This is how the NIV was born
Been there, done that.
Can you imagine using bibles that were translated from texts that were discarded for containing errors and texts that were found in areas that were known to change scripture to fit their beliefs?
@@slickbill9488
Where did that happen?
This was awesome results
Thankfully we have the Latin vulgate. To keep it pure no matter how language changes. 🙏
As someone from China, a similar example would be attempting to read the original printing of the Chinese Union Version. It is almost the exact same text that Chinese Bibles use today, but due to character simplification it is hard to tell what some of the characters are. Some of the forms used in that printing are not even used in Taiwan or Hong Kong anymore. An almost entirely unintelligible version would be any of the literary Chinese translations.
I think the point about Arabic stand well in this regard: those from Taiwan and Hong Kong sometimes attack mainland China's simplified characters as mutilated (yes there is politics involved). Meanwhile foreign learners don't care and just learn whichever they find more necessary.
Excellent. Love this.
I am a KJV user (but not KJV only) in the States and a RV1960 user (not RV1960 only) in Peru. The RV 1960 has it's followers and opponents much like the KJV and for many of the same reasons. Let me clarify that I am far from a language expert. I speak English, Spanish, and a little Pig Latin. However, I think there are two issues that don't get sufficient attention. Maybe they have been mentioned on this channel. I don't know. This is the first video of Mark's that I've seen (in which I think he did a great job). The first issue is that a good dictionary of the translated language is an indispensable tool even for words that I think I already know. This has become abundantly clear here in Peru as the culture is not a reading culture and so many people struggle understanding the words as they read them. I always tell them to get the free official Spanish language dictionary app for their phone in order to quickly look the words up. I think a good translation should provoke that. Saying that, I don't mean to say that a translation should be overly complex and inaccessible because of the grammar or vocab. It should, however, provoke a necessity to study more and study deeper. The second and most important is that fruitful Bible study requires the Holy Spirit. The reader of a simple and easy to read translation, who does not rely on the Holy Spirit, will not receive the same understanding of Bible as the Spirit filled reader of a more complex and difficult to read translation. I am not saying that we should need some magical power of God in order to understand the Bible. But I do think that the Holy Spirit, among other things, can and does cause the reader to ask what a word means or why was this word used instead of a different word. I don't believe we will ever have a perfect translation but I do believe the Spirit can and does overcome this and not just for English readers, but for Christians all over the world studying and reading in whatever language their Bible is.
A couple of other thoughts. Like I said I'm not KJV only. However, I have used the 1611 KJV. Of course it was only a facsimile but just the same it was the 1611 in spelling, font, etc. I used it as my daily Bible for a couple of years. I used it to preach from during that time. I even read it cover to cover. I have since purchased a facsimile of the R1569 (the first complete Spanish Bible). It is interesting how similar the spelling is to the 1611 KJV. The "j" and "i" usages and the "u" and "v" usages are very similar. Also there is a huge increase in double consonants in the R1569 just as in the 1611 KJV. Sorry for the ramblings.
Hi Mark. I know you're handling the issue of "how" English might change and not "when" English might change (by 100%-25%), but here are some interesting thoughts about "when" English might change. Matjaz Perc Professor of Physics at the University of Maribor in Slovenia analyzed a bunch of English literature through the centuries, and found that the English language remained relatively stable throughout the 20th century (as compared to previous centuries). As English has become so dominant, it benefits from a "network effect" or "snowball effect" where so many people are linked together in the shared meaning of words that the words are less likely to be phased out. In every generation "pop words" might come into use but they don't really have much staying power (For example, a hip Bible paraphrase from the 1980's might have sounded groovy at the time but it might sound really cringe today, whereas the 1950's RSV would sound very normal even today). Today we're making estimates about the timing of English's demise based on the evolution of Latin and Old English, but those past premises might not apply to English going forward. Latin did change over a thousand years, but its greatest changes happened as Romance nations split and eventually adopted their own vernaculars during an age of intense nationalism. And the change from Old English to Middle English to Early Modern English happened when English speakers were more isolated and localized, whereas when English became the world language (in the 20th century), its evolution appears to have slowed down. So going forward in this age of global business/trade and English being the first truly global language, English might experience an even greater stability than before. The greatest threat to English' stability are political rather than natural. For example, the greatest changes that have happened in the past few decades relate to gender inclusivity. And English would further lose its network effect if other competing world languages were to gain dominance (Spanish, Mandarin, French). So I think a good measure of "when" English might change significantly would be gained by estimating the rate of social and geopolitical changes rather than just interpolating past rates of change. At the end of the day, this is all speculation and it would be hard to estimate with accuracy. We'll just have to be prepared when that day comes.
This is exactly right. It's why I mentioned the Civil War of 2024 in a recent video (is that out yet?). I wonder how many languages "get" to evolve "naturally" without geopolitical considerations impinging on them. We have our own, of course, in English-globalism has to be one. It is "impinging" on what's "natural." I use so many scarequotes because I doubt there is a discoverable norm here.
@@markwardonwords Good point about what is "natural". Maybe a more helpful dichotomy is comparing changes to the English language "for political goals" versus "for convenience". Political goals can enforce changes in language (e.g. Style guides and revised legislation enforcing gender inclusivity. International bodies dropping the exclusivity of English). I think gender inclusivity would have happened gradually by the grassroots, but I think political goals accelerated the development. And at this point in time, the continued use of English in international business would be the most convenient thing for everyone (pilots all communicate in English), so any attempt to change that would be for the political goal of destabilizing the Anglo-American influence with the English language as the proxy target.
@@masaomorinaga6412 Thoughtful as always. This sounds right to me: a natural change is accelerated by politics.
Hypothesis: due to the extent of our ability to preserve culture (through the internet, resilient books, and high rates of literacy), It might be possible that the rate at which our languages shift will be too slow to ever make relatively modern writings unintelligible again. Especially when you consider the ability of our easy access to history to cause resurgences in old words as we shift, “flattening the curve” so to speak on any shifts that has occurred up until the resurgence.
I don't think you're wrong. I really don't. But I also don't know what geopolitical upheavals might not occur in the future. One of the first stirrings of interest I noticed in myself regarding linguistics was when I read as a young teen the book Earth Abides. It was a dystopian future, and increased rapidity of language change in the smaller and disconnected "American" population of the future was a small element of the book that really struck me. America could tank; China could take over; there could develop a huge Chinese church, and the Chinese Union Version might be the new KJV of the world in as short as 50 years. Who knows?
at 11:21, why does it say "but righteousness delivers" instead of "righteousness but delivers"?
But at 11:13 it has "accurate but weights" and "the but unfaithful", but also "but with zinchness".
It's like half are postpositive but the other half aren't? Is there some pattern I'm missing?
Good call! The translators of that future version were inconsistent! They grew up in a time in which postpositive particles were moving from before to after the clause-initial position!
Reading Chaucer which goes further back or George McDonald's books that were written with the Scottish brogue would be a great example of how languages change.
Thanks!
Wow! Thank you!
Language changes so ridiculously quickly when you factor in changes in lingo, idioms, locality and foreign influences. This was a great insight into that.
Thank you! So much fun!
I think such a consideration that intrigues the imagination of possibilities, by the one who seeks to preserve principle, would not tolerate the practice of linguistics to guide truth into the future.
The problem with the use of any kind of translation, whether it be language, observation, discovery, etc, is that it is bound by the limitations of man's intellectual reality.
In other words, man does not possess truth, nor can he define it on his own merit.
Rather he who seeks to preserve principle must first realize it is not the spoon that bends, it is only himself, as was quoted in the first movie of The Matrix. The limitations of our reality are self-imposed by the lens through which we have been taught to see the world.
The question then, can man project truth into the future by accommodating ever changing linguistic lexicons? Are linguistics the foundation for revealing principles?
Coming back around to the act of considering the endless possibilities, of where evolving the truth, guided by present and future linguistics, would there be any genuine truth left that aligns with principle remaining?
That was hard to write and maybe a bit hard to understand. But, the point is, principles do not change while linguistics do. And I suspect they often change with the intent to accommodate the narrative.
That's it. Something to think about.
In Dutch we have the Statenvertaling 1977 edition! But because of the Herziene Statenvertaling (like NKJV) they don't sell and print it anymore. So crazy!
I just interviewed Reinier de Blois today! Watch for that interview, coming probably in March! We talked about the Statenvertaling in some detail.
@@markwardonwords that will be interesting!
I'm almost 60 years old and I'm surprised how much the English language has changed within my lifetime. Also factor in I grew up around people who were born in the late 1890s and early 1900s where to some extent I speak like them sometimes. When I use an old expression at work my much younger coworkers either look at me weird or they laugh. Then I have to try to explain what I just said...LOL
Enjoy your videos!
In what other area of life would we accept the answer "Just be aware of them." for a 1 in 4 error rate?
My thoughts exactly! Would this gentleman go to a doctor who prescribes the wrong medication 25% of the time? Or trust an airline that only gets 75% of it's passengers to the correct destination? Of course not. That's totally unacceptable.
RIGHT! This is so good.
Not being sarcastic but I think the great update of the KJV was the NKJV.
I agree!
Thank you for creating the Jabberwocky Translation today🤣
My prizher!
Thank you once again Mark for your faithfulness to a topic that has tremdnous import for wvery believer. I am thankful that bybthe Lords grace you are able to do what you do and I am thabkful to see God glorified by your ministry
So thankful for you, Dustin!
I live in East TN and am member of a Missionary Baptist Church where the KJV is used. All the other Missionary Baptist Churches I visit do the same but I don't hear it Preached on from the pulpit or anything. I think it's just what everyone always has used so we keep using it. I know myself and my pastor and another preacher at my Church reference other translations but we never bring them to Church. So I don't think we're KJVO church, it's just never talked about. Anyway I bought your book, but I've also watched every video you've made so I'm not sure I'll get anything new from the book lol. Having the false friends written down will still probably be handy in a book so I can look things up instead of searching a video. Anyway keep up the great content
Thank you so much! The new book will have some new material, but my goal is to get all relevant material out in free formats, not just paid ones. So even that new material will likely end up on the RUclips channel!
I haven't used it much, but I think the KJV Sword Bible by Whitaker House fixes some issues with outdated words. The affected words are underlined, and the updated word is supplied in a note at the end of the verse. They need to do a deeper dive into adding additional words, but an edition like this might help solve the issue of a KJV update.
Love you thoughts because it makes me think
Thank you for your RUclips conversation. I’ve never been to Bible college.
I read the KJV all the time and use it in my messages followed by NKJV Amplified NIV NLT
I use the NLT because I couldn’t buy a lay flat any other version to use it from a pulpit
Had a discussion with someone recently about KJV and we both felt in certain circumstances the KJV is stronger in what it says and why don’t we ask the Holy Spirit to reveal what is being said
May God bless you in all do
Thank you! Those are good versions to use!
I think the limit should be slightly above 0%, personally.
I really don't, because there is a value to holding on to trusted traditional things. But 5% is too much for me!
In statistics the most commonly used confidence interval is 95%. I would think 5% is the absolute limit, above which one's interpretation of a text cannot be trusted. One's linguistic ability would come into play as well.
Mark excellent argument as usual God bless you with immeasurable wisdom to share amen brother
Thank you kindly!
Well done, Mark. Ironically I taught in Jordan last year and will be teaching in Egypt this year. The differences in Arabic sometimes create problems. What is appropriate to say in one country may not be appropriate in the other.
Thanks for your approach to the KJV discussion. Although I've dealt with this for years I've not heard someone give unintelligibility a percentage value.
I find the KJV Only position to be 100% incomprehensible.
Loved the examples of percentages of unintelligibility. Agree that even the 10% examples was clearly unacceptable and near useless.
“Put them hand” is already in use the way some people speak in slang so it becoming the primary way isn’t inconceivable. This leads credence to your example.
Your blurb on Arabic reminds me of the “sometimes” significant differences between Italian dialects
Got an example?
I personally read it with modern English substitutions for the "thee" "thou" "unto" "spake" and whenever a word ends in "eth" I just substitute with an S, and when there's a capital letter after a comma, I change it when I copy and paste it as a post, or in reply to a post. Then when the KJB says "let" I substitute with "hinders" or where it says "suffer" I just say "allow" this or that. It's not that difficult, and I don't know why we can't rewrite the KJB into modern English WITHOUT CHANGING the meaning of any sentence from the original intention. I have considered doing it myself, but that would be a monumental task for me, since I am extremely busy with several Bible studies and church services.
I do think this would be worth doing if KJV-Only institutions would buy in in advance.
Have you tried the Simplified KJV from Barbour? I would think that it has done the work for you. And even if you find a few minor gripes with it, those things would be very easy to fix yourself.
I use the kjv and the niv lets do what it says rather than arguing about what translation.
Right!
This was a fun one! I’m not sure, though, that readability is quite as mathematical as your examples imply. I’m not sure that 25% unintelligible means that 25% of the words are unintelligible. To my mind (and I’m guessing this might be true of our brother as well), 25% unintelligible means that I do understand 75% of the sense, not necessarily 75% of the individual words. And there is also the question of whose readability we’re measuring. You and I want the high school dropout to be able to understand the sense of God’s Word without needing a list of definitions of archaic words that he must first consult. Sure, the KJV is 95% (or more) intelligible for us educated folks; what about for him? How readable is it for him?
I thought of that first point. That would also be harder to illustrate objectively. That is one valid way of defining “25% unintelligible.” But so is mine. ;) And if KJV defenders are forced to define, even for themselves, what version of unintelligible they mean, that will help!
YES! This is it! I agree. The best ways to truly and rely measure understanding are impracticable.
Amongst those who stress communicative approaches to language learning the data suggests that where more than 2-3% of the vocabulary being used is too unfamiliar then comprehension breaks down. From my limited and quite anecdotal experience I think that's right. At that rate one might understand two or three sentences and then run aground on the next one. However, since so much of our understanding of even comprehensible words depends on knowing the context, an incomprehensible sentence once every three or so sentences is likely to hamper understanding.
Hefin, do you have a citation or reading recommendation for me?
@@markwardonwords I've heard those numbers cited by those who urge comprensible input in language learning. I'll ask one of those guys if there is literature/ 'harder' data.
I would LOVE to have this, for obvious reasons.
I had a conversation years ago with a KJV-Onlyist and he told me, "Not to allow the evil world to dictate the words that have become problematic".....but the problem that I have is that they already are and will become a strange word picture in the minds of some...... I am talking about things like in Acts 9:5, "is hard for thee to kick against the PRICKS." and James 2:3- "And ye have respect to him that weareth the GAY CLOTHING"---- a person that tells me not to allow the evil world to rule how we think......has never worked with a group of kids from about 6th grade on and the word pictures they get from such words........
False friends, yup!
@mark ward. I love watching your bible translation reviews. But can I ask you to suggest a good study bible to buy?
Thanks
My friend James-Michael Smith has lots of reviews of study Bibles on his channel. I really don't use them, except for the NET Bible. But the ESV Study Bible and the NIV Zondervan Biblical Theology Study Bible are probably at the top of the list of study Bibles I expect to be good.
Thanks I will search him and look.
I wanted to get tge esv study bible but can't commit to buying I due to most of the scholars having Calvinist/reformed views.
@@markwardonwords is that disciple dojo?
@@krissaundersjoinery2881 Yes! He and I aren't on all the same theological pages, but his judgment about biblical languages and about study Bibles I really appreciate.
@markwardonwords yes your a baptist and he's a methodist I think.
Interesting video
Thanks for the visit.
Lately I’ve had another thought.
When the Bible says God will preserve his word, which he does, I wouldn’t specify that it’s even talking about the Bible, directly.
I’m not the most competent in this area, but pulling up the Hebrew translation of Psalms 12:6-7, the term that is translated to “word” or “words” is Imrah, or Emrah, and in most of the uses of that word is audible speech, and a few instances it’s unclear and a few more times, it was David likely referring to manuscript copies that he could have had where it was written. But “word” does not necessarily direct us to a written Bible translation, discriminately.
When God says his word is preserved, it’s not talking about a “every jot and tiddle” translation. Psalm 19 confirms that the word of God is not limited to a written translation, but comes in the form of law, fear, commandment, judgements, and testimony.
If you tell someone “You need to have Faith in Jesus to be saved”, you are paraphrasing scripture. But, nobody would argue that you’re not proclaiming Gods word. Because in spirit and meaning, it is, despite scripture never directly translating any phrase into how you worded it.
This understanding has helped me really appreciate and understand the directional differences of say, the ESV and the NIV. Some translations are thought and meaning based, while others are literal word for word based. Gods word, is Gods word, whether it’s word for word, or if the meaning is captured.
Just a couple thoughts
I appreciate this. I urge you to wait for my video on Psalm 12, which I sure hope to finish in the next few months. Sigh!
@@markwardonwords I will look forward to.
Imagine a new believer trying to listen to a sermon someone strings together trying to force that passage to mean the KJV is the only word of God. I was that believer, and it’s the most confusing preaching you’ll ever hear!
Whatever percentage any KJV-Only-ite offers as the “tipping point” (where a new translation becomes necessary), ask him or her: “When we’re on the way towards that ‘tipping point’ percentage, is there some earlier stage - before we’re quite there yet - where the churches should be providing their congregants and Sunday School members with classes for learning KJV-speak, the way that synagogues hold classes for learning Hebrew? Let’s say that 25% unintelligility means you need a new translation - does 12 1/2% intelligibility mean you need ‘King James Duolingo”? And - when your church has to turn part of the membership classes and th3 Sunday School curriculum over to language lessons - so that the congregation can understand the book and understand the pastor who reads it aloud - is your church _still_ a Protestant church?”
Right!
I am glad you got a straight answer but wow! Imagine being fine not understanding 1/4 of the Bible just to keep up a tradition! Sounds like what Jesus warned about- nullifying the word of God for the sake of your tradition, or at least nullifying 25% of it!
....and.... what of Strong's? it is hard "at times" to tell which exact word from Strong's is the one we should lean to for understanding a word's meanings.
Strong's Hebrew and Greek dictionaries in his concordance are fairly limited, anyway. If you need more useful free online resources, use the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew lexicon and Thayer's Greek lexicon on Blue Letter Bible. They're both a little dated compared to HALOT and BDAG, but they're better than what you'll find in Strong's volume.
We'll probably slowly start seeing words that are a mix of American English and American Spanish.
That is an intelligent young man. Even though the KJV was already translated from the first version, because would be impossible to read it in this time.
“Fourscore times” 😂
Thank you for this Mark, it's brilliant. English is my second language and KJV is 100% unintelligible to me.
I'm said to be fluent in English but I still read the Bible in my mother tongue - because that's the language of my heart.
What's your main language? You write quite well!
@@markwardonwords Thanks ☺ I grew up in Hungary but I've been living in the UK for two decades and people call my English "fluent".
I used to work with Bible translators and I remember when a visitor grilled me about "which Bible do your translators use?" She expected KJV to be used as a base when the Bible is translated to other languages 🤦♀ That was my first encounter with a KJV worshipper and first I thought she was joking 😳 I'll never forget it...
I always encourage everyone to read the Bible in their mother tongue, that's the language that speaks to our heart. It's interesting and helpful to look at different translations when studying it - but, I understand, KJV people don't look at different translations, so they're missing out in my opinion.
Interesting - another approach would be to find earlier Bible translations that teeter on the edge of being too difficult to read. Say The Great Bible of 1539, which is in the lineage of the KJV and the original Douay Rheims Bible of 1610, which used a form of early modern English with more words from latin and romance languages. Find the percentages of these that are unintelligible and you will create a percentage pivot point between intelligibility and unintelligibility at which point a translation ceases to be of general use.
Some good ideas!
God bless you Mark for your informative videos. Being a bit of a word nerd myself, can you please help me understand why some people say expearmint for the word experiment (ex- peri-ment)?
It's just one of my pet peeves.
In regards to the KJV, I understand why some people appreciate its poetic language BUT, I find it difficult to understand. One thing is certain, Jesus did not sperak KJ English!
Blessings to you and your family.
Pronunciation changes over time like word meaning does!
Dear Mr. Mark Ward,
Is there a word in the KJV that you stumble over? I might be able to give you it's likeness.
Psalm 37:8b. Not a word, a phrase I still can’t quite be sure I understand.
: Commit yourself
: " Fret not thyself in any wise to do evil." Is that the passage?
I thought you would choose a word like sanctify?@@markwardonwords
Yes. That’s the one.
I'm not impressed: I prayed for a word and you prayed a passage? A passage anyone could prophesy!@@markwardonwords
In B4 Mark writes a fantasy series where his invented forms of English are spoken.
How do Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, manage to survive over such long periods...?
They all survived as liturgical languages; only Greek survived (also) as a spoken one. Latin survived as a lingua franca for the educated. Hebrew has been revived in the last century or so.
@@markwardonwords- As a KJV/Geneva reader, I often find myself cross-referencing words to ensure a proper understanding of the intent (self-educating). This said, it seems necessary (wise) to maintain an education in historical languages. (ex. What translation faults were manifest in the Rosetta Stone?)
What happens in Biology or Law when/if Latin is lost to interpretation? I think we should have a motivation to maintain certain values (traditions?)...
I hesitate to think that fewer individuals tasked with translating KJV (middle English) will be "trustworthy". (Witnessed in the current attempts of KJV-NKJV/KJ21) Especially if we reach above an exaggerated 50% loss...
Who stands to benefit when people misinterpret His Word~?
I’m certain those bent upon retaining their tradition (KJ translation) at any cost really don’t care about illiteracy or the educationally challenged.
I speak from the immense time & effort of my family & I expended helping a smart but near-illiterate 12 year old to learn to read. To be fair neither his teachers nor biological illiterate parents cared enough to do anything when it mattered most.
Now in his 20s he is struggling. The mere thought of him trying to read & understand the KJ translation causes tears of sorrow to flow.
Agreed. I've been in situations kind of like that.
With AI, we could, with some certainty, replace dead words and false friends with better words, review, and adjust as needed.
I don't understand where you are going with this. Are you suggesting that you would prefer an AI's take over a team of human translator's?
The OED is going to need another supplemental volume after this video, Mark...
YES! I love it! I'm sure people will pick up "valtronized" and "astronated."
I would not base the percentage of unintelligibility on the percentage of words that are unintelligible. As a lawyer, I can attest that one word being unintelligible in a sentence can cause the entire sentence to be unintelligible even if you know what the individual words mean. Rather, I would based percentage of unintelligibility on percentage of sentences within a text as a whole. In other words, if a chapter has 100 verses, but there was confusion as to 25% of them, that means it is 25% unintelligible, regardless of the number of words that are, themselves, unintelligible.
I like this a great deal.
Maybe 150 years from now we’ll be back to speaking KJV style, and they will be ahead of the game, in today’s world anything is possible especially in our country, thanks always enjoy your videos
It could happen! God only knows!
Let’s hope not. We will never hear the end of it from them and Mark will be doing NIV false friends videos.
Unlikely. I think current English is here to stay. It will have more dumb down versions of expressions and people will write with less precise grammar which many grammar books highlighted to be incorrect. "Irregardless" is one such instance.
China is emphasizing on learning Russian instead of English tho. But I doubt China alone can change the lingua franca
@@DarkPa1adin Literally every person who makes this argument to me writes it with multiple grammar, punctuation, and/or spelling mistakes. Not trying to be tart. Correct those faults and I'll reply!
Anyone who has even dealt with modern-day dialects and regionalisms understands how little change it takes to make a big difference in understanding even pronunciations let alone meaning (e.g., English in New Jersey vs Australia; German in Berlin vs Munich; Spanish in Puerto Rico vs South America vs west Texas, etc.). What do KJV-onlyists say about non-English translations? Are they just hopeless versions? Do they need to learn KJV English in order to understand the true meaning of their language version?
I'd like Chancy to answer this question. I never can get a clear, straight answer on the set of questions related to other languages.
@@markwardonwords Ah, same for me. I find that quite curious. Thank you once again! Blessings!
When I moved from Louisiana to Ohio, I heard multiple words I knew in their general sense used in a localized way such that I had to think to figure out the meaning or had to ask. E.g. please, in Ohio can be used to ask some to repeat something. In Louisiana we say excuse me for the same reason. For those of us in Louisiana with language mastery we also use huh the same way.
It’s obvious to me from this video that generational updates are necessary for understanding the Bible .
I'd say every half of a generation an update would be required. That is, every 12 to 15 years.
@@timcarr6401 I like the
NASB, CSB, and ESV for this reason.
@@michealferrell1677 The ESV uses acceptable English at times, but awkward Biblish on too many occasions. "You shall eat old store long kept." (Lev. 26:10) is an example.
@@timcarr6401
I like the way it reads in the NASB 2020
And this is a good example of just the reason we can and should read multiple English versions.
That particular verse in the ESV is odd in its rendering fit me in my Texas accent but maybe in England with a slightly different accent might be more acceptable?
Can anyone tell us what the Bible says ???? I'd like to know from you, please explain what we are to do, exaaactly, please...We help each other humbly and care kindly of one another and keep a clear conscience ...Can we pleasw hear the meanings ?
Of what, my friend? Any particular passages?
@@markwardonwords the entire way...through the main point that works on every thing for peace. No yelling and a sit down discussion to straighten out our problems without sneaking around in un translatable hidden meanings in all things we do.
I remember in my Koine Greek class the teacher introduced us to a 'new' word so he could tell if we were translating correctly: "yall" (you all, of course) Maybe things like this could help bridge the gap between KJVO and modern translations.
How much does it differ from "ye"?
@@DarkPa1adinit isn’t how much it differs, it is how many modern readers understand understand y’all, you all and ye. I am quite certain all would understand you all, most would understand y’all and some but far less would understand ye. In fact, if I was a betting man I would say if not for your KJV bible you would not understand ye.
@@garyjames-ij4fr y'all is more common in the US. Outside of US, you all is more common.
The question is, if we all are taught ye for plural you, will y'all be needed?
@@DarkPa1adin Although we sometimes use "you" as plural (omitting the "all"), to ensure we had translated correctly he had us use "you" only in the singular and "'yall" in the plural. I'm sure an expert like Mark Ward can straighten me out if I'm 'disremembering'.
Also, "ye" can be used as the definite article as in a store sign "Ye Olde ..." I can't claim my teacher was worried about that, though.
This is the problem with the KJOs, and why I left them. They do not believe the scriptures are written for the common person any more.
When will the original sources like Hebrew and Greek be unintelligible, why are they not yet unintelligible?
They are unintelligible-to contemporary English speakers, and (though less so) to modern Hebrew and modern Greek speakers. Modern Hebrew is the closest to its ancient source, because it was only recently re-derived from it.
When unintelligible words are spread around at random, it makes the whole text unintelligible. If KJV defenders say the context has a way of telling me what I need to know ... then why should I not read another translation? If they say those translations don't use the right words, will the context there not guide me too?
This is really brilliant, especially the latter portion. Your first portion summarizes my whole case: the KJV has too many false friends to still be used in institutional settings. And the second portion is a brilliant rejoinder. Love this.
@@markwardonwords Yes, you demonstrated my experience perfectly. I have tried to read KJV but the odd words here and there meant I received no message at al.
I was surprised by their argument you share in this video, I find it weak and it goes against logic.
But, as you said in the video, it's great you received responses.
Take a look at pigeon, English, that is the English spoken in Hawaii. There is a pigeon English Bible, that you might be able to pull up in the Bible app… That might be a good example significantly different, but still intelligible English. Also, it does seem that you have sufficiently shown That the top percentage should be considered to be lower and not 25% for example, in doing so, it seems you’ve also shown that the current KJV is actually a lower percentage unintelligible… Meaning you shifted the Overton window not narrowed or broad. Thanks for the video, I’ll be sharing it with many.
Somewhat ironically, 50% unintelligible was actually the most understandable. (Likely because i recognized the passage being used.)
My wife concluded something similar.
WOW!!! There’s a brilliant hidden video hiding inside this one. “What 50% Unintelligible English (Due to Language Change Over Time) Sounds Like” cries out for its own title and thumbnail! Alas, only a dedicated few will delight in its treasure. Like the (sadly) mere thousands who now know False Friends and now understand their KJV better.
Wow, thanks!
One plow boy at at time is an amazing statement. Were you raised on a farm?
I live on one now!
I saw a video of someone reading a Gen-Z Bible. It was in the language of the current slang and I’ll be honest, I didn’t understand much of what was said. It makes me think it’s like reading the KJV if you are not familiar with it.