Surprising New KJV-Only Arguments! (Part 3 of 3)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 окт 2024
- Note: I mixed up the rendering of "daily" and "this day" in Matt 6:11. The word ἐπιούσιον (epiousion) is translated as "daily," not "this day."
🎁 Help Mark Ward bring the Bible to the plow boy in his own English!
✅ / @markwardonwords
✅ / mlward
✅ buymeacoffee.c...
👏 Many, many thanks to the RUclips channel members and Patreon supporters who make this work possible!
▶ RUclips:
Larry Castle, Sarah Leslie, Christopher Scaparo, Drane Pipes, David H, Jesse and Leigh Davenport, Meghan Brown, Justin Bellars, Lynn Hartter, Alan Milnes, Rich Smith, Lynn Stewart, Matt Stidham, Karen Duncan, Gregory Brown, Brad Ullner, David Podesta, Frank Hartmann, Andrew Brady, Tricia Maddox Behncke, Caleb Richardson, PAClassic87 95, James Duly, Deep Dive Discipleship, Todd Bryant, M.A. Moreno, whubertx, Joel Richardson, Orlando Vergel Jr, OSchrock, Eric Couture, Bryon Self, Average Gun Guy, Brad Dixon, Derek Ralston, Brent Zenthoefer, Reid Ferguson, Dale Buchanan, James Goering, David Saxon, Travis Manhart, Josiah Dennis, judy couchman, Kimberly Miller, Jonathan Clemens, Robert Daniels, Tiny Bibles, ThatLittleBrownDog, Gregory Chase, Robert Gifford, GEN_Lee_Accepted, Lanny Faulkner, Benjamin Randolph
▶ PATREON:
Paul Gibson, gnomax, Nathan Hall, D. H. Wallenstein, Keith Martin, Beth Benoit, Cody Hughes, Arvid D, Frank Hartmann, Thomas Jacobs, David Stein, Andy B, 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, Adam Avaritt, James Allman, Steven McDougal, Henry Jordan, Nathan Howard, Rich Weatherly, Joshua Witt, Matthew Lindquist, Luc + Eileen Shannon, Easy_Peasy , Jeremy Steinhart, Steve Groom, Corey Henley, 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, Nate Patterson, Dennis Kendall, Michelle Lewis, Lewis Kiger, Dustin Burlet, Michael Butera, Miguel Lopez, CRB, Dean C Brown, MICHAEL L DUNAVANT, Jess Mainous, Brownfell, Joshua Barzon, Benjamin Randolph
▶ BUY ME A COFFEE:
Stephen, Joshua, Cody, Evan, Robert, Joel, Brian, Michael, Stacey, Justin, Jason, Jimmy, Nathan, Kim, Carl, Tom, Zach, Frank, Jenna, DH, Robert, Papa D, Ben, Anirudh, John, Alan, Ben, Phil, Cody, Adam, Kayla, Sarah, Darlene, Caleb, Scott, Anonymous (18x)
I sure do wish I could give you more than 1 thumbs up! You are the main reason I started looking for other translations & have started reading the Bible since around 1963. I walked out of a church 2 weeks ago because the preacher called all other translations "lies".
All others are not "lies" and if they spent time studying the "other" translations "honestly" they would have to admit they are not "lies".
That preach doesn’t realize a lie can’t save you. If the NLT can lead me to saving faith in Jesus then it can’t be a lie. SMH. You did right by walking out.
@@SteffonGreatness I just love the folks that tell you "no that's not what that word means!" when you give them the Hebrew or Greek word....... you've upset their pre-conceived notions so they have to come up with an argument (that is usually wrong headed). So you ask them "what is the right meaning??" and they don't give you an answer.
@@kdeh21803
I have studied modern translations compared to the older translations.
Let's compare.
Romans 8:1 misses the last half and almost all modern translations. How can the older and newer translation agree?
Mark 16:9-20 is another sore eye. Footnotes are routinely used because different manuscripts do not agree in many verses.
Second is modern translations have their roots toward the GNT by Westcott and Hort in 1881.
They hates the KJV and TR.
They did not believe in the atonement of Christ
They accepted Mary-worship.
They liked Darwinism and communist beliefs.
They were hidden occultists, acknowledged by their own children.
They did not believe in miracles.
These are the people who have 90% of new scholars suckered into accepting "older is better'.
Lastly, Vaticanus was "hidden" for over a thousand years but not used outside of Catholic services. The Codex Sinaiticus was "hidden" for 1500 years. Why would God hide His "true Word" from believers for all those generations? Why did the scribes copy the ancient writings that is now the Textus Receptus and not the Alexandrian manuscripts?
One final question:
Why the push in the last fifty years to rid the Church of the KJV and endorse more than 70 translations that we have today created since 1965? Why do many? Can't they agree on once?
@@n9wff See this channel's videos on Westcott and Hort.
Nerd challenge accepted: Poeio (create/do) became poeima (fictional creation), which became poem in English.
Yes!
As a writer who has written several novels and many short stories, my first thought as he was explaining the argument was that he was making a false parallel. A hapax legomenon is not necessarily a word that wasn't in common use, but simply a word that the particular writer only used once. For example, I may only used the word "happy" once in a novel I'm writing, but that doesn't mean that the word "happy" is an uncommon and difficult word for English speakers. It only means that there was just one time that the word fit what I was wanting to say in the story.
Right. Well put.
I agree with you, but while listening to him I was thinking that his parallel made no sense unless the archaic words present in the KJB were specifically translating the hapax within the original scriptures. His argument is a poor one no matter which way one looks at it.
The issue is not the readability but understandbilty
Fun fact. Dr. Seuess' first children's book was "Hop Pops Log On To You." It didn't sell any copies. Fortunately, he moved on to other works that employed the lingua franca.
Ok, the horcrux joke took me completely off guard! hahahahahahahaha
BTW, I've always found it funny how KJVOnlyism leans so heavily into anti-intellectualism, and yet (as Ross does here) appeals to intellectualism for KJV superiority. His declaration that "scholars recognize" the KJV as "demonstrably the greatest English Bible ever." Are scholars good or are they bad? If they're good, what qualifies them as being good? Why are my seminary degrees a bad thing, but the degrees of these unnamed scholars to be revered?
An excellent point.
Don't tell the jocks that I'm actually a nerd. I literally died laughing. Well, maybe not literally.
I homeschool my daughter, and I had her read a "modern translation" of Romeo and Juliet.
one of those plays referred to an "iron crow."
We are not saying KJV is bad, we are saying it’s not the only version a Christian should use.
@@murrydixon5221why is the KJV and/or TR the standard?
@@murrydixon5221The KJV is not, never had been never will be the standard. It is nothing more than an imperfect uninspired archaic English translation. Where so many words have changed meaning making it even more inaccurate. The KJV translators used manuscripts dedicated to the Pope. As well as leaning heavily on the Latin Vulgate showing the Catholic influence that was on the baby sprinkling Anglicans who translated the KJV. Also the KJV translators knew their work was not perfect. They said that even the meanest translation is still the word of God. Also your presumptuous arrogant comment that Christians are not translating God's word today. Very true about the NWT of the Jehovah Witnesses. But telling lies about the godly men and women that God is using to bless with more accurate modern translations, really exposes the rotten fruit of the KJV only cult. Still that is the double standards and hypocrisy true Bible believers have come to expect from the KJV idolaters.
@@murrydixon5221 how do you determine that they represent the best of the best manuscripts?
@@murrydixon5221 can you elaborate on what you mean by flowering?
@@murrydixon5221 the people who wrote those manuscripts, gathere those manuscripts, guarded those manuscripts, etc., were Catholics or (in the case of those Greek scholars) Greek Orthodox: as Protestantism did not yet exist. So, by your own words, when you go by the KJ V, you are going by a translation that was transmitted and preserved for your use by a long chain of manuscripts whose other end was (is?) in the hands of the Catholics and the Greek Orthodox. Have you ever thought about that?
Thank yiu brother Mark .
You have more than proven your point on this topic of KJB readability.
Good responses. My main problem with his arguments (as a bilingual Christian) is that they rely on comparing the KJV to the inspired original texts rather than to old translations, which undermines his points. They are valid enough if he is arguing people should learn Hebrew and Greek, but not to claim people should stop revising translations.
Incidentally, we don’t seem to have as big a problem in the French speaking world since translations were continually revised throughout our history. No central government had control over Bible translations.
BIG thumbs up! I was going to raise the point that they were under royal mandate to keep it as close to the Bishops' Bible as possible, and perhaps earlier translations. Prime example is Isaiah 14:12, obscure Hebrew used only once that no one was comfortable with, so they "punted" and went with Jerome's Vulgate's translation directly or indirectly (earlier translations including, sadly, the Geneva Bible had also done this). That's how you have Isaiah speaking Latin, must have had the gift of tongues or something. Actually Jerome also had problems with translating this "verse" (verses and chapters not available 'til the Middle Ages) and took a title for the goddess Venus, "light-bearer." Using previous translations goes back to at least Erasmus who used the Vulgate to validate his translations, and also fill in gaps or "correct" the manuscripts. On the positive side, he corrected the use of "penance" in the Catholic Bibles.
This is a great video. I loved it.
One of the perks about these deep linguistic videos is the reminder that for most people this will be over their head and that simply reading the KJV will be evidence enough to demonstrate the difficulty of the KJV for the average person.
Well said.
…the average 21st Century person!
I tend to think that the Bible reads exactly how God wants it. Most modern translations fit into this box. Textual criticism keeps corruptible men in check. We are all corruptible. We all need to hold one another accountable.
If the people of Jesus' time and maybe Jesus himself were useing the Septuagint, wouldn't that make them not only useing a translation but also an updated version of the old testament?
..And the Septuagint has more inaccuracies than many of today's translations.
I believe we have good evidence that Jesus spoke Hebrew, but certainly the apostles and inspired authors wrote in Greek using the Greek Septuagint which was much closer to the original Hebrew than the later Masoretic Hebrew we have today. And yes I assume it was translated into current Greek not ancient (at the time) Greek.
"True Churches" language that Ross used sounds familiar. Hmmmm... Where have I heard that before.
Great Video Brother Mark.
As best I can tell, this is a key point for Ross. We know which text is the true text by watching which text the true churches received.
Ross buys into the Landmark Baptist "view of history" (read: dubious revisionist history by people who were in denial about the denomination's roots in Anglicanism). Thus, all true churches are churches in the (fictional) line of Baptist churches stretching back to the First Century. (If I seem particularly harsh, it's because I was taught Landmarkism in my youth, and I now see it as just another bad fruit of American fundamentalism.)
My analysis here is that Thomas Ross (whom I’ve met) is arguing that our beloved KJV is justified in being difficult to understand in way X because the Hebrew Old Testament or Greek New Testament was difficult to understand in way Y. But the presence of Y does not justify the presence of X.
Right! Exactly!
I have learned so much about Bible translation through your clear and educational videos. I no longer have any concern when I hear someone criticize a certain translation of Holy Scripture. I’m so glad that you had the courage to take on these questions. God Bless you 🙏🙏🙏
Thank you Mark for your diligence in pursuing issues related to belief in the KJV only.
Your dedication is appreciated.
Yay part three! Thanks for your work and for sharing these videos. :)
Your answers are very "book-like" in their format. You're probably one giant step ahead of me when I say this, but you should probably assemble these transcripts for use in publication. Thanks for all your hard work in clarifying these complex topics for us. Truly you're "bringing the hay down out of the loft and spreading it on the ground so the cows can get at it."
While we still use the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament to translate from, because it is the original text, rather than updating it, it's hardly surprisng the ancient Hebrews didn't update it. But when older Hebrew became less accessible... they wrote the Aramaic Targums. And they wrote the Septuagint. They didn't change the Bible, but they did translate it. And translate it into something they could understand.
Bless you, Mark, for all that you do.
10:55 I would love a further discussion of the arguments for Jesus speaking the Lord's prayer and sermon on the mount in Greek rather than Aramaic. I don't doubt you, I just crave the education! If you don't have time for such a vid, I would also enjoy places to read more about the idea.
Every time I hear the word Legomena for some reason the Manamana song from Sesame Street comes in my head.
YES!!! Love this!
These three videos need to become a short book.
Thank you, Brother Mark 🌹⭐🌹 I'm apparently a nerd: I thoroughly enjoyed this series. Blessings.
Ok. Did anyone else catch this from Ross's argument? He stated "There are approximately 12k words in the KJV with 300 archaic words. The Hebrew O.T. has approximately 8500 words and the Greet N.T. has approximately 5500 words for a total of 14k words approximately in both the Hebrew O.T. and Greek N.T." (Paraphrase). Ross then states that an English reader today must learn "approximately 2000 more words" to read in the Hebrew O.T. and Greek N.T. "than there are in the KJV".
One of the arguments used by KJVO defenders is that modern translations leave out certain words, missing verses exist, etc. They emphasize the need for "word for word" translations because man must live by "EVERY (emphasis mine) word that proceedeth from the mouth of God". But he just admitted that the KJV has approximately 2000 fewer words than the Hebrew O.T. and Greek N.T. (if his assertion is correct).
Am I seeing this correctly? Is Ross, unwittingly, admitting that the KJV translators did NOT give us an "every word" or "jot and tittle" translation from the original languages to English? If so, wouldn't that place the KJV on equal footing with every other conservative, faithful modern English translation, regardless of the arguments about the underlying text (Critical Text vs. Majority or Textus Recepti?
Good point. But in the earlier video, Ross did admit the KJV translators have to rearrange words (syntax) so that the english readers could understand. And the most 'word for word' translation (NASB) have to do this as well.
Based realization
Mark - if you will forgive a completely off-topic question, what is the font you use on your slides in these presentations? It is simply gorgeous.
Skolar for Latin and Greek; Brokenscript for KJV!
Obscure words in the original sounds like a good reason not to hold too tightly to any particular translation
Dude. The horcrux thing was hilarious
Wow, this one was way over my head, LOL. But you clarified it pretty well.
I picked up the same thing you did on point 7 even before you said it. The original Hebrew books of Moses were original works, but the KJV is a translation.
If the Bible were originally written primarily for the common people, such as koine Greek, then the translation should be fit for the same audience.
I'm with you, even if we don't translate the Bible again, an update of the language of the KJV is over due. I noticed that he talks about "archaic" words, but the "words" that are not necessarily archaic, have changed meanings so there is a modern translation that may be completely opposite of what they were in the KJV translation days.
One of the biggest arguments I have against the KJO is that God did not demand total "accuracy" of the text.
Jesus just fed the 5,000 and then 4,000 and was in the boat with his disciples. Out of the blue, he said, "Beware of the leaven ..." This statement is quoted by two of the Gospel authors. One of the words Jesus said is unmistakably different in the two quotes. The meaning of the statement is not altered or confusing, but for a direct quote, there is discrepancy.
There is no way that a translation from Greek to English, whether British, American, Indian, or others, can be exactly quoted. I find some verses make more sense to me when I substitute a word with another word the KJV translated the original language word elsewhere in the scriptures.
I have no problems accepting KJO's who have reason not to trust the modern translations. But, this person you are refuting, to me, come across as KJ Worshiper. When he says it shouldn't be updated with modern English words, then he does not understand "inspired."
As for his nonsense on words still being modern, he did not mention that English grammar and punctuation have changed as well and that the KJV could be more accurately read using today's modern grammar and punctuation rules.
Funny how KJOs will allow the KJV to be translated into modern foreign languages, but not modern English.
And I would argue that most (if not all) OT unknown words are a direct result of the unwillingness to update the texts and keep "current" understanding along side the originals.
Just because they were stubborn, doesn't mean that's what God intended for them to do so.
(Speaks to his presupposition that those handling the text were under constant inspiration)
It's as if Ross' argument is "God wants the Bible to be in the common tongue except these words right here because I said so." In other words, it's just a question begging argument.
You made many great points. I had more thoughts as well (including points that you have often made in other videos).
1) Given that there are already unavoidably difficult words that we don't know for sure from Hebrew and Greek, why would we want to add many more and make even clear words become oscure? Isn't that all the more reason to make every other word as clear as we possibly can? And as you often say, but in my husband's favorite phrase: "it's not what you don't know that's the problem- it's what you think you know that isn't so!" So many non archaic words but with archaic meanings obscure (darken!) the meaning of the whole passage even further.
2) "The Jews did/did not do it" is not a great argument. Suppose there was abundant evidence that the Jews updated their ancient texts into their current vernacular in the 200s BC. Wouldn't KJV onlyists suddenly use the opposite argument, that "the unbelieving J€ws tampered with God's inspired word, and that proves it's wrong and we shouldn't do that!" If the opposite history would not disprove your point but only prove it all the more, it's probably not a great argument and/or the one using it is not being honest.
3) There is evidence of updates to even the ancient texts from older Hebrew to newer Hebrew . In Exodus there is a reference to Ramses, but archaeological evidence shows this was not the time of the Exodus, after that Pharaoh, but the Exodus was prior. Therefore, someone later inserted the word Ramses to help people of their day understand the location better using current names. Updates of ancient and former names happens often in the Bible. We also have the word "seer" which was specified as a more archaic word for prophet. And in the margins of Hebrew manuscripts, they sometimes give other words to read aloud instead of the word in the text for better understanding such as anahknu instead of anu. We also read in the Bible of prophets after the Exile reading the biblical text and explaining the meaing to young people who had grown up perhaps speaking Hebrew at home but only Aramaic everywhere else, or even younger generations only hearing Aramaic at home as well. Perhaps both a more simple or current Hebrew word was given along with an Aramaic word as well. We also have a command from God to "no longer" call him Ba'al. Ba'al simply meant Lord and apparently used to be used for Jehovah himself along with Elohim and Adonai. But then Ba'al began to refer more and more to false gods and one in particular, so God told them to update their own vocabulary and stop calling him Ba'al because the word became inappropriate. (Can we think of any KJV words that are now snickered at by all ages proving that they have become inappropriate? 😆)
4) We do read modern versions of Shakespeare, maybe in conjunction with the original, but for most people today under 60 and maybe over as well, Shakespeare is almost completely unintelligible unless you have taken a course learning that language. I even saw a play acted out in front of me with the original Shakespearian language and I still couldn't understand what was going on, even with all that context.
Good thinking. I especially like point no. 2. And I wish Neh 8:8 gave us a little more detail so that I could use it for your point 3… And point 4 is the parallel mission of my acquaintance John McWhorter, who has meant a ton to me despite his atheism.
Greetings, Mark. I bumped into you and your channel about two months ago and have now watched more than a few videos. I appreciate what you are doing, and the gentle but tenacious spirit in which you are doing it. You wield the biblical sword with a smile and with manners. Good job.
I am familiar with Bible translations and Bible translation, but I am learning about the KJV-only discussion in a far more nuanced way through this channel. I am happy for this, but I (literally) sigh and groan because of the fundamental wrongheadedness, truly unnecessary divisiveness, and even, at times, virulence, at work in some of these folks. I have met enough of them to know, and most have been from my own Pentecostal neck of the woods. (I am Assemblies of God, however, and most A/G personnel do not believe in this stuff, thank God.) I grew up spiritually in a somewhat--but not entirely--KJV-only camp, but by God's grace and the education He had planned for me, know that this stance is plain wrong. I read all that was around back then that supported the KJV-only position, but the evidence against it was overwhelming. But that nagging doubt that I was doing something 'wrong' by not believing in the KJV only did not fade as quickly as the intellectual evidence against this false belief did.
I also get a kick over how you initially bill your some of your very sane views: "The NIV is the best Bible translation, but so is the TNIV," and so on. When some of my former students would ask me what the best Bible translation was, though I would later give a more academically satisfying answer, I would say, "The one you follow." And I meant it.
During this video, I was hoping that you would mention other kinds of complexities that the Hebrew language brings, and just before the nineteen-minute mark, you began to. I also believe in the perspicuity of Scripture and in the inerrancy of the autographs, but it is not the learned that take this in a reductionist way. There are other kinds of 'calls'--as you know-- that translators have to make that cannot always be made with 'look-in-the-mirror' certainty. All those who really know what is going on with Hebrew (or Greek) and Bible translation, have a biblically guided common sense, and have the proper humility, know this! Or, they should!
Putting hapaxes aside, there are so many Hebrew words that appear more than once that will still draw the question mark from Holladay, K&B, etc. (But what do they know!!) And then there are the numerous calls that must be made regarding so many things in either of the two main biblical languages; you know of these matters--such as how to take a participle in Greek (concessive, causal, and so on)--and have spoken of some of them in different videos for different reasons. I very much enjoy your channel and ministry. You are part of my down-time nutrition. God bless, stay strong, and keep up the great work for Jesus! It would be a pleasure to bump into you in person some day, God willing. I now have to get back and watch the rest of the video! David R
Edit: Here are a couple of things you may enjoy. Dr. Gary Pratico (Basics of Biblical Hebrew) was my Hebrew 1 and 2 professor at Gordon-Conwell. He was also my advisor. One day, I was sitting in his office, and made sure I told him that I was just 'learning Hebrew.' He responded, "We all are."
In class one day, he told us how his Hebrew professor at Harvard, Thomas Lambdin, who had his own textbook at that time, was asked by a student how he knew when he encountered Hebrew poetry. He answered, "When I can't understand it." Take care, and I hope this atypical (for me) and long post did not wear you down.
Thank you, brother! This was so edifying to read! I saw at Logos that people outside my (soteriologically Reformed, credo-Baptist) tribe really do love the Bible and treat it very seriously.
Here's one of my big concerns: I don't want my ministry to basically boil down to educated people expressing frustration with uneducated ones. It's true that biblical languages education does seem to kill KJV-Onlyism in people. But I've decided to show respect to the plowboy by trying to reach him, by assuming that he can follow if he wants to.
Again, thank you for your note.
Nehemiah 8:8 - Ezra read the word but had to explain it so the people understood. This bears on the final argument.
Their lack of understanding could be linguistic or it could be conceptual or some combination of both.
Ruckman hid the 7 horcruxes 😂😂
When was the BCP updated? I have never heard the story of the Anglican priests in WW1, where can I read more about it?
Alan Jacobs’ history of the BCP.
Thanks for your reply to these arguments. They are very interesting arguments. My reply would be simpler. I am a good English reader who knows the Bible better than average, yet even I find the places in the KJV e.g. Romans very difficult to understand. How can I expect those without my knowledge and skill to understand it? And I know many times they stop listening because they do not find it easy to understand.
This series and your whole channel surrounding the KJV discussion has been so enjoyable. We should all look forward to what you'll have next once you're finished with your false-friend series and backlog of video ideas.
Hey Mark! Funny you talked about this topic. The KJV translators had this comment in their preface regarding this EXACT argument just sentences later in their preface on those “rare” words:
“For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident; so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as St. Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the next is not so clear, must needs do good; yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”
The KJV Translators not only encouraged use of other translations. They almost require it.
Right!!
If no one has pointed it out yet, English derivatives of ποιος / poios include "poem," "poet," and "poetry."
I can hear someone say “Hapax Legomenon is one of the reasons God had to give us the King James Version so we’d have a newly inspired text.” Give it time, they’ll make this argument if they haven’t already.
This attempt of Ross is really just another act of desperation of a desperate person failing yet again to draw a pico-scopically thin line multiple atto-parsecs in length between JK only-ism and the truth.
28:39 another point is that not all languages change at the same rate, Icelanders for example can still read those old sagas and poems from 800+ years ago(with some of those poems being probably being a 1000 years or older)with probably the same level of difficulty that we read the KJV, ie some but not a lot.
I have been looking forward to this video but I had to pause and say your horcrux joke was absolutely hilarious. . . Carry on.
Ha! Thank you!
8:55 I thought of pious, but I guess I just invented a folk etymology.
Ha! I think "poem" has a distant relationship to it.
I've greatly benefited from your videos the past couple of years. You've spoken clearly and well and in depth on a subject very relevant to many of us. (Also you introduced me to the Recovering Fundamentalist Podcast which has been wonderful to this refugee from a toxic, fringe IFB church). Your book(s) and videos will remain solid content on the issue for those with ears to hear. God bless my brother
Oh Mark, I'm so glad you pointed out it's ok to not have an opinion on whether or not the Hebrew Bible went through recension. I worried for a moment l was going to be excommunicated!
I wish I had a church near me that offered a Latin Mass every once in a while. Experienced one 20 years ago and it was wonderful.
I'd like to visit my local Latin mass. Not sure how to do that when I have my own church responsibilities. But I'm curious!
@@markwardonwords I think English translation is provided in the bulletin.
Some hits of ‘updating Hebrew’ exists. One example Genesis 14:14 "Thus Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive. With that he mobilized his trained men, 318 servants born in his household, and went in pursuit up to DAN." Dan wasn’t a named territory in Abram’s time. Dan wasn’t even born yet. This is clearly a revision from what was written by Moses who couldn’t have written “Dan.”
Yup, and it's also been speculated that "the land of Rameses" is an edit to the Books of Genesis and Exodus, and that the text originally said the old name of this land, as Rameses was Pharaoh too late on the timeline to have had a land named after him at the time that Genesis and Exodus took place. Of course, it's equally possible that the Pharaoh Rameses was named after the land rather than the other way around, and it's also a fact that we don't have the names of every Pharaoh that existed anyway.
I love modern archeology because our linguistic knowledge of Hebrew and Greek also grows. No doubt hapax legomena will decrease as archeology grows and we may find with each new discovery that those words were used quite often outside of the Bible. This is why I like the modern versions of the Bible because those words keep being found by archeologists and historians. Speaking of hapaxes, are there any other historical instances of "pillar of salt." I always assume it's a bit like our word "petrified" But am not sure. Anyways, thanks for this.
Thoroughly enjoyed this. Having formed a suspicion (after enduring the debate with James White, together with Ross's 'Nachtrag') that this brilliant being may possibly not be human, 'his' argument based on poorly-comprehensible single-use words was the only one that fired my imagination. Complementary to the excellent rebuttals offered in this video two thoughts arise for me: First, we have no hebrew fragments of the books attributed to Moses that predate the Septuagint by very much. The Septuagint translators appear to have taken liberties with whatever Hebrew texts they had - or were they perhaps using the opportunity to update and clarify the text? Second, we need to correlate the extremely extensive role of rote-learning and oral transmission with the massive degree of destruction of written records that must have occurred in the various attacks upon Israel, notably the Assyrian and Babylonian ones. It seems reasonable to surmise that much of the biblical material that predates the Babylonian exile came into Ezra's possession primarily in oral form. He would then have recorded it in the language of his time, not that of a thousand years earlier. Hence, the expectation that the books of Moses should exhibit a much older Hebrew is a fata morgana. Just a couple of ideas to play with. An entirely different thought is the following: Paul states in Rom 1:16,17 that the power unto salvation exists in the Gospel message, (not in this or that manuscript), which is received by faith (cf Heb 11:1). Many early Christians probably could not read well: their conversion was the result of Gospel preaching, not complex word-studies. Preachers frame their message differently, yet the message remains the same (or should). Why do KJV specialists, or for that matter, any Christian evangelists, insist on some super-humanly perfect written transmission of the Gospel message? Nothing else about this life is perfect, yet life manages to persist. Is the (unadulterated) Gospel message not sufficient to bring about conversion, even in the absense of a perfectly preserved written record? I recall the great Dr. Lloyd-Jones getting very upset about being labelled a bibliolator, yet I do feel there can be some truth in this charge at times.
I watched about half of your video and wrote out the following, basically making the same point you were about to make:
It is interesting to me that Ross and his KJVO friends insist on certainty of every word in the Bible, but readily admit, due to these hapax words, that we don’t know what all these words actually mean. It seems to me that the uncertainty in understanding due to uncertainty of text (textual confidence position) is way less than the uncertainty in understanding due to uncertainty of what a hapax word means. Even without the issue of hapax words, it doesn’t take long for anyone teaching exegetically through the Bible to realize that there are many very difficult texts where the true meaning is just not known with 100% certainty. The reason given for 100% certainty of words in perfect preservation is often explained, in part, by the need to do them, so that we may live by all of them (Matt 4:4), but even if we have all the words, we still can’t reach 100% certainty in meaning.
If one cares at all about meaning and understanding, then one should want as much clarity in translation as possible, as long as it doesn’t impact accuracy (and there is some play between clarity and accuracy that translators must negotiate).
Regarding his claim that Ezra did not update Moses or older portions of the OT, there is actually some controversy about that. Read Sailhamer on the Meaning of the Pentateuch, or works such as this one: Michael A. Grisanti, “Inspiration, Inerrancy, and the OT Canon: The Place of Textual Updating in an Inerrant View of Scripture,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44 [2001]: 577-98.
Good thoughts and good tips.
Can you do an entire video in your King James reading voice?😂😂
Ha! Maybe someday!
The Harry Potter reference 😂
I knew some folks out there would appreciate it!
Looking forward to your next book(s)😊
Me too! I hope it can come to completion and through the editing process quickly!
Great analysis! One small note: ἐπιούσιος is translated as “daily” (“sufficient for the day”), rather than as “this day” (σήμερον - today).
Already fixed in the description!
If Ross really believed he shouldn't change translations why didn't he stick with the Geneva Bible?
Hi Dr. Mark, can you address the “lines of text in UBS have no manuscript evidence underneath it” he said it multiple times in the conversation with Dr. White and it wasn’t explained
ruclips.net/video/NAqeYqp0-7o/видео.htmlsi=VoMpFgUJo3OhkFab
See the Frankentext videos by @Dwayne_Green, I think.
I so appreciate you.
Hi Mark! I'm new to your channel, glad I found it. My dad went to Liberty University, became a moderate KJV-ist then homeschooled me exclusively with it. Our church was also KJV only. In my twenties I studied the translations a little when I started visiting a PCA church where I've been ever since, but till now I was putting off the the inevitable research and study into the translation issues. Now, I'm learning what I should've known all along. I see that you have another video about Westcott and Hort. I'll be listening to it next! Just the other day my dad was vehemently telling me that they were occultists. 😬😅
I'm here precisely for you! Your dad, if he fits the mold I'm expecting, is a victim much more than he is a perpetrator. And the place to go with him is to build on common ground-you both want to understand God's Word. I pray that my videos are a help to you!
Thank you brother! Quick question/comment about the Hebrew of the OT not changing/being revised from Moses to Malachi; is there not evidence, in the text itself, that the text has been revised at times; i.e., place names being explained, references to other books, etc. Without giving the Documentary Hypothesis any credibility at all - I understood that evangelical scholars recognize that the OT text was in fact edited by whoever put it in its final form (traditionally by Ezra). While this is a little tangential to your work above, and you have better things to do than respond to random people in your comment section, if possible, would like to read/hear your thoughts on this.
And to the second new argument: The first thing that occurs to me is that it must be proved that the shift in spoken Hebrew over 1000 years is equivalent to the corresponding shift in English over a similar period of time.
A couple thoughts. First of all, he does not consider the standardizing effect that a Bible in the native language has upon the language itself. Consider the German language. I work in 16th century German texts quite a bit, and the German language has certainly shifted the last 400 years. However, if one compares the amount of shift in the language prior to the wide availability of Luther's Bible translation, the difference is staggering. Having the Bible in German stabilized the language not only in time, but also in geography, and unified the German provinces to such an extent that modern German is still the "high German" that Luther spoke.
A similar effect MUST have been at work in ancient Israel. In fact the effect would be even stronger due to the unique cultural and religious circumstances of Israel. The Pentateuch served as a stabilizing influence on the Hebrew tongue for over a thousand years to an extent that is unparalleled in any other ancient language. This is aided by the relatively small geographic region, the national coherence of the people even in periods of exile, and the relatively smaller population. Add to this the regular gathering of all males 12 years and older four times a year in Jerusalem, and the reading of the Law in the temple and teaching in the schools, the memorizing of the Psalms, and you arrive at an admittedly speculative, but reasonable conclusion, that the Hebrew language was far more stable for far longer than any other language in history.
Yes, you put in much hard work on this series. It is appreciated. You did it for those of us who are not able to do it because we don't have the background and education that you have. I will look forward to whatever direction you take with this channel because I learn so much from you.
Excellent video - excellent attention to detail with a solid combination of logic and rationale - well well done
Loved the "they don't know what they're writing but wrote something!" - so good!
Loved also your discussion of diachrony in Hebrew studies
I also thoroughly appreciated your willingness to confront KJV only'ism with respect to the hapax, i.e., 'treating textual uncertainties like translational ones," effectively turning all things on its head that Wood claims - well well done!
Thank you!
Before hearing Mark's response to the first objection I have to ask how it can be assumed that, since a word appears only once in the Greek and Hebrew texts, the people of the time did not know what it meant. Extremely rare is the person whose hearing/speaking vocabulary is not much greater than his reading vocabulary; so with an entire society/culture. A word can appear rarely in written texts, yet be understood widely.
As dfor the second objection, languages Likely did not change over time near as quickly as they do in modern times, so what Moses wrote ca.1400 BC would not have been too archaic for Jews living in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah.
Someone who would be worthy of taking up the fight you've been fighting, albeit already has been and from a slightly different angle, is Jonathan Burris. He does a fantastic job. I look forward to both of y'all's uploads each week.
In all the translations discussions I've read in the past few years, there are two points that are never discussed. The first is related to the KJV. The translators in their preface mention they aren't really making a new translation, but are making a good one even better and they're referring to the Bishop's Bible. From studies I've read, something like 80% of the KJV came directly from the Bishop's. The second concerns the Masoretic text. It's very plain to see that the Christian OT is organized exactly as the Septuagint, not the Tanakh. Plus from a practical standpoint, in 1611, it probably was easier to find an ancient Greek linguist (given the vast number of available texts of Antiquity being in Greek), than a Hebrew linguist. I'm wondering how much of the Septuagint, rather than the Masoretic was used.
I think it is highly likely some of the Old Testament texts underwent updating. Consider the discovery of the Ketef Hinnom scrolls which are written not in Biblical Hebrew, but Paleo-Hebrew. Those scrolls are estimated to date to around 650 BC. I think its highly likely people like Moses and certainly Abraham didnt even speak Hebrew but an older ancestor language (much akin to your example of Beowulf English v. Modern English).
Thank you Mark for all your amazing work!
Yes, my immediate thought went to Paleo-Hebrew as well. It's very, very unlikely that the form of the language used in the Torah as it currently exists is the same form that was used in the exodus era.
That is my supposition as well. But I went looking in the sources I had available, and I couldn't get real confirmation. =| We really just don't seem to know.
@@markwardonwords I don't know what your plans for the future are, but I would love to see the Textual Confidence Collective do a series on the Old Testament text, delving into historical forms of Hebrew, the history of the Masoretic Text and the history of the Septuagint, for example.
Doing some homework... As far as Ancient Hebrew Texts; Moses compiled and wrote the first 5 books of the bible around 1500 BCE. Centuries later his writings were discovered in King Josiah’s time around 640 BCE. Jeremiah completed his writings including 1 and 2 Kings before 580 BCE, well into the Babylonian captivity, although Jeremiah went to Egypt during at least part of this time. Daniel (9:1,2) had “the books” including Jeremiah’s writings, discerning the “70 year” captivity was just about completed, thus, at the very, very latest 539 BCE. Ezra completed 1 and 2 Chronicles after the Jews being freed from Babylonian captivity, around 460 BCE. Work on translating the Hebrew texts into Greek LXX started roughly around 250 BCE.
So, Moses' writings remained unaltered for about 860 years or so. They were referenced, perhaps by Daniel, but more certainly by Ezra, which would be for nearly 1000 years! It appears Ezra made new copies and may have “tweaked” the writings slightly. Another 100 years or so, the Hebrew was translated into Greek. Might it be safe to say the Hebrew writings remained virtually unchanged for about 1000 years? True, later Ezra and other priests did ‘expound’ on the writings verbally while reading the Hebrew OT to the Jews, (Nehemiah 8:7,8) but how much of that was just explanatory of content in contrast to actual changes in Hebrew language?
And, we don’t want to forget, when we consider the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:27-40) not understanding his reading aloud from Isaiah, his problem wasn’t so much the translation (regardless of language changing a lot or at all) but the fact he required external human guidance. While an understandable translation is certainly important, we can’t put it all on just the translation. It’s up to us, our motivation to personally “go ye therefore” to teach others biblical understanding, regardless of what translation is favored.
Would the argument that "God didn't update the 'far ancient Hebrew' to 'near ancient Hebrew'" be an anachronism to human understanding, NT testament revelation, and technology? Those works predate 1 Corinthians 14, predate the study of linguistics, and predate a period where mass availability of the word of God could exist and be placed into the hand of every believer and even every non-believer.
"For the non-Jewish majority of Christians in the early churches who wanted to read the Old Testament in Hebrew" seems like an invented group of people used as an instrument to leverage against something that did not exist. For example imagine a group of people, "for the non-doctors who are patients at dialysis in the 21st century who wanted to read the medical literature given to their nephrologists before giving consent to treatment..." who are then used as the lever to argue for a patient consent form that only has 300 latin medical terms in it instead of making all the terms intelligible to the patient. In fact the New Testament authors used the LXX more often than not indicating they did not conceive of the very situation that is argued for by Ross of a group of non-Jewish early Christians clamoring to read the Old Testament in Hebrew. Church history also proves this fact. Jerome, by the turn of the 5th century may have been one of very few of the most highly educated church leaders who had any facility in Hebrew, indicating not only did Christians not turn to the Hebrew, but their Pastors, and eventually Bishops did not either. When the premise of your argument is fallacious, the argument is fallacious.
CONSTANT VIGILANCE!
Yes!
Thanks for the videos. I almost fell for the KJV-only. By trying to avoid missing a verse I almost led me astray, so thanks for the encouragement! We must read it with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we need our Lord and Savior Jesus!
The Lord is able to make us stand! And yes, let us read with the guidance of the Spirit!
Gotta love the condescending attitude at 6:17... Stay classy Mr. Ross...
I really enjoy reading a Bible in a language that I can understand!
Amen! Me too!
NB. On the updating of Hebrew, my understanding is that that us what's going on in many of the Dead Sea Scrolls of the OT. This stuff is outside my lane but see Anthony Ferguson RUclips presentation for the Text&Canon institute
Ooh!
Quite possibly my favorite video you've done, Mark. When you start talking about how Ross proves too much... wow. Yes. Even if everything he claims is true, which is highly speculative, he's simply measuring off enough rope to hang himself. What's *not* speculative is the historic fact that the KJV was contemporary English once upon a time. Anyone who gets lost in the deeper end of the pool on the rest of the argumentation can just remember that simple fact. Similarly, by Ross' standard, the existence of the vernacular Septuagint, and its approved usage by Jesus and the apostles, is the death knell to his KJVO stance.
Will miss your KJV videos but sounds like you need a well-earned rest. 🙏
I am indeed weary! Thank you for the kind word!
I am curious about the source of Ross's number of hapaxes. Wikipedia quotes 686 local hapaxes, i.e. not hapaxes in all of Greek.
Metzger, Lexical Aids, p. 1, says 3246/5436 words occur 1x, 2x, or 3x. Besides, absolute hapaxes might well be words that we know we do not know, e.g. dexiolabos in Acts 23.23, with a v.l. Are there deliberate false friends in the Greek NT?
Mark, you "gave me permission" to change change the translation I teach and preach from.
I'm honored! To what?
I believe what is being argued. It is more scholarly than other KJO arguments.
I don’t think any of this matter when you can reduce the questions to, why can’t I just have the easier words in my text? What is so bad about wanting that? I like to understand the words, sentences and paragraphs as I read them. If I’m going to have references and commentaries, it should be to study particular doctrines and gather insights based on text that I already understand. No one ever seems to take that on. I feel like these scholarly and original arguments (and old ones two) sound like smokescreens and razzle-dazzle to distract from those questions.
In a population base the size of the entire English speaking world, of course, there are people who can understand every false friend that Mark points out. I don’t think you will find but a mere handful of English speakers who understand them all. These argumentative critics can’t give me a reason to just go ahead and make the Bible easier. They may think they do, but all ring quite hollow.
Mark, we used to go church together. Seeing numerous videos of you on your channels and others has me wondering how we never met. I didn’t go to BJU, just MCBC (1994-2009). I find it interesting that we have some very interesting similarities . I’d love to meet you the next time you find yourself in the upstate.
Thank you for a scholarly, yet accessible presentation of this sticky subject. I have struggled with "KJV-Only-ites" in the past over what were really fairly trivial issues. I honestly don't believe that God was so ignorant and narrow-minded to give His written Word to ALL of mankind and then restrict it to ONE "authorized" translation and classifying all other translations as "lies." Do we not remember that God Himself created all these languages in Genesis 11? Are we so narrow-minded and narcissistic to believe that in all of human history from ancient Mesopotamia to our "woke" 2024 society that one and only one English translation from 1611 is the only source of truth? When you start down this road of "KJV ONLY TO THE DETRIMENT OF ALL OTHERS" it starts to look more and more like an irrational, closed-minded religious cult.
I noticed that one of his statements seems to conflict with his claim that there is no evidence that the Old Testament had some language updates. When he said that Moses wrote the Pentateuch a thousand years earlier than the last books in the Old Testameent he has to be assuming either the liberal view of the authorship and dating of Daniel (which seems extremely unlikely given what he says about the Documentary Hypothesis) or the early date theory of the Exodus (15th century BC). But to make the early date approach to the Exodus work you have to believe that the placenames in the book of Exodus were updated from what Moses originally wrote. Because the book consistently uses placenames from the era of Ramses II (13th century BC, and the Exodus Pharaoh on the late date theory of the Exodus). If you hold to the late Exodus date then the gap between Moses and Esther is something in the region of 800 years, rather than a thousand.
4:00 Which of the non-Jewish early Christians would have been reading the OT in Hebrew, though? Wouldn't they, at least mostly, rather have been reading the LXX?
26:10 Wait, did he just agree that "if" the KJV becomes unreadable, that true churches will agree that a then-modern translation would be necessary? I think he just gave away the store here, because that's exactly what's happened over the past century or so, even as a minority of true churches dispute the necessity of this change--though I imagine his definition of a "true church" is much narrower than mine.
Yes, his extremely narrow view of "true church" is the main problem here. The true churches already have revised the KJV. He's just unwilling to accept that the true churches aren't limited to fundamentalist Baptists.
Seems to me the KJ translators make the case against kjv-onlyism pretty well in their preface. If that’s not all already in one video, it should be. I found their views, communicated in modern English , to be powerfully persuasive. It’s funny how KJV-onlyism led me to this ministry where Ive learned so much about manuscripts, translations, and the scriptures themselves. And I’m beginning to suspect I may now know more about the KJV than some onlyists do. - Lol
I've often thought the same thing. You've seen Joshua Barzon's book, "The Forgotten Preface," I assume? Here's my effort to translate and abridge the preface: ruclips.net/video/ipfJGU5YYXM/видео.html.
I’ll be excited to see what God will do with your determination when this chapter is finished, though I very much enjoy your approach to translations.
I'd appreciate your prayers. I truly don't know what's next.
Mark, I did want to ask you 2 questions about the word for the Holy Spirit, Paraklétos. You may add them to your "Things to talk about one day" file.
Firstly, I know from other videos you are not a great advocate of discussing Greek/Hebrew in a sermon. However, my understanding is that this word has a complex meaning that can not be fully expressed in one English word. If you were preaching say, John 14:16, would you spend time going through the full meaning of the Greek word or would you just stick to comforter, helper or whatever word your translation is using?
Secondly, Is the KJV word for parakletos, comforter a false friend?
1) I have been in many groups where people have thought this a strange word. Personally, the word comforter brings up the idea of a baby's dummy, a soft warm piece of clothing or someone who brings you tea and biscuits when you hear some tragic news. Somehow I would think that Jesus was saying a little more than this!
I also note that other Bible translations use advocate, helper and counsellor for this word.
2) Now I do not have BDAG, but from what I can find the Greek for this word meaning includes
A legal advocate-one who pleads another's cause
One who provides help, aid, or support
3)Contemporary dictionaries meaning include
Merriam-Webster has
Holy Spirit
One that gives comfort
a scarf
A bed covering
I guess the one who gives comfort does provide aid, help and support. Still, the word comforter to me has a feeling of physical softness and gentleness. Not exactly a legal advocate who will plead your case in a court of law.
4)Oxford Dictionary
I do not have access to the Oxford Dictionary but Merriam-Webster has this comment for the word comfort.
Etymology Verb Middle English comforten, conforten "to strengthen spiritually, inspire with courage, exort, cheer up, encourage, invigorate," borrowed from Anglo-French conforter, comforter, borrowed from Late Latin confortāre "to strengthen, restore strength to, invigorate, cure" (Medieval Latin also "to cheer, reassure"), from Latin con- CON- + Late Latin -fortāre, verbal derivative of Latin fortis "strong, robust" - more at FORT Noun Middle English comfort, counfort "invigoration, encouragement, assurance, feeling of relief, pleasure, gratification," borrowed from Anglo-French comfort, confort, cunfort "solace, encouragement, enjoyment, satisfaction," noun derivative of conforter, comforter "to strengthen, encourage, solace" - more at COMFORT entry 1
Thus, it would seem that the word comforter in 1611 may have meant someone who strengthens, restores and encourages you.
So, is the word comforter used for the Holy Spirit in the KJV a false friend? I think it may well be. I do not think our modern understanding of the word comforter captures the intent of the Greek. But it probably did in 1611.
What do you think?
Excellent questions.
I would bring up the difficulty of parakletos (probably without explicitly naming the Greek word) only if I had reason to believe that my congregation was looking at differing renderings of the word.
I’ve looked into the meaning of “comforter,” and I’m not yet persuaded that the KJV translators intended something we’re not getting because of language change. It remains a possibility in my mind.
@@markwardonwords Thanks for your advice.
I can see how comforter could be an "edge case" and there are probably better examples. However I know for myself, when I hear the word comforter I also hear the word comfortable and I start thinking of cosy fires. soft blankets and warm cups of chocolate. (We are heading into winter in Austraila.) Perhaps not the point Jesus was trying to give.
@@Asher0208 Right. But perhaps the point the KJV translators *were* trying to give. I just looked at the OED again, and I'm pretty sure that's the case. Here's what it said
"1.b.1377- Theology. A title of the Holy Spirit.
[= Old French confortere(s, ‑teor, transl. Latin consōlātor, a common rendering since 7th cent. of Greek παράκλητος (John xiv. 16, etc.), properly = advocatus ‘advocate, intercessor’, as commonly taken in the early Latin Church. In the Vulgate, Jerome retained the Greek untranslated as paracletus: see paraclete n. Isidore, a640, says (Orig. vii. iii. 10) ‘Spiritus sanctus, quod dicitur paracletus, a consolatione dicitur..Consolator enim tristibus mittitur..Alii paracletum dicunt Latine oratorem vel advocatum interpretari.’ The French Gloss. de Douai (14th cent.) ed. Escallier, has ‘Paraclitus, conforteres’.]"
@@markwardonwords well, (If I may continue your sporting analogies) you are an A grader on your home turf and I am a visiting junior leaguer so I respect your thoughts on this matter. The disciples then and us now need to remember that God does provide comfort and that may have been a point that attracted the KJV translators to this word instead of say, helper.
Hi Mark, I just want to share some encouragement with you.
Over the last few days, I have been thinking about the comfort that God gives us as believers. Particularly Psalms 46:4-5 and 23:5 have come to mind.
Psalm 46:4-5 New International Version
4 There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God,
the holy place where the Most High dwells.
5 God is within her, she will not fall;
God will help her at break of day.
Psalm 23:5 New International Version
5 You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies.
You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows.
They are of course OT promises to Israel, but I think they also apply to us. I love the idea in PS 46 that the city is surrounded and even to the point of being overwelmed by its enemies. Yet even then God is in her suppling comfort, gladness and protection.
How good God is to supply us with peace and richness even when surrounded by our foes! Jesus was in agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, yet even there, God supplied Him with what he needed to sustain him through to the end. It is precious to know, that we going to our "gardens" with the Holy Spirit indwelling us and giving us support and comfort.
May we never forget in our times of trouble that God is always with us and He is ever willing to provide His comfort in our time of need. God Bless
"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded." - The KJV Translators.
I have a theory, as to why they said this. I believe it is because they could read Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and English. They translated the text, and understood what the original text said, and they understood what their translation said.....and that led them to conclude that notes and multiple translations are a needful thing..... That should cause us to think a bit.
The hilarious irony is that I've come to respect the KJV translators themselves far more in the years since I've abandoned the idea that their work is above criticism.
@@MAMoreno Exactly! I don't know if I ever heard someone quote the KJV translators, until I left KJV onlyism.... And after reading what they had to say, I respect them more now, just like you!
Me too! One of the biggest reasons I've come to feel that the KJV translators would, if they were alive today, produce the ESV is that I've soaked in their preface for so long that I recognize the cast of thinking. It's absolutely the same academic but pious cast I was taught.
@@markwardonwords But if they were alive to produce the ESV today, the KJV translators would make the UK edition with the Apocrypha. 😛
@@MAMoreno Too bad the KJV 1769 only folks won't get the joke.
Of course they don’t see it as uncertainty, they assume the KJV translators decisions are the meanings of all the Hapaxes.
Right. Against the testimony of the KJV translators.
One thing I started to realize was that I agreed with Thomas Ross, but he comes to a faulty conclusion. He fails to realize that like you said in your book Mark, the KJV was great for its time but the translators weren't making a translation for today! They made it for 1611.
I have a problem with the whole assumption he is making that Mark presented in Video 2 and 3. The preserved Greek copies we have for reference today were difficult for first century readers, so the difficulties we have today with the KJV are ok? 1. What is his evidence that it was difficult for them? Our modern knowledge of the preserved Greek texts we have is not evidence. Our modern understanding of that time period and culture is not evidence. 2. The preserved copies we have today are preserved on purpose or simply because they were not used. We cannot know exactly what the manuscripts that they used said because they no longer exist. 3. In the first century they did not have a compiled put together fully in tact Greek bible. They has separate letters and manuscripts, and very likely many did not see, or read more than a few of them. I say let them have their idol of KJV only. I will continue to read multiple versions as I attempt to understand the context of this ancient book, and what these ancient cultures are telling us about their understanding of God. Thank you Mark Ward for all of the light you have shed on this subject and I thoroughly enjoyed "Authorized".
Thank you so much Mark, for all the hard work and prayer you have put into this work over the last six years. While I wish that I had discovered it many years earlier, I look forward to many hours of delving into the work that you have already done, as well as following your work in whatever way it grows in the future.
I agree with you that if we are honest, it is difficult to truly discern any changes that may have occurred in the Hebrew text through the years. For me though at any rate, one thing that is telling is that the Masoretic tradition is not a single path; we have the Palestinian, Babylonian, and Tiberian tradition for example. While the Tiberian tradition may have preeminence over the others as accepted Masoretic text, surely it is affected by many other texts, not the least of which would be the Septuagint, which existed well before the time of the major Masoretic work.
Sam
I am making this comment before listening to your rebuttal. As I listen to his first argument, I identified a major problem right away: He is mixing categories and making false equivalences.
Just because a word appears only once does not mean it is a "hard word." So saying that a hapax legomena is automatically a "hard word" is false on the face of it. One is purely a matter of linguistic frequency. The other is a matter of colloquial intelligibility.
He needs to prove the claim that a hapax was automatically hard for the original audience to understand. But there are many words that we do not commonly use that are perfectly understandable to the majority of English speakers. In a book the size of the Bible, we may only use such a word once, and yet everyone knows what it means.
He is further comparing the number of words in a person's vocabulary with the number of unique words in the KJV or Biblical Greek and Hebrew. This is another false equivalency. The size of a language's vocabulary is not static in time. The number of words in common use in English today compared to even a century ago, is smaller. Compare a native English speaker to a native Russian speaker, and the Russian speaker wins every time on the number of words in a common person's vocabulary. Both are modern human beings. One is not necessarily more or less intelligent than the other. But the size of their corresponding vocabulary is quite different. When translating from one language to the other, the size of the respective vocabularies is irrelevant as a measure of corresponding complexity.
Right! Good thinking!
Perhaps something's lost in the format of responding to his video, but he seems to make the same ol' KJO mistake -- he assumes the KJV is the standard and then explains why you're wrong to disagree. They don't actually defend making the KJV the standard.
If D A Waite who is a vehement defender of the KJV as the only true Bible but has made a KJV Bible with archaic words definition Bible…then KJV onlyist must realize those archaic words exist and many people dont understand fully what the passages are actually saying.
An excellent point.
God is most gracious! You are impressively so in dealing with your critics. Thanks & Blessings!🙏
ποιέω create, do
Our words poetry/poem seem related.
Is the Latin Vulgate used in the middle ages really the exact same Latin text say the same as Jerome? My understanding is there really is no “The Latin Vulgate” in the same sense there is no “The Septuagint”
My understanding is that there is textual pluriformity among Vulgate manuscripts, but that it is Jerome’s Vulgate that was in use during the Middle Ages.
Which KJV is the correct one?
With due respect to Thomas Ross I don't think there were many 1st century Gentile Christians attempting to read the Hebrew Old Testament, and even if there were they are not the original audience. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew for native Hebrew speakers who almost certainly would've had little to no trouble with the hapax legomena.
I think there's an even simpler response to this (clever) argument about the difficulty about the Hebrew Bible, that hopefully demonstrates the faulty assumption under it. Namely, the New Testament does not quote the old Testament in Hebrew. When Christ and the apostles quoted the OT in dialog, they used a Greek translation. (Probably the Septuagint, though apparently some will argue against this idea) So in NT times, the Jews (including Christians) opted not to use the OT in Hebrew, even though many of them spoke that language. And here is the logical flaw. Both these arguments really rest on the supposition that early Christians were turning to the Hebrew copies of the OT for reading, while there just isn't any real evidence of this.
To put it another way, the Jews recognized the difficulty of the Hebrew of the Old Testament, and used a modern (to them) translation into Greek in response.