I watch dozens of videos about the bible every week. The Holy Spirit is not mentioned at all in most of them. Thank you Mark. In your answer to the first question, you mentioned the Holy Spirit. Love you brother.
This interview is so helpful Mark Ward, you've given listeners so many great points. Many thanks to you for the thought-provoking answers, and to the interviewer for asking great questions! Mark, I paused the video to comment on you saying (paraphrased) that you wish we had a pope to decipher some of these idiosynchracies within translations, a pope who would say, this is correct, or that is not. And my immediate response was, well, we do! We have someone better than the pope living inside all of us, and that is the Holy Spirit of the Living God, the One who _knows_ the mind of the Father! The Holy Spirit can, does, and will _guide_ us into all truth. He is the "teacher of all men." Hallelujah!
I hope that if possible we can get him to read Dr Renihan book The Mystery of Christ . Dr Ward has ben an enormous influence and I’d be grateful if he were to appear on your program again.
@@thedogbarber Classy. I must say you're in poor category for denying God's perfect word in the KJV, and then using an insult that vile people use. Are you saved?
May I suggest some advice for a person looking for the right Bible translation(s). [You will need more than one, once you get going.] 1) Ask your PASTOR for his advice. 1a) Make an appointment! You want adequate time, not just a minute after a service; serious counsel, not just a quip off the top of his head. 2) To begin reading any translation, get a red ballpoint pen, and study the PREFACE, making notes in the margin. 2a) You want a translation which makes Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles SPEAK God's word to your overall circumstances and personal situation. 2b) You do NOT want a translation which IMPOSES the latest fads and fancies of modern culture, onto the Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles! 3) Read the Bible EVERY DAY! 3a) If possible, read the Bible at least once a YEAR. [Takes about 60 hours to read the Bible.] 3b) Make notes in the margins; mark verses which really speak to your heart. 3c) MEMORIZE twelve verses which are most important to you at this time in your Christian life.
If English Bible translations were Star Wars characters... 😋 * ESV = Yoda. Knowledgeable and wise, comes from a long and venerable heritage (Tyndale-KJV), but often talks backwards. * NASB = C3PO. Technically precise, popular with fellow robotic eggheads, but too literal-minded and woodenly awkward. NASB 2020 is C3PO with a smooth talking chip installed. * LSB = K3PO. A different shade or color of C3PO in a land far, far away, i.e. Southern California, but every once in a while throws in a foreign or exotic sounding word and becomes obsessively consistent in repeating the exact same word over and over again as if it's glitching. * NET = R2D2. Said to be the robot's robot (the translator's translation), plugs in and interfaces with the latest tech, but most people don't really use it, per se, they only use it for its technical tools (NET notes). * CSB/HCSB = Mace Windu. Boldly willing to take risks, even if it breaks with tradition (e.g. John 3:16, Rom 3:25), has a strong fan base within certain factions (SBC), but otherwise less popular than one might think. * NIV = Han Solo. Broadly popular, plain spoken and easy to follow, effectively gets the job done without any fancy acrobatics, but sometimes seems to be shady and may be smuggling illicit pronouns. * NLT = Ewoks. Communicates with simple expressions, not the most technically proficient, but heart is in the right place and once in a while pleasantly surprises everyone. * KJV = Darth Vader. Once thought to be the chosen one, speaks in an authoritative voice, but took a turn to the dark side when it began lording it over anyone who doesn't fall in line with the one true imperial text, the KJV Only. * NKJV = Dark Helmet. On the one hand, it's a new and improved Vader. On the other hand, it looks like Vader lite. * NRSV/NRSVue = Kylo Ren. Let the past die, forward thinking and progressive, but lack of faith is disturbing. * Biblical Hebrew and Greek = Chewbacca. The most powerful warrior in terms of brute strength, but a bit woolly sounding to most people and as such needs a translator to understand.
Agree that using several translations is wise. For KJV onlyists, if your bible has the word "ghost" in it, you might not have a pure translation. I've really been impressed with the newest Modern English Version (MEV).
You have been impressed with the newest Modern English Version? What was wrong with older MEV translations? 'Newest' implies at least two earlier versions. Were they wrong or incorrect? Is this latest, greatest version the Word of God yet? Or do we wait for another? I think I will stay with the one that doesn't keep changing, thank you.
@@bigtobacco1098 Language keeps changing ... and? Dictionaries then are useless? The words in the King James Bible do not keep changing, even when those in yours do. So a good dictionary doesn't even have to keep up, if you look up English words from the English Word of God, the King James Bible. It is a *weak* excuse you hide behind. Your logic falls totally in line with the concept of "translation of the month."
An NASB for a word to word choice and perhaps CSB or NIV on the dynamic side and one more in between seems like a good compromise. The NKJV might be a good choice but most times that middle choice might be whatever version is used by your home church.
NKJV y ESV me parecen buenas versiones en inglés, pero como mi lengua materna es español les recomiendo Reina Valera Gómez. Lamento NO haber escuchado en la entrevista que las diferencias que SI importan tienen que ver con el texto base del cual se hizo la traducción (algo obvio tal vez para un traductor pero no para un lector de a pie). Saludos y bendiciones desde México 🇲🇽
Mark, could you share what your understanding is of why the verses of Mark 16:9-16 are included in many Bibles, including the KJV, when many early manuscripts omit these verses? If you have time....thanks....
Great interview… I like the KJV preached from the pulpit with a pastor that identifies the false friends and explains them. I’m also fine with the congregation having a bible they can read.
I didn't realize Mark was wanting to remove the reading of the King James Bible from pulpits. There's more to translations than words. Style also counts for something. The King James Bible is the best English translation overall. It's also the best to read from the pulpit. It wouldn't be difficult for a pastor to explain a particular passage using other translations after a problematic reading.
The issue I have is the vast majority of KJVO pastors don't know all the ways the KJV language differs from current English. How many of them read "Study to show thyself approved..." and point out "study" meant "work hard" or "be diligent"?
I was raised in a KJV only church and currently in a church that primarily preaches from the KJV, but uses others occasionally for clarity. In both cases, false friends are continually missed.
@@ozrithclay6921I was guilty of that but thanks to dr. Mark wards false friends I try my best to explain it in how it meant back then. I still use the kjv because our church still use it, because I believe in the TR position and maybe because it just sound majestic and sounds like the bible, it's different. That's just me though.
At 16:50 to 17:12 Ward says, "Who is making me choose? Why not both?! ... I decided to promote the use of the embarrassment of riches we have in English bible translations." In Genesis 3, the serpent starts out with, "Yea hath God said ... ?" then goes to, "Ye shall not surely die: ... ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Now if Eve had said, "We don't need to eat from this tree, we can eat from the Tree of Life" as an objection, the serpent might have said, "Who is making you choose?"
That's an odd analogy. The woman actually says, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden." In other words, they were allowed to eat from an abundance of trees, and it's only one tree that they weren't allowed to use for food. So this is far more like someone saying, "We can use every Bible translation except for the NWT," only for the serpent to suggest that it's as reliable as the orthodox ones. The woman had no need to be a Life Tree Onlyist in order to avoid the Tree of Knowledge.
I think “Covenant Baptist “ and the fact he mentions “1689” in the first few seconds should have given you a clue to the perspective they are coming from. They aren’t trying to hide anything. We “Calvinists” don’t want to hide God’s freedom to overcome anyone’s resistance to salvation. He does it every day!
@matthewlindquist9702 No one can resist God. According to Calvinist teaching, people sin because God created that way. There's no good news in Calvinism
Thank you for the interview. I appreciate the ability to comment here. I have a few thoughts which I would love to discuss. What Bible reads on the plowboy level? It seems strange to talk like this but then give a young kid an ESV. The ESV is not comprehensive to young children throughout. Possibly it is more comprehensive than the KJV, but this just seems like gaslighting. Leland Ryken (an editor of the ESV), argued that the vast majority of those who use this supposed Tyndale quote actually abuse it. “The statement about the plowboy is not a comment about Tyndale’s preferred style for an English Bible. It is not a designation of teenage farm boys as a target audience for a niche Bible. Those misconceptions are the projections of modern partisans for a colloquial and simplified English Bible.” He goes on to argue that “It is instead a comment about how widely Tyndale wanted the English Bible to be disseminated in English society. Tyndale was not making a bow to farm boys. He was using a particular example to make the general point that he wanted the whole cross section of the English population to have access to the Bible.” 1 Corinthians 14 does teach edification requires intelligibility in a specific context. But again, if we push that to mean we cannot say any word which the most ignorant in the Church gathering would find unintelligible than we might as well throw out all Bibles. I personally do not believe it is talking about Scripture anyway, I believe it is talking about speaking or preaching, not reading or quoting Scripture. The preface of the KJV was written by Miles Smith. That was just a historical error by Bro. Ward. Several translators died before it was written and some even disagreed in tone or content with the preface. Tradition is not wrong if it does not go against the Bible. It seems like Bro. Ward was attempting to strongman the argument there. These are all words which have suffered some semantic shift, but are in modern translations: Remove (NKJV), Landmark (NKJV), Heresies (MEV, NKJV, SKJV), Cattle (LSB, NET, NASB), Necessities (WEB), Study (MEV), Counsel (MEV), Mansions (NKJV), rumor (MEV), peculiar (MEV), followers (MEV), Bruise (MEV), Brethren (RSVCE, NMB, NCB), Passengers (MEV), rage (CSB, ESV), Imaginations (MEV), issues (MEV), Host (MEV).
The proper question would be this: Are the modern translations that trace back to Tyndale's New Testament (RSV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, ESV, MEV, etc.) as clear to the everyman of today as Tyndale's work was to the "plowboy" of his time? If they're notably less clear, then they need to be revised accordingly. If they're notably clearer, then they may have gone too far. (It's also important to consider how clear the Hebrew and Greek were to their initial audiences, to be sure.) From my experience, these versions are just about where they need to be in terms of difficulty, but you may beg to differ. They do indeed contain a few archaisms, but certainly not on the level of the KJV. They're all about comparable on that front, with some a tad more dated and others a tad more modern. It is thus best to compare them based on their actual merits (textual basis, theological leanings, and so on).
@@MAMoreno It seems like you are changing the subject. You are talking about something Ward is not. Ward is saying if it is unintelligible to the plowboy, you are saying let's compare the plowboy's comprehension then to now. As long as we understand that we are discussing something different than what Ward presented and my question regarding his teaching, than I am find to approach this alternative view as well. Tyndale had to create some language for his text (Passover etc.) and in some places just wanted to do so (see his insistence on using seniors instead of priests). Thomas More complained of Tyndale that "all England list now to go to school with Tyndale to learn English" and "Tyndale must in his English translation take his English words as they signify in English, rather than as the words signify in the tongue out of which they were taken in to the English". Later on John Cheke insisted in English words being used. "In writing English none but English words should be used, thinking it a dishonour to our mother tongue to be beholden to other nations for their words and phrases to express our minds. Upon this account, Cheke seemed to dislike the English translation of the Bible, because in it were so many foreign words." At times Tyndale was well aware of the shortcomings of his language, "of a truth senior is no very good English". In his preface he said, "In time to come (if God have appointed us thereunto) we will give it his full shape... to seek in certain places more proper English, and with a table to expound the words which are not commonly used and show how the Scripture useth many words which are otherwise understood of the common people, and to help with a declaration where one tongue taketh not another". David Norton summarizes the situation in the 1500s well, “The English people of the sixteenth century were learning a new English. However simple the language of the Protestant translators may now seem (archaisms apart), it had much in it that the people had to learn before they could understand and appreciate it.” Apparently Norton thinks that people today see the language of the Bibles in the 1500s as simple, but they were not viewed that way in the 1500s. What about 1600s and the KJV? The Puritan William Sclater, just 8 years after the KJV was first printed, would incidentally point out that there were still words in the KJV which were unintelligible to the common people, “But how apparent is it, even where the meanes of knowledge have beene most plentifull, wee are many, such as need to be instructed; shall I say in the rudiments of Christian faith? yea, surely in the very language of Scripture. Insomuch that to this day, the termes of Redemption, Vocation, Justification, are strange to our people; and wee seeme Barbarians, when we mention these things in their eares.” Let me ask you, If you were to mention any of those words, would you be looked at like a Barbarian? In fact the NIV and ESV use two of those. The Italian Calvinist Giovanni Diodati made a translation of the Italian Bible in 1607 and was written soon after by a friend asking him about a few words he couldn't find in his dictionary. In 1626 he revised the French text of Job. Again some of his friends complained that he had changed words "to others which are not French". The KJV uses some words like "presbytery" which were not in a single English Bible before 1611 and seems to be first found in a lexical source in 1596. They also used the word "propitiation" which was only used once in the Bishops and no other previous Bible and phrases like "fat of kidneys of wheat" which was never an idiom in English. John Selden, a friend of several translators, said, “There is no Book so translated as the Bible for the purpose. If I translate a French Book into English, I turn it into English Phrase, not into French English [Il fait froid] I say ‘tis cold, not, it makes cold, but the Bible is rather translated into English Words, than into English Phrase. The Hebraisms are kept, and the Phrase of that Language is kept: As for Example [He uncovered her Shame] which is well enough, so long as Scholars have to do with it; but when it comes among the Common People, Lord, what Gear do they make of it!”. Who is the plowboy of today? I suppose we would be talking about somebody who most likely can read and has at least an education up to 12th grade. Who was the plowboy in the 1500-1700s? A person who never attended an institutional school and most likely could not read at all. I truly believe (aside from a few words) the KJV is more comprehensive and legible today to the average plowboy than it was in 1611 to the average plowboy. Maybe I am wrong on that. Who knows. Adam Nicolson wrote, “[The King James Bible’s] English is there to serve the original not to replace it. It speaks in its master’s voice and is not the English you would have heard on the street, then or ever...These scholars were not pulling the language of the scriptures into the English they knew and used at home... It was, in other words, more important to make English godly than to make the words of God into the sort of prose that any Englishmen would have written...” Leland Ryken agrees, “The vocabulary is predominantly noncolloquial...The goal of the King James translators was to be answerable to the reverence with which they believed people should approach a sacred text. In their view, the Bible should sound like the Bible, not something as casual as a gossip session in the corner coffee shop.” I personally find a lot of things valuable in a translation. Beauty is one. Wallace has talked about how the RV was too literal and nobody wanted to read it because it lost the beauty. Accuracy and legibility are others. KJV scholar David Norton defends some of the ambiguity in the text by saying, “Equally what may appear bad through incomprehensibility or sheer ugliness often comes from its earnest fidelity to the originals.” Robert Alter commenting on the Hebrew text says, “the Bible itself does not generally exhibit the clarity to which its modern translators aspire: the Hebrew writers reveled in the proliferation of meanings, the cultivation of ambiguities, the playing of one sense of a term against another, and this richness is erased in the deceptive antiseptic clarity of the modern versions…”
Mark Ward does not have the guts to debate KJV scholar Thomas Ross. Thomas Ross wrote a couple of long articles defending the KJV, and refuted Mark Ward. Mark Ward is misled.
Most of what Mark said is good. Now in this point... I don't like Mark Ward's liberal stance on Bible translations: That there's a blessing with the plethora of the translations we have. Mark is overlooking a lot of translations that are just corrupt. For example, when you simplify or dumb down the Scriptures so much there's going to be something lost. Most contemporary translations are making translations like childrens' bibles. I am trying to point out that you cannot do that without loss of meaning. I know this biblical translation work because I do it on a daily basis; and I see these translations add or delete difficult words and phrases. I'm just telling it as it is. I believe the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB) and others are trying to be faithful to the original.
Notice how Mark seemed a little uncertain about the question about how he came to love the bible. If you listen very carefully to him in the first five minutes of this video, this seems to be a guy that loves intellectual pursuits and scholarship, but there's nothing from him about loving the Lord Jesus or wanting to help spread the Gospel and grow the church, or even at a personal level to come to know the Lord better. Mark strikes me as the kind of guy that grew up in a Christian home but never actually got saved; this can lead to a lot of head knowledge without heart knowledge, hence his passions seem too far in the intellectual direction with seemingly no drive for evangelistic work (perhaps because he's never repented and believed himself?). Mark, perhaps you could share with us your conversion story some time?
I would say that it is grossly sinful to question a man's salvation because of a speech pattern, and on top of that an ignorance of his life. You need to repent, friend. You have slandered a faithful believer.
Does everyone notice how JohnSivewright is simply throwing shade, that he has not actually spent time with any of Mark's content, that he is simply a crusader for the tradition of men? Is JohnSivewright even a Christian? I wonder how he feels when people doubt his salvation? "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, AFTER THE TRATITION OF MEN, after the rudiments of the world, AND NOT AFTER CHRIST." -- KJV
I've probably watched at least 40 videos of Mark's or that he's appeared in and I've not once heard any kind of witness or Gospel presentation - no evidence that the guy has actually been born again. Hey, I'd really appreciate a link if you know of a video where he does as I obviously hope he is the Lord's, but I'm always wary of people that may not be saved trying to teach anything Christian.@@matthewlindquist9702
@JohnSivewright Don't let the Mark Ward fan boys get you down. They are just mad because he has been spinning his wheels and making little progress the last several years.
@@ElSiv84 Mark Ward gives his testimony in the video "Mark Ward on Iron Sharpens Iron Radio with Chris Arnzen: KJV-Onlyism and Confessional Bibliology."
Weight of history shows God's preserved word is the KJV. Any new translation must be a revision of KJV, not RSV, not NIV, not critical text whatever, not new. Words change, my Mom's old Bible had small stars on a word, as a footnote gave a word equivalent word. So, a revision isn't out of possibly, only that. Motives beyond that, like the Bible isn't reliable without totally new translations would be questionable.
Where in the bible does it tell you that the KJV is God's preserved word? (That's ruckmanism, and it's a false teaching at best.) 'History' can't bind the conscience of believers. So why are you trying to do so without biblical mandate?
The Bible was not written in KJ English. Or any English, since it did not exist. Please stop repeating this nonsense. I am so tired of seeing it over and over and over.
Be very wary of Mark Ward. A quick look on his RUclips channel shows that literally all he ever makes videos about is bible translations and textual criticism. Consider what he doesn't produce any content about: - Gospel preaching and evangelism - Bible exposition - Apologetics - His own personal witness for Christ Now, a Christian RUclipsr doesn't need to cover all that ground, but at least some of it would be the fruit of a productive Christian RUclips ministry. The fact that Mark hasn't posted a single video on any of those subjects is worrying to me. Is he even a Christian? Does he have any interest in reaching lost souls or building up fellow believers? Or is he just wanting to stir trouble and division among the body of Christ?
I would encourage you to more thoroughly evaluate Mark Ward’s YT channel and numerous interviews and lecture before concluding some of what you’ve said.
Why do you believe that plumber needs to fix your engine? Or a fisherman needs to make wine? Mark Ward's channel has its work, and those things are not the work to be done.
@@ozrithclay6921 Gospel preaching is always work to be done. Any Christian RUclipsr worth his/her salt will occasionally give a Gospel message or personal testimony. One Gospel video from Mark that saves one soul would be worth 100 of his videos on bible translations.
@JohnSivewright since the Bible is the word of God and contains the Gospel message, I'd say that Dr. Ward's work is important! We must have translations that are accurate and intelligible in order to understand and present the Gospel message!
Mark Ward is a tremendous asset to the Kingdom of God at large - fantastic interview!
Thank you Mark for sharing your informed insights into currently available translations for evangelical Christians. May God bless you.
I watch dozens of videos about the bible every week. The Holy Spirit is not mentioned at all in most of them. Thank you Mark. In your answer to the first question, you mentioned the Holy Spirit. Love you brother.
This interview is so helpful Mark Ward, you've given listeners so many great points. Many thanks to you for the thought-provoking answers, and to the interviewer for asking great questions!
Mark, I paused the video to comment on you saying (paraphrased) that you wish we had a pope to decipher some of these idiosynchracies within translations, a pope who would say, this is correct, or that is not. And my immediate response was, well, we do! We have someone better than the pope living inside all of us, and that is the Holy Spirit of the Living God, the One who _knows_ the mind of the Father! The Holy Spirit can, does, and will _guide_ us into all truth. He is the "teacher of all men." Hallelujah!
I hope that if possible we can get him to read Dr Renihan book The Mystery of Christ .
Dr Ward has ben an enormous influence and I’d be grateful if he were to appear on your program again.
Dr Ward's work is important because the language of the KJV is different from the language spoken by many of its readers.
The apostle Paul to the Church of What's Happening Now, How's it going? Right on.
Appreciate your work Mark.
I don't.
The KJV is the word of God.
Common sense says God's word is in 1 English translation.
Ward got brainwashed in a seminary.
@19bmase Shelving bill.
@@thedogbarber English?
@19bmase Curtains can transmission scissor edge mainly then. Yesterday asphalt.
@@thedogbarber Classy.
I must say you're in poor category for denying God's perfect word in the KJV, and then using an insult that vile people use.
Are you saved?
May I suggest some advice for a person looking for the right Bible translation(s). [You will need more than one, once you get going.]
1) Ask your PASTOR for his advice.
1a) Make an appointment! You want adequate time, not just a minute after a service; serious counsel, not just a quip off the top of his head.
2) To begin reading any translation, get a red ballpoint pen, and study the PREFACE, making notes in the margin.
2a) You want a translation which makes Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles SPEAK God's word to your overall circumstances and personal situation.
2b) You do NOT want a translation which IMPOSES the latest fads and fancies of modern culture, onto the Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles!
3) Read the Bible EVERY DAY!
3a) If possible, read the Bible at least once a YEAR. [Takes about 60 hours to read the Bible.]
3b) Make notes in the margins; mark verses which really speak to your heart.
3c) MEMORIZE twelve verses which are most important to you at this time in your Christian life.
Thank you,friend.🌹☀️🌟🔥🌹
If English Bible translations were Star Wars characters... 😋
* ESV = Yoda. Knowledgeable and wise, comes from a long and venerable heritage (Tyndale-KJV), but often talks backwards.
* NASB = C3PO. Technically precise, popular with fellow robotic eggheads, but too literal-minded and woodenly awkward. NASB 2020 is C3PO with a smooth talking chip installed.
* LSB = K3PO. A different shade or color of C3PO in a land far, far away, i.e. Southern California, but every once in a while throws in a foreign or exotic sounding word and becomes obsessively consistent in repeating the exact same word over and over again as if it's glitching.
* NET = R2D2. Said to be the robot's robot (the translator's translation), plugs in and interfaces with the latest tech, but most people don't really use it, per se, they only use it for its technical tools (NET notes).
* CSB/HCSB = Mace Windu. Boldly willing to take risks, even if it breaks with tradition (e.g. John 3:16, Rom 3:25), has a strong fan base within certain factions (SBC), but otherwise less popular than one might think.
* NIV = Han Solo. Broadly popular, plain spoken and easy to follow, effectively gets the job done without any fancy acrobatics, but sometimes seems to be shady and may be smuggling illicit pronouns.
* NLT = Ewoks. Communicates with simple expressions, not the most technically proficient, but heart is in the right place and once in a while pleasantly surprises everyone.
* KJV = Darth Vader. Once thought to be the chosen one, speaks in an authoritative voice, but took a turn to the dark side when it began lording it over anyone who doesn't fall in line with the one true imperial text, the KJV Only.
* NKJV = Dark Helmet. On the one hand, it's a new and improved Vader. On the other hand, it looks like Vader lite.
* NRSV/NRSVue = Kylo Ren. Let the past die, forward thinking and progressive, but lack of faith is disturbing.
* Biblical Hebrew and Greek = Chewbacca. The most powerful warrior in terms of brute strength, but a bit woolly sounding to most people and as such needs a translator to understand.
💛😹🫡
Yes !!!!!
"I still quote the KJV because it's what I grew up with"
Agree that using several translations is wise. For KJV onlyists, if your bible has the word "ghost" in it, you might not have a pure translation. I've really been impressed with the newest Modern English Version (MEV).
You have been impressed with the newest Modern English Version?
What was wrong with older MEV translations? 'Newest' implies at least two earlier versions. Were they wrong or incorrect?
Is this latest, greatest version the Word of God yet? Or do we wait for another?
I think I will stay with the one that doesn't keep changing, thank you.
Language keeps changing...
Holy Ghost & Holy Spirit are mathematically verified as the correct translation.
@@bigtobacco1098 Language keeps changing ... and?
Dictionaries then are useless? The words in the King James Bible do not keep changing, even when those in yours do. So a good dictionary doesn't even have to keep up, if you look up English words from the English Word of God, the King James Bible.
It is a *weak* excuse you hide behind. Your logic falls totally in line with the concept of "translation of the month."
@warnerchandler9826 exactly... just look up the words in Greek
My fav expository teacher attended Bob Jones...John Barnett
An NASB for a word to word choice and perhaps CSB or NIV on the dynamic side and one more in between seems like a good compromise. The NKJV might be a good choice but most times that middle choice might be whatever version is used by your home church.
NKJV y ESV me parecen buenas versiones en inglés, pero como mi lengua materna es español les recomiendo Reina Valera Gómez. Lamento NO haber escuchado en la entrevista que las diferencias que SI importan tienen que ver con el texto base del cual se hizo la traducción (algo obvio tal vez para un traductor pero no para un lector de a pie). Saludos y bendiciones desde México 🇲🇽
Mark, could you share what your understanding is of why the verses of Mark 16:9-16 are included in many Bibles, including the KJV, when many early manuscripts omit these verses? If you have time....thanks....
Remove those verses and have the Gospel of Mark with 666 verses. They are 100% scriptural writ.
🌹☀️🌟☀️🌹
ruclips.net/video/PndCZBLHVBk/видео.htmlsi=OFN-EI0NUqyQBYVC
Great interview… I like the KJV preached from the pulpit with a pastor that identifies the false friends and explains them. I’m also fine with the congregation having a bible they can read.
Assuming the pastor knows each and every one of them.
Any relationship to Mathew Ward?
Most of us gain insights every time we read the Bible, does Mark Ward believe he fully understand the Bible fully after reading the niv once?
I didn't realize Mark was wanting to remove the reading of the King James Bible from pulpits. There's more to translations than words. Style also counts for something. The King James Bible is the best English translation overall. It's also the best to read from the pulpit. It wouldn't be difficult for a pastor to explain a particular passage using other translations after a problematic reading.
The issue I have is the vast majority of KJVO pastors don't know all the ways the KJV language differs from current English.
How many of them read "Study to show thyself approved..." and point out "study" meant "work hard" or "be diligent"?
I was raised in a KJV only church and currently in a church that primarily preaches from the KJV, but uses others occasionally for clarity. In both cases, false friends are continually missed.
@@ozrithclay6921I was guilty of that but thanks to dr. Mark wards false friends I try my best to explain it in how it meant back then. I still use the kjv because our church still use it, because I believe in the TR position and maybe because it just sound majestic and sounds like the bible, it's different. That's just me though.
At 16:50 to 17:12 Ward says, "Who is making me choose? Why not both?! ... I decided to promote the use of the embarrassment of riches we have in English bible translations."
In Genesis 3, the serpent starts out with, "Yea hath God said ... ?" then goes to, "Ye shall not surely die: ... ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."
Now if Eve had said, "We don't need to eat from this tree, we can eat from the Tree of Life" as an objection, the serpent might have said, "Who is making you choose?"
That's an odd analogy. The woman actually says, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden." In other words, they were allowed to eat from an abundance of trees, and it's only one tree that they weren't allowed to use for food. So this is far more like someone saying, "We can use every Bible translation except for the NWT," only for the serpent to suggest that it's as reliable as the orthodox ones. The woman had no need to be a Life Tree Onlyist in order to avoid the Tree of Knowledge.
Both men are Calvinists. But they use language that doesn't let us know that their Calvinists
What makes you say that?
I feel lead to warn you to be careful not to slander.
It's very clear that they're coming from a Reformed perspective.
I think “Covenant Baptist “ and the fact he mentions “1689” in the first few seconds should have given you a clue to the perspective they are coming from. They aren’t trying to hide anything. We “Calvinists” don’t want to hide God’s freedom to overcome anyone’s resistance to salvation. He does it every day!
Come out of your cage, friend.
@matthewlindquist9702 No one can resist God. According to Calvinist teaching, people sin because God created that way.
There's no good news in Calvinism
Thank you for the interview. I appreciate the ability to comment here. I have a few thoughts which I would love to discuss.
What Bible reads on the plowboy level? It seems strange to talk like this but then give a young kid an ESV. The ESV is not comprehensive to young children throughout. Possibly it is more comprehensive than the KJV, but this just seems like gaslighting. Leland Ryken (an editor of the ESV), argued that the vast majority of those who use this supposed Tyndale quote actually abuse it. “The statement about the plowboy is not a comment about Tyndale’s preferred style for an English Bible. It is not a designation of teenage farm boys as a target audience for a niche Bible. Those misconceptions are the projections of modern partisans for a colloquial and simplified English Bible.” He goes on to argue that “It is instead a comment about how widely Tyndale wanted the English Bible to be disseminated in English society. Tyndale was not making a bow to farm boys. He was using a particular example to make the general point that he wanted the whole cross section of the English population to have access to the Bible.”
1 Corinthians 14 does teach edification requires intelligibility in a specific context. But again, if we push that to mean we cannot say any word which the most ignorant in the Church gathering would find unintelligible than we might as well throw out all Bibles. I personally do not believe it is talking about Scripture anyway, I believe it is talking about speaking or preaching, not reading or quoting Scripture.
The preface of the KJV was written by Miles Smith. That was just a historical error by Bro. Ward. Several translators died before it was written and some even disagreed in tone or content with the preface.
Tradition is not wrong if it does not go against the Bible. It seems like Bro. Ward was attempting to strongman the argument there.
These are all words which have suffered some semantic shift, but are in modern translations: Remove (NKJV), Landmark (NKJV), Heresies (MEV, NKJV, SKJV), Cattle (LSB, NET, NASB), Necessities (WEB), Study (MEV), Counsel (MEV), Mansions (NKJV), rumor (MEV), peculiar (MEV), followers (MEV), Bruise (MEV), Brethren (RSVCE, NMB, NCB), Passengers (MEV), rage (CSB, ESV), Imaginations (MEV), issues (MEV), Host (MEV).
The proper question would be this: Are the modern translations that trace back to Tyndale's New Testament (RSV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, ESV, MEV, etc.) as clear to the everyman of today as Tyndale's work was to the "plowboy" of his time? If they're notably less clear, then they need to be revised accordingly. If they're notably clearer, then they may have gone too far. (It's also important to consider how clear the Hebrew and Greek were to their initial audiences, to be sure.)
From my experience, these versions are just about where they need to be in terms of difficulty, but you may beg to differ. They do indeed contain a few archaisms, but certainly not on the level of the KJV. They're all about comparable on that front, with some a tad more dated and others a tad more modern. It is thus best to compare them based on their actual merits (textual basis, theological leanings, and so on).
@@MAMoreno It seems like you are changing the subject. You are talking about something Ward is not. Ward is saying if it is unintelligible to the plowboy, you are saying let's compare the plowboy's comprehension then to now. As long as we understand that we are discussing something different than what Ward presented and my question regarding his teaching, than I am find to approach this alternative view as well.
Tyndale had to create some language for his text (Passover etc.) and in some places just wanted to do so (see his insistence on using seniors instead of priests). Thomas More complained of Tyndale that "all England list now to go to school with Tyndale to learn English" and "Tyndale must in his English translation take his English words as they signify in English, rather than as the words signify in the tongue out of which they were taken in to the English". Later on John Cheke insisted in English words being used. "In writing English none but English words should be used, thinking it a dishonour to our mother tongue to be beholden to other nations for their words and phrases to express our minds. Upon this account, Cheke seemed to dislike the English translation of the Bible, because in it were so many foreign words." At times Tyndale was well aware of the shortcomings of his language, "of a truth senior is no very good English". In his preface he said, "In time to come (if God have appointed us thereunto) we will give it his full shape... to seek in certain places more proper English, and with a table to expound the words which are not commonly used and show how the Scripture useth many words which are otherwise understood of the common people, and to help with a declaration where one tongue taketh not another".
David Norton summarizes the situation in the 1500s well, “The English people of the sixteenth century were learning a new English. However simple the language of the Protestant translators may now seem (archaisms apart), it had much in it that the people had to learn before they could understand and appreciate it.” Apparently Norton thinks that people today see the language of the Bibles in the 1500s as simple, but they were not viewed that way in the 1500s.
What about 1600s and the KJV?
The Puritan William Sclater, just 8 years after the KJV was first printed, would incidentally point out that there were still words in the KJV which were unintelligible to the common people, “But how apparent is it, even where the meanes of knowledge have beene most plentifull, wee are many, such as need to be instructed; shall I say in the rudiments of Christian faith? yea, surely in the very language of Scripture. Insomuch that to this day, the termes of Redemption, Vocation, Justification, are strange to our people; and wee seeme Barbarians, when we mention these things in their eares.” Let me ask you, If you were to mention any of those words, would you be looked at like a Barbarian? In fact the NIV and ESV use two of those. The Italian Calvinist Giovanni Diodati made a translation of the Italian Bible in 1607 and was written soon after by a friend asking him about a few words he couldn't find in his dictionary. In 1626 he revised the French text of Job. Again some of his friends complained that he had changed words "to others which are not French". The KJV uses some words like "presbytery" which were not in a single English Bible before 1611 and seems to be first found in a lexical source in 1596. They also used the word "propitiation" which was only used once in the Bishops and no other previous Bible and phrases like "fat of kidneys of wheat" which was never an idiom in English. John Selden, a friend of several translators, said, “There is no Book so translated as the Bible for the purpose. If I translate a French Book into English, I turn it into English Phrase, not into French English [Il fait froid] I say ‘tis cold, not, it makes cold, but the Bible is rather translated into English Words, than into English Phrase. The Hebraisms are kept, and the Phrase of that Language is kept: As for Example [He uncovered her Shame] which is well enough, so long as Scholars have to do with it; but when it comes among the Common People, Lord, what Gear do they make of it!”.
Who is the plowboy of today? I suppose we would be talking about somebody who most likely can read and has at least an education up to 12th grade. Who was the plowboy in the 1500-1700s? A person who never attended an institutional school and most likely could not read at all. I truly believe (aside from a few words) the KJV is more comprehensive and legible today to the average plowboy than it was in 1611 to the average plowboy. Maybe I am wrong on that. Who knows. Adam Nicolson wrote, “[The King James Bible’s] English is there to serve the original not to replace it. It speaks in its master’s voice and is not the English you would have heard on the street, then or ever...These scholars were not pulling the language of the scriptures into the English they knew and used at home... It was, in other words, more important to make English godly than to make the words of God into the sort of prose that any Englishmen would have written...” Leland Ryken agrees, “The vocabulary is predominantly noncolloquial...The goal of the King James translators was to be answerable to the reverence with which they believed people should approach a sacred text. In their view, the Bible should sound like the Bible, not something as casual as a gossip session in the corner coffee shop.”
I personally find a lot of things valuable in a translation. Beauty is one. Wallace has talked about how the RV was too literal and nobody wanted to read it because it lost the beauty. Accuracy and legibility are others. KJV scholar David Norton defends some of the ambiguity in the text by saying, “Equally what may appear bad through incomprehensibility or sheer ugliness often comes from its earnest fidelity to the originals.” Robert Alter commenting on the Hebrew text says, “the Bible itself does not generally exhibit the clarity to which its modern translators aspire: the Hebrew writers reveled in the proliferation of meanings, the cultivation of ambiguities, the playing of one sense of a term against another, and this richness is erased in the deceptive antiseptic clarity of the modern versions…”
Why the ghastly rock music?!
Mark Ward does not have the guts to debate KJV scholar Thomas Ross.
Thomas Ross wrote a couple of long articles defending the KJV, and refuted Mark Ward.
Mark Ward is misled.
Most of what Mark said is good. Now in this point... I don't like Mark Ward's liberal stance on Bible translations: That there's a blessing with the plethora of the translations we have. Mark is overlooking a lot of translations that are just corrupt. For example, when you simplify or dumb down the Scriptures so much there's going to be something lost.
Most contemporary translations are making translations like childrens' bibles. I am trying to point out that you cannot do that without loss of meaning. I know this biblical translation work because I do it on a daily basis; and I see these translations add or delete difficult words and phrases. I'm just telling it as it is.
I believe the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB) and others are trying to be faithful to the original.
Notice how Mark seemed a little uncertain about the question about how he came to love the bible. If you listen very carefully to him in the first five minutes of this video, this seems to be a guy that loves intellectual pursuits and scholarship, but there's nothing from him about loving the Lord Jesus or wanting to help spread the Gospel and grow the church, or even at a personal level to come to know the Lord better.
Mark strikes me as the kind of guy that grew up in a Christian home but never actually got saved; this can lead to a lot of head knowledge without heart knowledge, hence his passions seem too far in the intellectual direction with seemingly no drive for evangelistic work (perhaps because he's never repented and believed himself?). Mark, perhaps you could share with us your conversion story some time?
I would say that it is grossly sinful to question a man's salvation because of a speech pattern, and on top of that an ignorance of his life. You need to repent, friend. You have slandered a faithful believer.
Does everyone notice how JohnSivewright is simply throwing shade, that he has not actually spent time with any of Mark's content, that he is simply a crusader for the tradition of men?
Is JohnSivewright even a Christian?
I wonder how he feels when people doubt his salvation?
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, AFTER THE TRATITION OF MEN, after the rudiments of the world, AND NOT AFTER CHRIST." -- KJV
I've probably watched at least 40 videos of Mark's or that he's appeared in and I've not once heard any kind of witness or Gospel presentation - no evidence that the guy has actually been born again. Hey, I'd really appreciate a link if you know of a video where he does as I obviously hope he is the Lord's, but I'm always wary of people that may not be saved trying to teach anything Christian.@@matthewlindquist9702
@JohnSivewright Don't let the Mark Ward fan boys get you down. They are just mad because he has been spinning his wheels and making little progress the last several years.
@@ElSiv84 Mark Ward gives his testimony in the video "Mark Ward on Iron Sharpens Iron Radio with Chris Arnzen: KJV-Onlyism and Confessional Bibliology."
Weight of history shows God's preserved word is the KJV. Any new translation must be a revision of KJV, not RSV, not NIV, not critical text whatever, not new. Words change, my Mom's old Bible had small stars on a word, as a footnote gave a word equivalent word. So, a revision isn't out of possibly, only that. Motives beyond that, like the Bible isn't reliable without totally new translations would be questionable.
Where in the bible does it tell you that the KJV is God's preserved word? (That's ruckmanism, and it's a false teaching at best.) 'History' can't bind the conscience of believers. So why are you trying to do so without biblical mandate?
The Bible was not written in KJ English. Or any English, since it did not exist. Please stop repeating this nonsense. I am so tired of seeing it over and over and over.
We need to take steps?!
Achtung! Goosesteps, jah?
Mark Ward breathes air. Do you know who else breathed air?
You guessed it: the Führer.
Be very wary of Mark Ward. A quick look on his RUclips channel shows that literally all he ever makes videos about is bible translations and textual criticism. Consider what he doesn't produce any content about:
- Gospel preaching and evangelism
- Bible exposition
- Apologetics
- His own personal witness for Christ
Now, a Christian RUclipsr doesn't need to cover all that ground, but at least some of it would be the fruit of a productive Christian RUclips ministry. The fact that Mark hasn't posted a single video on any of those subjects is worrying to me. Is he even a Christian? Does he have any interest in reaching lost souls or building up fellow believers? Or is he just wanting to stir trouble and division among the body of Christ?
I would encourage you to more thoroughly evaluate Mark Ward’s YT channel and numerous interviews and lecture before concluding some of what you’ve said.
@@SEL65545agree. Thanks.
Why do you believe that plumber needs to fix your engine?
Or a fisherman needs to make wine?
Mark Ward's channel has its work, and those things are not the work to be done.
@@ozrithclay6921 Gospel preaching is always work to be done. Any Christian RUclipsr worth his/her salt will occasionally give a Gospel message or personal testimony. One Gospel video from Mark that saves one soul would be worth 100 of his videos on bible translations.
@JohnSivewright since the Bible is the word of God and contains the Gospel message, I'd say that Dr. Ward's work is important! We must have translations that are accurate and intelligible in order to understand and present the Gospel message!