I remember the time when I had read through Psalms chapter 12 and realized the actual context of the chapter and it just so happened to be shortly before the TCC video series came out. It was so reassuring. Just like this video is.
Thanks for all your hard work, Mark. I was checking out a lot of videos over this week from KJV guys responding to your debate and wow. Even if they dislike you so much, 'love thy enemies' was NOT the feeling I was getting while watching their replies. Back on topic, this is a wonderful video. Thank you again.
An excellent, and thorough examination of an issue that frankly I had never encountered before (not having grown up in the same circles as Dr. Ward). It is also nuanced and treats the opposition with grace and dignity. Thank you.
When listening to people standing on their soap box steadfastly declaring what God is or does or says, I cannot help but think of Job's friends doing the same and how God was ready to destroy them over it. Yes, we diligently need to preserve the written word that God has provided to us, but we have to remember to approach it with the utmost humility, humbleness and fear of the Lord that is possible. Because ultimately Jesus is the Word, the true and living Word. This Word is perfect and will not fade .. "so shall My word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: It shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." IS 55:11 All I'm saying, my friends, is just be very careful trying to put God in a box and declaring that you have defined him. It is very very thin ice.
Well done, as usual. If I may, I have a semi-related question. Matt 5:18's "jots and tittles" seems to be a common reference regarding this topic, but am I off base in surmising that this passage has nothing to do with the doctrine of preservation, regardless of one's position? My reasoning is three-fold: 1. Jesus refers to "the law", not all of Scripture, though this in itself is admittedly not an overarching argument, as he refers in v. 17 to both the law and prophets. 2. Jesus says that this law will not pass away "till all be fulfilled", implying, despite the previous phrase "heaven and earth", that there is a finiteness, which he describes in the preceding verse. 3. In v. 17, Jesus says that he came to do that very thing, fulfil the law. Therefore, the law has indeed "passed" with regard to one's standing before God. His fulfillment of the law enabled it to be replaced with grace and truth (John 1:17), thus we are no longer under the law but under grace (Rom 6:14; Gal 3:10-13, etc.). The superiority of Christ and grace / faith over Moses and the law is the whole thrust of the book of Hebrews. I'm not a theologian, so is my interpretation flawed? Thanks.
What you said is a defensible interpretation, but I don't think we even have to go that far. The whole point of Matthew 5.17-19 is that the authority of the Law and Prophets is still in effect. The reference to the Hebrew "jot" and "tittle" is hyperbolic: the point is that even the most minor of commands matters. It's the equivalent of warning someone against "harming one hair on the head" of someone; you're not really talking about the hair at all, but about the person.
This is one of your best videos to date! The deep dive into ancient versions, translations, and interpretations over the centuries is what Bible study is like for me on a regular basis lol. Thank you for this informative and entertaining study of Scripture.
This one has been frustrating over the years because it’s not difficult. If a guy just preaches the entire Psalm rather than prooftexting, the meaning is crystal clear.
Thank you for _everything_ you do, for teaching us, for advocating for good design (type, layout, etc), for taking arrows for us, and for everything in between and beyond. On a related note, I watched a Bible review video (about a different translation) after catching up on some of the post-debate drama yesterday. There was a typical "you should burn your bible" comment. However, this wasn't written by a typical anti-Bible person. A quick look at the commenter's account page revealed he was a preacher who used the KJV. I've seen everything now.
Wow! Just finished this amazing video, Mark. Once again, great research and very well communication. Thanks for being a fellow "word nerd" and the blessing you are on the church.
I hope I forget the day and moment my 15-20 year friendship with a minister took a turn for the worse. Ps 12:6-7 was the problem. I asked how a Psalm that begins with "Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men" could be talking about the preservation of a text that did not exist until approximately 2000 or 2500 years after David's prayer. The response was unexpected and the recoil he physically showed was saddening. "Well, that is your interpretation." To this day, I get nothing but "arm's length Christianity" from that friend.
I don't think you get the credit you deserve for going into such detail about a verse that is plain and simple to understand based on the context but unfortunately the KJV only crowd likes to twist it to mean something that it doesn't so I just want to say thank you for the time and effort you put into these videos I pray the Lord continues to bless you
I sometimes wonder what credit should indeed accrue to someone who rigorously states the obvious. The only people that don't see that the KJV is unnecessarily archaic, for example, are the KJV-Onlyists, so practically every other Christian, especially if they have no experience with KJV-Onlyism, lacks the category to understand what I'm doing and why it matters!
I'm pretty sure the act of opening this video to play was like turning on a fire hydrant of information. In-depth, informative, and incredibly detailed, most assuredly not for the squeamish students. Most of your videos I can go through very well in one session, and I am confident that I got your intent. The lesson depth here requires, perhaps even demands listening again, and then I may have a better grasp of just how all this works. On a surface level, I agree and am impressed by the careful attention to detail. My desire to explain it well or have note points to help others means I'll have to do some additional study myself. Don't back down on the quality of your sound research to push more videos. I believe I speak for many when I say we are grateful for your careful methods. God bless my friend!
This was originally an academic paper, and it hasn't been adjusted much at all for video form. This kind of thing I can't do often unless I can afford to go out on my own-which is something I am praying about!
That's a very nice, thorough expostion. When I read the Hebrew I was struck by use of the words "imarot" - "amarot" and those terms seem to me more like "sayings" of YHVH. A different word would be used for a "word" in the sense of a single speech sound of however many sylables, that conveys a small part of a sentence in a "saying." The YLT also uses "sayings." If so, then in agreement with a point you made, a "saying" of YHVH to promise blessing or warn of trouble might have been presented in various wordings, and still convey the same "saying."
Thank you for yet another insightful and enlightening video. I'm a word nerd, and these "discussions" are all fascinating and interesting to me. I just want to say that I appreciate very much your kind, respectful demeanor. I am sorry that other supposedly Christian brothers or sisters might treat you unkindly or disrespectfully. Jesus certainly wouldn't. May you be encouraged knowing that so many of us appreciate and enjoy the work that you do. May God give you continued grace and strength.
Thank you! Pray for me! I don't always feel kind; I'm tempted to lash out. That's a big reason why I'm (almost completely!) getting out of this debate at the end of the year.
Thank you, Mark. Understanding this was a challenge for me, but l like a challenge and l found your explanations very helpful. Hey PS I'm Australian and had never heard of a plebiscite until we had one in 2017, the first in my lifetime.
Mark thank you for all your hard work you do to defend true biblical literacy, and all the behind the scenes work that nobody thinks about that goes into making and editing the these videos you put out. I can’t imagine the amount of all the hateful comments, and emails you get for this subject. I hope you know that your video’s have do not go out fruitlessly. These videos have driven many Christians into deeper bible studies because of them and they now have a deeper knowledge of Gods word.
I had to be honest with the text and myself that I was taught this text wrongly. As of last November, I came to the conclusion that Psalm 12:7 even using the KJV alone is actually fulfilling the promise Psalm 12:5 to "set him in safety". I think this can be demonstrated using the cross references to Psalm 12:7, which are Psa. 16:1; 17:8; 25:20; 31:23; 32:7; 37:28. Also catch the O LORD from Psalm 12:7 matching Psalm. 17:14; which matches 17:8. This text is not being used properly by TR proponents. Of course scripture teaches the preservation of scripture just not in Psalm 12:7. Notice the Geneva translators study note here left in 1560: 7 Thou wilt keep [a]them, O LORD; thou wilt preserve him from this generation forever. (Geneva Bible 1560) [a] That is, thine though he were but one man. Spurgeon's words ring so true here: Verse 7. To fall into the hands of an evil generation, so as to be baited by their cruelty, or polluted by their influence, is an evil to be dreaded beyond measure; but it is an evil foreseen and provided for in the text. In life many a saint has lived a hundred years before his age, as though he had darted his soul into the brighter future, and escaped the mists of the beclouded present: he has gone to his grave unreverenced and misunderstood, and lo! as generations come and go, upon a sudden the hero is unearthed, and lives in the admiration and love of the excellent of the earth; preserved for ever from the generation which stigmatised him as a sower of sedition, or burned him as a heretic. It should be our daily prayer that we may rise above our age as the mountain-tops above the clouds, and may stand out as heaven-pointing pinnacle high above the mists of ignorance and sin which roll around us. O Eternal Spirit, fulfil in us the faithful saying of this verse! Our faith believes those two assuring words, and cries, "Thou shalt," "thou shalt."
Hello Mark, I recently got a 1952 edition of the Revised Standard Version. I was reading the preface and was surprised to find that it mentioned outdated language and false friends as reasons for revising the KJV. I felt cool that I knew what they were talking about, since I’ve watched a number of your videos. I would encourage to read the preface for yourself and be encouraged by a fellow group who seeks the understanding of the scriptures. Thanks!
The 1885 Revised Version was also aware of the problem, but they decided to err on the side of tradition unless it was likely to create a misunderstanding: *In regard to the language of the Authorised Version, the Revisers have thought it no part of their duty to reduce it to conformity with modern usage, and have therefore left untouched all archaisms, whether of language or construction, which though not in familiar use cause a reader no embarrassment and lead to no misunderstanding. They are aware that in so doing they will disappoint the large English-speaking race on the other side of the Atlantic, and it is a question upon which they are prepared to agree to a friendly difference of opinion.* *The principle by which they have been guided has been clear and consistent. Where an archaic word or expression was liable to be misunderstood or at least was not perfectly intelligible, they have substituted for it another, in equally good use at the time the Authorised Version was made, and expressing all that the archaism was intended to convey, but more familiar to the modern reader. In such cases the gain was greater than the loss.* *But in other instances where the word or expression, although obsolete, was not unintelligible, it was thought that the change would involve greater loss than gain, and the old rendering was therefore allowed to stand. More especially was this the case when the archaism was a perfectly correct rendering of the original and there was no exact modern equivalent for it.* *The principle adopted by the Company will be best illustrated by two typical examples. The verb "to ear" in the sense of "to plough" and the substantive "earing" for "ploughing" were very reluctantly abandoned, and only because it was ascertained that their meaning was unknown to many persons of good intelligence and education.* *But it was easy to put in their place equivalents which had a pedigree of almost equal antiquity, and it would have been an excess of conservatism to refuse to substitute for an unintelligible archaism an expression to which no ambiguity could be attached.* *On the other hand the word "bolled" (Ex. ix. 31), which signifies "podded for seed" and is known in provincial dialects, has no synonym in literary English. To have discarded it in favor of a less accurate or more paraphrastic expression would have been to impoverish the language; and it was therefore left, because it exactly expresses one view which is taken of the meaning of the original.*
Pretty sure I've seen this material before .(for those who don't know, I serve on the executive committee of CATA and was a peer review editor of CATR) . . great job my friend A more 'technical' video but exceptionally well done :-)
Thanks, Mark, for reminding me to read Psalm 12 again with fresh eyes on the clear flow of thought given by David. I'm going through one of the most challenging years in my life personally due to conflict with ungodly and unjust men who seek my destruction, and this Psalm provides enormous comfort in this battle. KJVOs are robbing this Psalm of the intended comfort it was written to provide to God's people, and it has nothing to do with a supposed promise to preserve a perfect copy of the scriptures.
Thanks for another excellent video. Your ability to stick to the facts and not sink to the same level as the many KLV Onlyists is amazing (I don't think I could do it). It is so sad to see the ad-hominin attacks that you have been subjected to, it is shameful that many of those attacks come from men who call themselves "pastor". Keep up the great work and don't let them get to you, you have been doing a great service to the body of Christ and you'll never know how many people you have helped come out of the idolatry that is KJV Onlyism.
@@markwardonwords Thanks for the reminder, I have a problem with that sometimes... but with the help of people like you and the Word and Spirit keeps me from crushing them like bugs and rather to pray for them. Thank you again and keep up the great work, I'm looking forward to what's next for you. I think you've done all you can with the KJV Onlyists and you had mentioned that you would be moving on and I agree, you don't want to get bogged down in this forever. Keep us up to date on your next project!
@@markwardonwords Mark, I have been patiently waiting for a video from you on this particular subject. You certainly did not disappoint. I do not believe I have seen such a thorough study of this particular subject anywhere. Thank you so much! Also, please keep us posted about the availability of the article.
Hi Mark, I have a question regarding the ESV's translation of Revelation 13:8. Did they intentionally translate it as "before the foundation of the world" instead of "from the foundation of the world"? Was there a specific reason or agenda behind this choice? Thanks for your great work here!
There was no Calvinist agenda behind it. Here's why: the RSV already read that way. The ESV didn't change a thing. In fact, that wording first appeared in the ASV (breaking from how it read in the English RV). The other major revisions of the ASV agree. ASV: And all that dwell on the earth shall worship him, every one whose name hath not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that hath been slain. RSV: and all who dwell on earth will worship it, every one whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain. ESV: and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain. NASB20: All who live on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slaughtered. NRSVue: and all the inhabitants of the earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slaughtered.
And if you're concerned specifically about translating ἀπὸ as "before," I'd direct you to Revelation 17.8, where the RSV and ESV translate it as "from" in the exact same context (names written in the book of life). I don't think they were trying to communicate anything in particular by choosing the word "before" in the first case (though maybe they were taking a cue from the verses that use πρὸ instead of ἀπὸ in this phrase, such as John 17.24, Ephesians 1.4, and 1 Peter 1.20; these verses probably mean the same thing, regardless of the nuance conveyed by each preposition).
Thank you @@MAMoreno. I think "from the foundation of the world" suggests a point of origin, while "before the foundation of the world" implies a temporal relationship that can obscure the idea of a specific starting point. The ESV and RSV's choice to harmonize the translation in this case seems inconsistent, especially when you look at Revelation 17:8, where they correctly used "from." It would be better if essentially literal translations prioritized fidelity to the original language, maintaining the distinct meanings of terms rather than smoothing over differences that could impact theological interpretation.
@@timotimy254 Strictly speaking, I would agree, but I don't think that it's a particularly big deal in this case. I suppose you could argue that we shouldn't read the theology of Ephesians (which says we are chosen in Christ "before the foundation of the world") into the theology of Revelation (which says that our names were written in the book of life "from the foundation of the world"). I'm not convinced that they're legitimately in conflict; do you perhaps think that we were corporately elected in a time before the foundation of the world, then individually elected as the foundation of the world began? Or do you just feel we must keep one's theology clearly distinct from the other's theology?
Psalms 12:5-7 (GNB) 5 "But now I will come," says the LORD, "because the needy are oppressed and the persecuted groan in pain. I will give them the security they long for." 6 The promises of the LORD can be trusted; they are as genuine as silver refined seven times in the furnace. 7 (7-8) The wicked are everywhere, and everyone praises what is evil. Keep us always safe, O LORD, and preserve us from such people.
In addition to the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible (which Mark Ward linked), there is also the Cambridge Clarion (which is far more expensive). They contain both the translation notes and the preface. The marginal notes show up in some non-Cambridge editions, too, such as The Matthew Henry Study Bible. Unfortunately, that edition doesn't have the original preface. If you want to check if an edition has the set of 1611 notes before buying it, looking for the following marginal notes on the first page or so (tied to Genesis 1.4-11): 1. Heb. between the light and between the darkness 2. Heb. And the evening was, and the morning was, etc. 3. Heb. expansion 4. Heb. tender grass
May I ask Dr. Ward, what your opinion is of the ECM and its methodology which I can only assume will incorporate AI at some point in the future. Do you feel it would be theologically sound to expect the God who inspired the very words of scripture to leave his church without a text that she could be certain of only to have it “rediscovered” by an algorithm?
1. I feel confident that computers will only ever assist humans in this work; humans will make the final decisions. 2. Computers have already been assisting humans in this work, simply by remembering tons of data. 3. The computers are not inventing readings; they are only looking at existing readings. And in a way they're not even doing that; mainly they are trying to establish likely relationships among manuscripts. None of this means that humans are outsourcing decisions about the Bible to computers. It means we are using our God-given powers of reason combined with our God-given ability to develop and use powerful tools. I see these as fundamentally good things.
@ thank you for the response Dr. Ward. I do understand that there is much editing, deliberation, thought, and reasoning given to the final decision. I also agree that the means and gifts that you listed are God given to the folks working in that project. But the one means that troubles my conscience to think may be lacking it the process is prayer. I feel that this method leans far far too heavily on human reasoning which, granted, is a gift of God although corrupted and fallible due to the fall. At the end of the day, do they stop to ask, “Father, is this right”.
@@rickyfielderjr6428 Obviously, any non-Christians involved in this work are not praying. And if they are, it's not helping. But I know many evangelical Christians involved in this work. And they are praying men and women. They take this with the utmost seriousness. Peter Gurry, John Meade, and Dirk Jongkind are just a few names involved in this work. Check them out on RUclips. See if you get the sense that they are praying men!
I think context of Psalm 12:6-7 should be descripted with this verse As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him. (Psalm 18:30 KJV) As for God, his way is perfect. The word of Yahweh is tried. He is a shield to all those who take refuge in him. (Psalm 18:30 WEB) So, meaning in "Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them" in Psalm 12:7 should be "You shall keep and preserve all of us from this wick generation forever."
@markwardonwords As a majority text supporter who has used the NKJV mostly (due to its common usage) I am wondering if you have looked at (or reviewed) The Text-Critical English New Testament - Byzantine Text Version? Based on the Robinson-Pierpoint Greek text, it has a few unique features. Other than being a MT translation it’s copious footnotes actually show the percentage of manuscripts supporting certain variants of the text and it has a a specific text type to indicate the difference between second person singular and second person plural pronouns.
My guy mark I love your approach to the bible and how you try your best to be honest and transparent as best you can I love that man Ive learned a-lot from you but I do have a question. what do you do when you are studying different versions and come across as we found in the video you did about 2weeks ago about the kjv parallel bible verses that seem as tho they are changing the bible completely as KJV Onlyist like to say especailly when you are not meaning me and others are not scholars on greek and english translation, transliteration, or any other ways translators come to conclusion of how to translate a word into english if their is no word for the greek word. Would love to hear your answer
I had to wait until the very end to hear what I was waiting for -- mentioning what the KJV translators put in the margin at verse 7! Nice way to end the video!
My brain does not have the disc space right now to follow all of this. But just as a general comment, this is why we should never quote isolated verses. I admit this scared me. For a split second, I thought I had misunderstood something my whole life. I love the first part of the verse especially, because I hang on to God's Word like a lifeline of truth. If it's not true, my life has been pointless. I thought maybe I had misunderstood the first portion, that God's Word is NOT pure. But at least, from the about half* that I was able to get through this video, that's not what's being said or addressed. After re-reading the whole Psalm in various verses, the meaning is clear that it's talking about the poor/needy/oppressed, which is what's in the rest of the Psalm. Even in the KJV, you can see that, even though it's a bit wonky with the old fashioned wording. I am even comfortable with some ambiguity, since the point about God's Word being preserved/trustworthy/true can be made from many other angles. *Finished it. tl;dr People, just read the whole Psalm!
Hey, Mark. Great information as always! I was wondering if you had any other social media accounts? I looked on IG and FB but didn’t find anything. I’m probably just not looking good enough but I thought I’d ask here. You usually respond fairly quickly.
I do address this possibility toward the end of the video. I'm not seeing it. But one pronoun referring to the words and the other to the people I do see as possible.
Simply put, if you insist that God promises "perfect preservation," then God's promise did not come true. There are many variant manuscripts of the Hebrew and Greek. We do not have the autographs. Wherefore dost thou make God a liar?
Yeah, I prefer the RSV's wording: "The promises of the LORD are promises that are pure." Not only does it avoid the possible misunderstanding of the verse, but it mirrors a neat little quirk of the Hebrew: when you hear the words pronounced, you'll notice that both "promises" and "pure" (which is also plural) end with essentially the same syllable (rōt). The English alliteration offers a comparable sound effect. Compare the Orthodox Jewish Bible, which transliterates these words: "The words of Hashem are amarot tehorot." In all fairness, the combination of "pure" and "words" produces something approaching a rhyme, so the traditional wording is fine, too (until someone misinterprets which "words" David has in mind, of course).
1. Dr. Ward, that was an Ultimate Frisbee slam dunk when you quoted and displayed the original KJV translators' footnote for Psalm 12:7 at 40:18-49. 2. However, isn't there a KJVO argument somewhere out there that conjoins verses 6 & 7, indicating that the King James Bible is the seventh purification of God's silvery preserved words? And that this KJV argument offers a chronology of previous translations leading up to the 1611AV? ;-) 3. Psalm 12:6 (KJV): The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 4. And if the King James Bible was good enough for King David of Israel ...
KJV onlyism seems to misunderstand what words are. A word is a tool to used to express a concept or thought. As such, it is subservient to the thought, by definition. A particular tool used to assemble a car is subservient to the car. A tool won't get me from A to B, but a car will.
Essentially, KJV Onlyists (at least some of them) put words on a pedestal, more than they do the meaning of the words. They give words an almost magical or mystical power. If one word in the KJV means one thing, and a different word in a modern translation means exactly the same thing, then that different word is still bad because it's a different word from what's in the KJV. To them, words aren't a means to an end, they are the end.
@@TheDoctor394The “KJV onlyists” I know don’t put words on a pedestal. They put “The Word” on a pedestal, Jesus Christ. Modern translations made from the critical Greek text denigrate the diety of Jesus Christ many times over.
Some I know do indeed worship actual words. An example comes from one who praises the KJV for translating Romans 4:22 as, "And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness", and condemns the NIV for not having the word "imputed". What does it say instead? "This is why 'it was credited to him as righteousness.'" Such a translation, of course, means exactly the same thing as the KJV, yet the writer calls the NIV "Godless" for not saying "imputed". Such a view puts a particular English word in 1611 as the only possible correct translation - don't you dare put it any other way, even if the message is exactly the same. This is adding to the gospel, and is a worship of words over the salvation in Christ alone.
@@TheDoctor394 I agree with Mark that understanding the correct definitions of words is important. Mark refuses to acknowledge to discrepancies regarding the underlying Greek text used in translation. He sent me a link in a RUclips comment comparing the TR to the critical Greek text saying have a look because they’re not that different. But they are different in important ways. Mark 1:2 for example mentioning prophets plural versus the prophet Isaiah or John 7:8 missing the word yet which makes Jesus seem deceptive. Or leaving out getting angry without a cause when clearly Jesus got angry many times, but had a cause which makes Jesus liable to the judgment. Or 1 Corinthians 1:18 in the modern translation says we “are being”saved. Instead of we “are” saved. Ephesians 1 tells me I am saved the instant I put my faith in the blood of Christ and sealed with the Holy Spirit. It’s not a process.
I have never accepted the isogesus/eisegisus of the quoted passage by KJVO IFBers but am interested in watching your responses in this video. Let me propose, (The Him that preserves them) who is Him? Or he-is-she a Hebrew word play. I will simply, it is Him/Elohim that preserves them (them being Words and/or people). Thanks for indulging me. 🤔😁
@@frankmckinley1254 But I see some merit in Mark Ward’s comments too. I would correspond verse 2 with verse 6, words of evil men contrasted with the words of God which are not evil. It would still make verse 5 a linch pin. All this of a chiastic structure. But I’m not sure how to handle verse 8.
@@larrytruelove8659 Every word in Hebrew is context dependent so the same word in one place can take on a different meaning in another based on context. As an example let's pick Caleb it can be a man's name or just a dog depending on context. Then when we consider the language is gender dependent and use metaphors especially in Scripture you can understand the translator's difficulty. The so-called plough boy has no clue as to the difficulties encountered in translation. Most IFB folks I know wear the plough boy badge with honor not knowing it meant a barely literate person in Tendales day. He really had his work cut out for him to get the Bible down to the level of most English speakers of his day. Yes the KJV is a great translation as was the Bishops Bible. But no translation is without issue. We have so many bible resources today it's unimaginable. When I was under Dr. Bradshaw from Howard Payne we didn't have resources that were not in books.
I think the ambiguity is furthered by the fact that both statements are true. God will keep His words (Matthew 5:18, Isaiah 40:8, Matthew 24:35) and God will preserve His saints (Isaiah 41:13, Psalm 31:23, Psalm 37:28, Psalm 97:10). Since both are true, either interpretation of Psalm 12:6-7 will be theologically accurate even if some are grammatically wrong. When reading Psalm 12, I tend to lean towards the words as the ones being kept since that is the closest subject. Theologically speaking, the promise of preservation is everywhere and can be extrapolated from additional passages. God explains in Deuteronomy 30:11-14 that He gave the children of Israel commandments so they could be kept. In Matthew 4:4 Jesus tells the devil that men live by every word of God, not just some or most. In John 15:22 Jesus said people could hide their sins except that He came and spoke to them. This revealing of sins can only happen if Jesus' words have been faithfully preserved. And then we have Ephesians 6:17 which is the Christian's sword. God won't give us a defective weapon. So with or without Psalm 12:6-7, I see a very compelling case to be made throughout the Bible that God will faithfully protect His words. In fact, I see preservation of God's words as a sign how He will treat us. He is not one to let a single promise fall to the ground, and neither will He let us fall.
Psalm 12:6-7 are taken out of context by many KJVO people. The Psalm is a promise from God to protect his people from that generation stated and forever. It is not a reference to protecting each and every word of the Bible. Read it in context. The context will show the true meaning.
One may note that the ASV has the same reading (only using "Jehovah", as is its wont, instead of "The LORD"). The Reina-Valera makes the antecedent clear here by definite article choice, something that does not work in English and that Spanish-speaking KJVOs find inconvenient; it uses "los" (them, masculine), meaning "los pobres...los menesterosos" (the poor and the needy) in v.5, and not "las palabras" (the words) in v.6.
2:40 if that is true, in the way that they mean it, was there a perfectly preserved, transmitted and translated Bible available, preserved by God in 1601 (the year before the KJV started to get translated, if I'm mistaken please correct me. But my point is still clear) of there was one, then why did they need to produce the KJV? Could they not have then been rightly accused of what modern KJVO advocates accuse modern translators and readers of today? And if not then why? How can that be??
Yeah textual absolutism straight up fails historically. According to their standard of preservation, the KJV or its base text would be a resurfacing of the text from imperfect sources (with presumably a perfect text elsewhere), rather than a continous preservation.
@maxxiong exactly! And that is WAY worse than saying we might have a word or 2 wrong here or there and trying to get them correct. Actually it's Ruckmanism. Not to say that all KJVO people are Ruckmanites. They're not. But only out of inconsistency with their own position. The reinspiration view is the only way to be consistent. Even the TR of 1602 couldn't have yet been the resurfaced original reading because all of them differed from the KJV. It would have to be Scrivener's.
It would appear if the King James version did not contain one single error, then all of the translations in English that came before it that had any different words whatsoever would be incorrect??
@curtthegamer934 But things that are different are not the same, correct?? It doesn't matter the meaning, if the words are different....... I have been told before that the absolute words are correct. Ruth 3:15 in the 1611 vs 1769..,. Was it Ruth or Boaz?
@@kdeh21803 Some KJV-Onlyists hold to the exact words mattering, but some other KJV-Onlyists are fine as long as the differing words still mean the same thing. Either way, it would still lead to the logical conclusion that the translations prior to the KJV were incorrect and that we had no perfect Bible before that.
I think if it meant that, the scriptures would have never been translated to other languages, we would all have to learn and know the language of the “original” text. Pretty simple I think, and logical, I think.
@@markwardonwords I was too concise. It troubles me that people call the Bible, the word of God. This happens frequently, and is perplexing. For the Bible was written by men. Inspired men no doubt. But inspiration does not mean infallibility. The man of Eden, who became known as Adam, was inspired. Yahweh Elohim breathed his spirit into him, and he became a living soul. But he was unfaithful, followed the serpent, and ate of the forbidden fruit. He then had to cover his nakedness with fig leaves. In the old testament, uncovering nakedness is a euphemism for infidelity. So inspiration does not mean infallibility. What is the word of God? Of course Jesus the messiah is the Word of God. But that is another part of the discussion . In the context of the a written record like the Bible, the word of someone means the words they say, or the message they give. In the new testament of my NKJV, the words of God in the NT are printed in red. Thomas Nelson did not give the same consideration to the words of Yahweh in the old testament. Nonetheless it is evident that the words of God only make up a part of scripture. There are the words directly spoken by God, and spoken through the prophets. It may have been God who wrote on the wall at Belshazzar's feast. But the Bible contains other material. History, poetry, genealogies, and even the ravings of crazies like Cain, Jereboam, Saul and many more. So it is perplexing when people call the Bible the word of God, when in fact it is a biography of God, and his people Israel. It includes crimes, catastrophes, and terrible utterances like that of Nahash the Ammonite, who said, "On this condition I will make a covenant with you, that I may put out all your right eyes, and bring reproach on all Israel." 1 Samuel 11:2 Many Christians, in devotion and happiness, confidently call the Bible, the word of God. No-one else seems to mind, but personally, it strikes me as contrived to do so.
Haven't watched yet. * reads title * * looks up verse * Oh, no. Don't tell me people are going to use THESE verses to promote the KJVO view. Please, no! This video is going to set my stomach churning in frustration and anger again, isn't it?
"The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times." I don't think so. I think we're dealing with an insistence that God's promises to the poor and needy are trustworthy.
Isn't a promise a series of words? "Pure" (טְהֹרוֹת) means clean or pure. The words (of promise) are clean. There are no blemishes in them. The impurities are removed by the refining fire.
For this exercise I read the whole psalm, in the KJV, therefore understand those two verses relatively to the whole. God’s word stands forever no matter how evil the world gets. Same difference in all my other translations. May I make a suggestion, Mark? Would you please write the KJV text examples in a modern typeface instead of that awful olde world font? In fact, all of your type styles are lumpy serif faces.
Another example of a feminine word that isn't masculinized is God's wisdom in Proverbs 8. There wisdom is portrayed as a woman who is at God's side at creation.
On this specific topic I just like to challenge KJVOists to define what the “word of God” even is. We know the Bible makes distinction between the “word of God” and “Written scriptures”. In *most* instances, I argue the “word of God” is not the canonized scripture at all. But rather the essence of God. We see this in John 1, where the Word (big W) is directly referred to Jesus, and the word (little w) is the referred to the glory of God without the use of spoken, or written, words in Psalm 19. I would always recommend doing a deep dive on what the word of God actually is. I find that many Christians, KJVOists or not, don’t actually understand what it is. While the word of God includes written scriptures, I hold the view that it’s the essence and glory of God as a whole. Wherever Jesus is, so is the word. Doesn’t matter if it’s a “Jesus Saves” shirt, doesn’t matter if it’s a tattoo of the cross, doesn’t matter how or where, if it contains the power of Christ, that’s the word. Of course; we also have the instances where the “word” is referred to as actual angelic beings, or so that’s how I’ve interpreted that part. Could be wrong. Anyway, back to the video!
That was a good discussion of Psalms 12:5-7. On another note, now, some KJVO people are saying that the Septuigent is fake.Maybe you can do a video on this sometime. {I spelled Septuigent wrong)
Psalms 41:2 The LORD will preserve him, and keep him alive; and he shall be blessed upon the earth: and thou wilt not deliver him unto the will of his enemies. Psalms 97:10. Ye that love the LORD, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked. Psalms 140:4 Keep me, O LORD, from the hands of the wicked; preserve me from the violent man; who have purposed to overthrow my goings. Most of the time the word (preserve) shows up in the Psalms it looks like the examples above. Why would Psalm 12 be any different?
@markwardonwords I don't know Greek or Hebrew or even good English, haha. But based on what I've seen in the bible, it seems to mean that you prevent something negative from happening to a person, place, or thing. (Preserve a soul from perishing, preserve somebody from suffering consequences from wicked men) so in order for God to (preserve) this word, what is He (preserving) it from....or what is He (keeping) from happening to them? I like asking questions. :)
Hi Mark, will you be transitioning to speaking about more edifying subjects? I would love to see you use your gifts and learning to speak about Jesus himself rather than Bible translation polemics!
You should read what is said about Psalm 12:6-7 in chapter five of Dr. Chester Kulus' book "Those So-Called Errors." One thing in there is a list of gender discordance regarding to God's Word--not only in the Psalms, but also in much of the Bible (Lev 22:31, 26:3, Num 15:39, 1Ki 6:12, Ezk 18:19, etc.).
Dr. David L. Brown addresses Psalm 12 in his talk titled Providential Preservation: The Doctrine that Virtually Disappeared on the King James Bible Research Council's website.
It seems the idea was God does preserves His promises and doctrines through time, whatever the arguments. Meaning the KJV have been for many years the Bible of those promises and doctrines. Except for Catholic Bibles, many years KJV was for awhile, only game in town. So, fulfilling God's promise of God's word in every generation. So, a translation can come from the foundation of KJV, not so much from outside of it.
Well, we can point to two major revisions of the KJV: - Revised Version (1885) - New King James Version (1982) There are also a slew of other updates. The MEV, KJVER, and SKJV are probably the best-known examples from the past decade or so. The Revised Version received a minor update in the 1901, known as the American Standard Version. Then the ASV itself would be the direct basis for three prominent versions of the mid-20th century. Major ASV updates: - Revised Standard Version (1952, 1971) - New American Standard Bible (1971, 1977, 1995, 2020) - The Living Bible (1971) Additionally, the Amplified Bible and the World English Bible, along with some even more obscure revisions, have sprung from the ASV. The more prominent updates would too see their own revisions: - RSV > New Revised Standard Version (1989, 2021) - RSV > English Standard Version (2001, 2016) - NASB > Legacy Standard Bible (2021) - TLB > New Living Translation (1996, 2015) So we have quite a few options coming from the foundation of the KJV. The furthest departure is probably the NLT, but it is still part of the lineage.
This video exemplifies a broad ignorance of the position of King James Bible only supporters, either misrepresenting them, or presenting the view of a minority (e.g. TROs). It also exemplifies the manifest problem of the "grammatico-" component of modernistic hermeneutics in how interpreting Psalm 12 is approached and explained. Further, this video does not at all show the meaning of the prophecy of Psalm 12 as a whole, which would be an important bearing in examining the words and their meaning. This video (as is typical of the anti-King James Bible perfection position) misunderstands the footnotes/margins/centre columns of the KJB, by acting as though the variant translations there are equal to or even part of the sacred deposit. Everything known about these variants, including from John Bois' notes, from the Preface to the KJB and from other sources going to those times, as well as scholars afterwards and common sense, shows that the variant translations were provided, and had been judged or resolved to be less preferred than the main rendering. Finally, KJBOs do not believe that there are perfect copies in Greek or perfect Greek MSS or a perfect Greek TR somewhere, they do not believe literally that there was a perfect copy of the NT extant in the Reformation, and when the Westminister men spoke of the words being kept pure in all ages, they meant words being kept, not immaculate manuscripts. This video implies wrongly that KJBOs believe things which they do not believe.
I actually know about your website, so I do have a question: if there is no perfect Greek manuscript, why are you obsessing over US vs UK spellings? Westminister is clear that it's the original language text that is preserved and infallible, not translations.
@@maxxiong I'm not obsessed. Also, if there is no perfect Greek manuscript, why are you supporting textual criticism which you know is going to fall short of the goal of textual resolution?
@@bibleprotector The WCF doesn't say English but every nation's language. It also says the infallibility comes from the fact that the original language text is "immediately inspired by God", and it's clear from the careful ordering that the infallible authority is only in the original language. Not to mention that KJV English certain does not meet the standard of "vulgar language" for the simple reason that "thou" is not used in common speech.
He’s talking about grammatical gender, not sex. Many European languages still have a grammatical gender system. Even Old English used to distinguish between male and female nouns before the 12th century
@@emiroviloria7368Yup, Spanish has this kind of thing. Things that end with "o" are masculine, things that end with "a" are feminine. This applies even when it's something that's neither male nor female by definition. For instance "mano" for hand.
It seems to me you are just wishing that it does. Originally the Bible was perfect but man in his greed has distorted it, to the point where people have become corrupted by newer versions. All of the newer version are corrupt. The KJV is the only Bible with out corruption
He's wishing that it does what? That Ps 12:6-7 makes a promise to us about the perfect preservation of the Bible? It doesn't even remotely do that. Read the Psalm in its entirety and it becomes quite evident that the Psalmist is bring comfort to God's oppressed people because they serve a God whose word is trustworthy and reliable, unlike (by contrast) the unreliable, flattering and boastful lips (words) of the wicked.
Do you have proof that modern translations are all influenced by greed? Have you evaluated *every* (keyword every) translation post-KJV to arrive at such an amazing allegation?
![ROSÉ (로제) - number one girl [더 시즌즈-이영지의 레인보우] | KBS 241129 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A9oByH9Ci24/mqdefault.jpg)
Perfect timing! My husband and I were just discussing this yesterday as I read Proverbs 30:5! Thank you, brother.
There's a good parallel to Psalm 12:6-7, yes!
God's words are preserved in many languages and English Translations produced in honest good faith😊
I remember the time when I had read through Psalms chapter 12 and realized the actual context of the chapter and it just so happened to be shortly before the TCC video series came out. It was so reassuring. Just like this video is.
Right!
Thanks for all your hard work, Mark. I was checking out a lot of videos over this week from KJV guys responding to your debate and wow. Even if they dislike you so much, 'love thy enemies' was NOT the feeling I was getting while watching their replies.
Back on topic, this is a wonderful video. Thank you again.
You’re so welcome!
When you have a pretext, you ignore the plain text, and attempt to apply a subtext, by taking verses out of context.
Right!
We’ve all heard the saying.
@@PhotographyByDerek This is an ambiguous statement. It could go both ways. Do you lean towards the KJV or the critical text?
@@avarittI have never heard that saying before, but it's a good one!
An excellent, and thorough examination of an issue that frankly I had never encountered before (not having grown up in the same circles as Dr. Ward). It is also nuanced and treats the opposition with grace and dignity. Thank you.
When listening to people standing on their soap box steadfastly declaring what God is or does or says, I cannot help but think of Job's friends doing the same and how God was ready to destroy them over it. Yes, we diligently need to preserve the written word that God has provided to us, but we have to remember to approach it with the utmost humility, humbleness and fear of the Lord that is possible. Because ultimately Jesus is the Word, the true and living Word. This Word is perfect and will not fade ..
"so shall My word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: It shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." IS 55:11
All I'm saying, my friends, is just be very careful trying to put God in a box and declaring that you have defined him. It is very very thin ice.
Well done, as usual. If I may, I have a semi-related question. Matt 5:18's "jots and tittles" seems to be a common reference regarding this topic, but am I off base in surmising that this passage has nothing to do with the doctrine of preservation, regardless of one's position? My reasoning is three-fold:
1. Jesus refers to "the law", not all of Scripture, though this in itself is admittedly not an overarching argument, as he refers in v. 17 to both the law and prophets.
2. Jesus says that this law will not pass away "till all be fulfilled", implying, despite the previous phrase "heaven and earth", that there is a finiteness, which he describes in the preceding verse.
3. In v. 17, Jesus says that he came to do that very thing, fulfil the law. Therefore, the law has indeed "passed" with regard to one's standing before God. His fulfillment of the law enabled it to be replaced with grace and truth (John 1:17), thus we are no longer under the law but under grace (Rom 6:14; Gal 3:10-13, etc.). The superiority of Christ and grace / faith over Moses and the law is the whole thrust of the book of Hebrews. I'm not a theologian, so is my interpretation flawed? Thanks.
What you said is a defensible interpretation, but I don't think we even have to go that far. The whole point of Matthew 5.17-19 is that the authority of the Law and Prophets is still in effect. The reference to the Hebrew "jot" and "tittle" is hyperbolic: the point is that even the most minor of commands matters. It's the equivalent of warning someone against "harming one hair on the head" of someone; you're not really talking about the hair at all, but about the person.
I love my KJV only brethren because they are 99% conservative. Thank you for this video. I'm not KJV only.
I love the bit of plot twist at the end. And as a calligraphy nerd, how I wish I could still do lettering like this!
I love calligraphy!
This is one of your best videos to date! The deep dive into ancient versions, translations, and interpretations over the centuries is what Bible study is like for me on a regular basis lol. Thank you for this informative and entertaining study of Scripture.
This one has been frustrating over the years because it’s not difficult. If a guy just preaches the entire Psalm rather than prooftexting, the meaning is crystal clear.
Right!
Thank you for _everything_ you do, for teaching us, for advocating for good design (type, layout, etc), for taking arrows for us, and for everything in between and beyond.
On a related note, I watched a Bible review video (about a different translation) after catching up on some of the post-debate drama yesterday. There was a typical "you should burn your bible" comment. However, this wasn't written by a typical anti-Bible person. A quick look at the commenter's account page revealed he was a preacher who used the KJV. I've seen everything now.
Thank you for the kind words!
This was an excellent explanation. Thank you for this.
Glad it was helpful!
Wow! Just finished this amazing video, Mark. Once again, great research and very well communication. Thanks for being a fellow "word nerd" and the blessing you are on the church.
Thank you, brother!
Thank you,Brothe Mark 🌹🌟☀️✨☀️🌟🌹
Thank YOU!
I enjoy and heed your commentary. Thank you.
I hope I forget the day and moment my 15-20 year friendship with a minister took a turn for the worse. Ps 12:6-7 was the problem. I asked how a Psalm that begins with "Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men" could be talking about the preservation of a text that did not exist until approximately 2000 or 2500 years after David's prayer. The response was unexpected and the recoil he physically showed was saddening. "Well, that is your interpretation."
To this day, I get nothing but "arm's length Christianity" from that friend.
Fantastic bit of work here.
God bless you Mr. Ward
Many thanks!
This was amazing. Thank you
Glad it was helpful!
I don't think you get the credit you deserve for going into such detail about a verse that is plain and simple to understand based on the context but unfortunately the KJV only crowd likes to twist it to mean something that it doesn't so I just want to say thank you for the time and effort you put into these videos I pray the Lord continues to bless you
I sometimes wonder what credit should indeed accrue to someone who rigorously states the obvious. The only people that don't see that the KJV is unnecessarily archaic, for example, are the KJV-Onlyists, so practically every other Christian, especially if they have no experience with KJV-Onlyism, lacks the category to understand what I'm doing and why it matters!
I'm pretty sure the act of opening this video to play was like turning on a fire hydrant of information.
In-depth, informative, and incredibly detailed, most assuredly not for the squeamish students.
Most of your videos I can go through very well in one session, and I am confident that I got your intent.
The lesson depth here requires, perhaps even demands listening again, and then I may have a better grasp of just how all this works.
On a surface level, I agree and am impressed by the careful attention to detail. My desire to explain it well or have note points to help others means I'll have to do some additional study myself.
Don't back down on the quality of your sound research to push more videos.
I believe I speak for many when I say we are grateful for your careful methods.
God bless my friend!
This was originally an academic paper, and it hasn't been adjusted much at all for video form. This kind of thing I can't do often unless I can afford to go out on my own-which is something I am praying about!
This was SO good, thank you for your work! I would love to hear a video on the actual doctrine of preservation.
Great suggestion!
That's a very nice, thorough expostion. When I read the Hebrew I was struck by use of the words "imarot" - "amarot" and those terms seem to me more like "sayings" of YHVH. A different word would be used for a "word" in the sense of a single speech sound of however many sylables, that conveys a small part of a sentence in a "saying." The YLT also uses "sayings." If so, then in agreement with a point you made, a "saying" of YHVH to promise blessing or warn of trouble might have been presented in various wordings, and still convey the same "saying."
Thank you for yet another insightful and enlightening video. I'm a word nerd, and these "discussions" are all fascinating and interesting to me. I just want to say that I appreciate very much your kind, respectful demeanor. I am sorry that other supposedly Christian brothers or sisters might treat you unkindly or disrespectfully. Jesus certainly wouldn't. May you be encouraged knowing that so many of us appreciate and enjoy the work that you do. May God give you continued grace and strength.
Thank you! Pray for me! I don't always feel kind; I'm tempted to lash out. That's a big reason why I'm (almost completely!) getting out of this debate at the end of the year.
Thank you, Mark. Understanding this was a challenge for me, but l like a challenge and l found your explanations very helpful. Hey PS I'm Australian and had never heard of a plebiscite until we had one in 2017, the first in my lifetime.
Glad it was helpful!
Mark thank you for all your hard work you do to defend true biblical literacy, and all the behind the scenes work that nobody thinks about that goes into making and editing the these videos you put out. I can’t imagine the amount of all the hateful comments, and emails you get for this subject. I hope you know that your video’s have do not go out fruitlessly. These videos have driven many Christians into deeper bible studies because of them and they now have a deeper knowledge of Gods word.
Thank you for these kind words!
That was useful brother
I had to be honest with the text and myself that I was taught this text wrongly.
As of last November, I came to the conclusion that Psalm 12:7 even using the KJV alone is actually fulfilling the promise Psalm 12:5 to "set him in safety". I think this can be demonstrated using the cross references to Psalm 12:7, which are Psa. 16:1; 17:8; 25:20; 31:23; 32:7; 37:28. Also catch the O LORD from Psalm 12:7 matching Psalm. 17:14; which matches 17:8. This text is not being used properly by TR proponents. Of course scripture teaches the preservation of scripture just not in Psalm 12:7.
Notice the Geneva translators study note here left in 1560:
7 Thou wilt keep [a]them, O LORD; thou wilt preserve him from this generation forever. (Geneva Bible 1560)
[a] That is, thine though he were but one man.
Spurgeon's words ring so true here:
Verse 7. To fall into the hands of an evil generation, so as to be baited by their cruelty, or polluted by their influence, is an evil to be dreaded beyond measure; but it is an evil foreseen and provided for in the text. In life many a saint has lived a hundred years before his age, as though he had darted his soul into the brighter future, and escaped the mists of the beclouded present: he has gone to his grave unreverenced and misunderstood, and lo! as generations come and go, upon a sudden the hero is unearthed, and lives in the admiration and love of the excellent of the earth; preserved for ever from the generation which stigmatised him as a sower of sedition, or burned him as a heretic. It should be our daily prayer that we may rise above our age as the mountain-tops above the clouds, and may stand out as heaven-pointing pinnacle high above the mists of ignorance and sin which roll around us. O Eternal Spirit, fulfil in us the faithful saying of this verse! Our faith believes those two assuring words, and cries, "Thou shalt," "thou shalt."
Hello Mark, I recently got a 1952 edition of the Revised Standard Version. I was reading the preface and was surprised to find that it mentioned outdated language and false friends as reasons for revising the KJV. I felt cool that I knew what they were talking about, since I’ve watched a number of your videos. I would encourage to read the preface for yourself and be encouraged by a fellow group who seeks the understanding of the scriptures.
Thanks!
I have it! I’ve been meaning to do a video!
The 1885 Revised Version was also aware of the problem, but they decided to err on the side of tradition unless it was likely to create a misunderstanding:
*In regard to the language of the Authorised Version, the Revisers have thought it no part of their duty to reduce it to conformity with modern usage, and have therefore left untouched all archaisms, whether of language or construction, which though not in familiar use cause a reader no embarrassment and lead to no misunderstanding. They are aware that in so doing they will disappoint the large English-speaking race on the other side of the Atlantic, and it is a question upon which they are prepared to agree to a friendly difference of opinion.*
*The principle by which they have been guided has been clear and consistent. Where an archaic word or expression was liable to be misunderstood or at least was not perfectly intelligible, they have substituted for it another, in equally good use at the time the Authorised Version was made, and expressing all that the archaism was intended to convey, but more familiar to the modern reader. In such cases the gain was greater than the loss.*
*But in other instances where the word or expression, although obsolete, was not unintelligible, it was thought that the change would involve greater loss than gain, and the old rendering was therefore allowed to stand. More especially was this the case when the archaism was a perfectly correct rendering of the original and there was no exact modern equivalent for it.*
*The principle adopted by the Company will be best illustrated by two typical examples. The verb "to ear" in the sense of "to plough" and the substantive "earing" for "ploughing" were very reluctantly abandoned, and only because it was ascertained that their meaning was unknown to many persons of good intelligence and education.*
*But it was easy to put in their place equivalents which had a pedigree of almost equal antiquity, and it would have been an excess of conservatism to refuse to substitute for an unintelligible archaism an expression to which no ambiguity could be attached.*
*On the other hand the word "bolled" (Ex. ix. 31), which signifies "podded for seed" and is known in provincial dialects, has no synonym in literary English. To have discarded it in favor of a less accurate or more paraphrastic expression would have been to impoverish the language; and it was therefore left, because it exactly expresses one view which is taken of the meaning of the original.*
Pretty sure I've seen this material before .(for those who don't know, I serve on the executive committee of CATA and was a peer review editor of CATR) . . great job my friend A more 'technical' video but exceptionally well done :-)
Ha! You helped me a great deal!
Thanks, Mark, for reminding me to read Psalm 12 again with fresh eyes on the clear flow of thought given by David. I'm going through one of the most challenging years in my life personally due to conflict with ungodly and unjust men who seek my destruction, and this Psalm provides enormous comfort in this battle. KJVOs are robbing this Psalm of the intended comfort it was written to provide to God's people, and it has nothing to do with a supposed promise to preserve a perfect copy of the scriptures.
Right! The Psalm is precious!
Thanks for another excellent video. Your ability to stick to the facts and not sink to the same level as the many KLV Onlyists is amazing (I don't think I could do it).
It is so sad to see the ad-hominin attacks that you have been subjected to, it is shameful that many of those attacks come from men who call themselves "pastor". Keep up the great work and don't let them get to you, you have been doing a great service to the body of Christ and you'll never know how many people you have helped come out of the idolatry that is KJV Onlyism.
Pray for those pastors! They need mercy and grace-and repentance.
Amen! I can't stand that garbage. It's been shocking to see.
@@markwardonwords Thanks for the reminder, I have a problem with that sometimes... but with the help of people like you and the Word and Spirit keeps me from crushing them like bugs and rather to pray for them. Thank you again and keep up the great work, I'm looking forward to what's next for you. I think you've done all you can with the KJV Onlyists and you had mentioned that you would be moving on and I agree, you don't want to get bogged down in this forever. Keep us up to date on your next project!
Can we have the link to where this article is? How much does it cost to purchase.
It’s not out quite yet. November, I’m told.
@markwardonwords Thanks. I will make a note to look out for and purchase it.
@@markwardonwords Mark, I have been patiently waiting for a video from you on this particular subject. You certainly did not disappoint. I do not believe I have seen such a thorough study of this particular subject anywhere. Thank you so much!
Also, please keep us posted about the availability of the article.
Hi Mark,
I have a question regarding the ESV's translation of Revelation 13:8. Did they intentionally translate it as "before the foundation of the world" instead of "from the foundation of the world"? Was there a specific reason or agenda behind this choice?
Thanks for your great work here!
There was no Calvinist agenda behind it. Here's why: the RSV already read that way. The ESV didn't change a thing. In fact, that wording first appeared in the ASV (breaking from how it read in the English RV). The other major revisions of the ASV agree.
ASV: And all that dwell on the earth shall worship him, every one whose name hath not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that hath been slain.
RSV: and all who dwell on earth will worship it, every one whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain.
ESV: and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.
NASB20: All who live on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slaughtered.
NRSVue: and all the inhabitants of the earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slaughtered.
@MAMoreno Good comment as usual.
And if you're concerned specifically about translating ἀπὸ as "before," I'd direct you to Revelation 17.8, where the RSV and ESV translate it as "from" in the exact same context (names written in the book of life). I don't think they were trying to communicate anything in particular by choosing the word "before" in the first case (though maybe they were taking a cue from the verses that use πρὸ instead of ἀπὸ in this phrase, such as John 17.24, Ephesians 1.4, and 1 Peter 1.20; these verses probably mean the same thing, regardless of the nuance conveyed by each preposition).
Thank you @@MAMoreno.
I think "from the foundation of the world" suggests a point of origin, while "before the foundation of the world" implies a temporal relationship that can obscure the idea of a specific starting point.
The ESV and RSV's choice to harmonize the translation in this case seems inconsistent, especially when you look at Revelation 17:8, where they correctly used "from."
It would be better if essentially literal translations prioritized fidelity to the original language, maintaining the distinct meanings of terms rather than smoothing over differences that could impact theological interpretation.
@@timotimy254 Strictly speaking, I would agree, but I don't think that it's a particularly big deal in this case. I suppose you could argue that we shouldn't read the theology of Ephesians (which says we are chosen in Christ "before the foundation of the world") into the theology of Revelation (which says that our names were written in the book of life "from the foundation of the world").
I'm not convinced that they're legitimately in conflict; do you perhaps think that we were corporately elected in a time before the foundation of the world, then individually elected as the foundation of the world began? Or do you just feel we must keep one's theology clearly distinct from the other's theology?
Psalms 12:5-7 (GNB)
5 "But now I will come," says the LORD, "because the needy are oppressed and the persecuted groan in pain. I will give them the security they long for."
6 The promises of the LORD can be trusted; they are as genuine as silver refined seven times in the furnace.
7 (7-8) The wicked are everywhere, and everyone praises what is evil. Keep us always safe, O LORD, and preserve us from such people.
Hello, is there any edition of KJV which has the complete translation notes of the translators?
Check out David Norton. amzn.to/3UHY4OL
In addition to the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible (which Mark Ward linked), there is also the Cambridge Clarion (which is far more expensive). They contain both the translation notes and the preface. The marginal notes show up in some non-Cambridge editions, too, such as The Matthew Henry Study Bible. Unfortunately, that edition doesn't have the original preface.
If you want to check if an edition has the set of 1611 notes before buying it, looking for the following marginal notes on the first page or so (tied to Genesis 1.4-11):
1. Heb. between the light and between the darkness
2. Heb. And the evening was, and the morning was, etc.
3. Heb. expansion
4. Heb. tender grass
@MAMoreno thank you, that was helpful.
May I ask Dr. Ward, what your opinion is of the ECM and its methodology which I can only assume will incorporate AI at some point in the future. Do you feel it would be theologically sound to expect the God who inspired the very words of scripture to leave his church without a text that she could be certain of only to have it “rediscovered” by an algorithm?
1. I feel confident that computers will only ever assist humans in this work; humans will make the final decisions.
2. Computers have already been assisting humans in this work, simply by remembering tons of data.
3. The computers are not inventing readings; they are only looking at existing readings. And in a way they're not even doing that; mainly they are trying to establish likely relationships among manuscripts.
None of this means that humans are outsourcing decisions about the Bible to computers. It means we are using our God-given powers of reason combined with our God-given ability to develop and use powerful tools. I see these as fundamentally good things.
@ thank you for the response Dr. Ward. I do understand that there is much editing, deliberation, thought, and reasoning given to the final decision. I also agree that the means and gifts that you listed are God given to the folks working in that project. But the one means that troubles my conscience to think may be lacking it the process is prayer. I feel that this method leans far far too heavily on human reasoning which, granted, is a gift of God although corrupted and fallible due to the fall. At the end of the day, do they stop to ask, “Father, is this right”.
@@rickyfielderjr6428 Obviously, any non-Christians involved in this work are not praying. And if they are, it's not helping. But I know many evangelical Christians involved in this work. And they are praying men and women. They take this with the utmost seriousness. Peter Gurry, John Meade, and Dirk Jongkind are just a few names involved in this work. Check them out on RUclips. See if you get the sense that they are praying men!
@@markwardonwords thank you for the info, I will.
I think context of Psalm 12:6-7 should be descripted with this verse
As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him. (Psalm 18:30 KJV)
As for God, his way is perfect. The word of Yahweh is tried. He is a shield to all those who take refuge in him. (Psalm 18:30 WEB)
So, meaning in "Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them" in Psalm 12:7 should be "You shall keep and preserve all of us from this wick generation forever."
@markwardonwords As a majority text supporter who has used the NKJV mostly (due to its common usage) I am wondering if you have looked at (or reviewed) The Text-Critical English New Testament - Byzantine Text Version? Based on the Robinson-Pierpoint Greek text, it has a few unique features. Other than being a MT translation it’s copious footnotes actually show the percentage of manuscripts supporting certain variants of the text and it has a a specific text type to indicate the difference between second person singular and second person plural pronouns.
I would be happy to donate to cover the cost of a copy if you have not come across it yet.
My guy mark I love your approach to the bible and how you try your best to be honest and transparent as best you can I love that man Ive learned a-lot from you but I do have a question. what do you do when you are studying different versions and come across as we found in the video you did about 2weeks ago about the kjv parallel bible verses that seem as tho they are changing the bible completely as KJV Onlyist like to say especailly when you are not meaning me and others are not scholars on greek and english translation, transliteration, or any other ways translators come to conclusion of how to translate a word into english if their is no word for the greek word. Would love to hear your answer
This is what I hope to get into in 2025! I'm hoping to do quite a few videos on this theme.
I had to wait until the very end to hear what I was waiting for -- mentioning what the KJV translators put in the margin at verse 7! Nice way to end the video!
Right!
My brain does not have the disc space right now to follow all of this. But just as a general comment, this is why we should never quote isolated verses. I admit this scared me. For a split second, I thought I had misunderstood something my whole life. I love the first part of the verse especially, because I hang on to God's Word like a lifeline of truth. If it's not true, my life has been pointless. I thought maybe I had misunderstood the first portion, that God's Word is NOT pure. But at least, from the about half* that I was able to get through this video, that's not what's being said or addressed.
After re-reading the whole Psalm in various verses, the meaning is clear that it's talking about the poor/needy/oppressed, which is what's in the rest of the Psalm. Even in the KJV, you can see that, even though it's a bit wonky with the old fashioned wording. I am even comfortable with some ambiguity, since the point about God's Word being preserved/trustworthy/true can be made from many other angles.
*Finished it.
tl;dr
People, just read the whole Psalm!
This one's a lot. This is an academic paper only lightly adapted for RUclips.
I understand how you feel. I’m often there myself. You gave some great advice at the end of your comment. Just read the whole psalm. Yep.
Hey, Mark. Great information as always!
I was wondering if you had any other social media accounts? I looked on IG and FB but didn’t find anything. I’m probably just not looking good enough but I thought I’d ask here. You usually respond fairly quickly.
I have Facebook and Twitter accounts. Check out my blog for links: byfaithweunderstand.com.
I'm listening and at the same time wondering if them could refer to both, the people and the word?
I do address this possibility toward the end of the video. I'm not seeing it. But one pronoun referring to the words and the other to the people I do see as possible.
@@markwardonwords I always looked at this as a reference to God's word, thanks Mark for clearing this up for me. Well Done!
I was reading this psalm a week or so ago and came to the same conclusion. Context matters!
Right!
2:18 is a point I've never heard before, that's actually wild!
The Masoretic vowels of 500 AD are inspired, but the great Codices of 300 AD are not??
Simply put, if you insist that God promises "perfect preservation," then God's promise did not come true. There are many variant manuscripts of the Hebrew and Greek. We do not have the autographs. Wherefore dost thou make God a liar?
Right.
Are not the words the Lords promises thus the RSV uses “the promises” rather than “the words”.
In context, yes.
Yeah, I prefer the RSV's wording: "The promises of the LORD are promises that are pure." Not only does it avoid the possible misunderstanding of the verse, but it mirrors a neat little quirk of the Hebrew: when you hear the words pronounced, you'll notice that both "promises" and "pure" (which is also plural) end with essentially the same syllable (rōt). The English alliteration offers a comparable sound effect.
Compare the Orthodox Jewish Bible, which transliterates these words: "The words of Hashem are amarot tehorot." In all fairness, the combination of "pure" and "words" produces something approaching a rhyme, so the traditional wording is fine, too (until someone misinterprets which "words" David has in mind, of course).
1. Dr. Ward, that was an Ultimate Frisbee slam dunk when you quoted and displayed the original KJV translators' footnote for Psalm 12:7 at 40:18-49.
2. However, isn't there a KJVO argument somewhere out there that conjoins verses 6 & 7, indicating that the King James Bible is the seventh purification of God's silvery preserved words? And that this KJV argument offers a chronology of previous translations leading up to the 1611AV? ;-)
3. Psalm 12:6 (KJV): The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
4. And if the King James Bible was good enough for King David of Israel ...
The KJV being the 7th translation is not correct by any stretch of the imagination. It baffles me when I see KJV-Onlyists still mention it.
That’s the argument that I’ve heard. The problem is that you’ve got to do some funky math to get the 1611 to #7.
KJV onlyism seems to misunderstand what words are. A word is a tool to used to express a concept or thought. As such, it is subservient to the thought, by definition. A particular tool used to assemble a car is subservient to the car. A tool won't get me from A to B, but a car will.
Essentially, KJV Onlyists (at least some of them) put words on a pedestal, more than they do the meaning of the words. They give words an almost magical or mystical power. If one word in the KJV means one thing, and a different word in a modern translation means exactly the same thing, then that different word is still bad because it's a different word from what's in the KJV. To them, words aren't a means to an end, they are the end.
@@TheDoctor394The “KJV onlyists” I know don’t put words on a pedestal. They put “The Word” on a pedestal, Jesus Christ. Modern translations made from the critical Greek text denigrate the diety of Jesus Christ many times over.
Some I know do indeed worship actual words.
An example comes from one who praises the KJV for translating Romans 4:22 as, "And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness", and condemns the NIV for not having the word "imputed". What does it say instead? "This is why 'it was credited to him as righteousness.'"
Such a translation, of course, means exactly the same thing as the KJV, yet the writer calls the NIV "Godless" for not saying "imputed".
Such a view puts a particular English word in 1611 as the only possible correct translation - don't you dare put it any other way, even if the message is exactly the same.
This is adding to the gospel, and is a worship of words over the salvation in Christ alone.
@@TheDoctor394 I agree with Mark that understanding the correct definitions of words is important. Mark refuses to acknowledge to discrepancies regarding the underlying Greek text used in translation. He sent me a link in a RUclips comment comparing the TR to the critical Greek text saying have a look because they’re not that different. But they are different in important ways. Mark 1:2 for example mentioning prophets plural versus the prophet Isaiah or John 7:8 missing the word yet which makes Jesus seem deceptive. Or leaving out getting angry without a cause when clearly Jesus got angry many times, but had a cause which makes Jesus liable to the judgment. Or 1 Corinthians 1:18 in the modern translation says we “are being”saved. Instead of we “are” saved. Ephesians 1 tells me I am saved the instant I put my faith in the blood of Christ and sealed with the Holy Spirit. It’s not a process.
@@dalhuset Referencing the Mark 1 verse, what is your actual issue with that difference? Just to clarify it for me before I reply.
I have never accepted the isogesus/eisegisus of the quoted passage by KJVO IFBers but am interested in watching your responses in this video. Let me propose, (The Him that preserves them) who is Him? Or he-is-she a Hebrew word play. I will simply, it is Him/Elohim that preserves them (them being Words and/or people). Thanks for indulging me. 🤔😁
Even some leading KJVOs don't use this passage.
“Them” is most likely the godly people who seemed to be vanishing from the land in verse 1.
@larrytruelove8659 Based on the context I agree.
@@frankmckinley1254
But I see some merit in Mark Ward’s comments too. I would correspond verse 2 with verse 6, words of evil men contrasted with the words of God which are not evil.
It would still make verse 5 a linch pin. All this of a chiastic structure. But I’m not sure how to handle verse 8.
@@larrytruelove8659 Every word in Hebrew is context dependent so the same word in one place can take on a different meaning in another based on context. As an example let's pick Caleb it can be a man's name or just a dog depending on context. Then when we consider the language is gender dependent and use metaphors especially in Scripture you can understand the translator's difficulty. The so-called plough boy has no clue as to the difficulties encountered in translation. Most IFB folks I know wear the plough boy badge with honor not knowing it meant a barely literate person in Tendales day. He really had his work cut out for him to get the Bible down to the level of most English speakers of his day. Yes the KJV is a great translation as was the Bishops Bible. But no translation is without issue. We have so many bible resources today it's unimaginable. When I was under Dr. Bradshaw from Howard Payne we didn't have resources that were not in books.
I think the ambiguity is furthered by the fact that both statements are true. God will keep His words (Matthew 5:18, Isaiah 40:8, Matthew 24:35) and God will preserve His saints (Isaiah 41:13, Psalm 31:23, Psalm 37:28, Psalm 97:10). Since both are true, either interpretation of Psalm 12:6-7 will be theologically accurate even if some are grammatically wrong. When reading Psalm 12, I tend to lean towards the words as the ones being kept since that is the closest subject.
Theologically speaking, the promise of preservation is everywhere and can be extrapolated from additional passages. God explains in Deuteronomy 30:11-14 that He gave the children of Israel commandments so they could be kept. In Matthew 4:4 Jesus tells the devil that men live by every word of God, not just some or most. In John 15:22 Jesus said people could hide their sins except that He came and spoke to them. This revealing of sins can only happen if Jesus' words have been faithfully preserved. And then we have Ephesians 6:17 which is the Christian's sword. God won't give us a defective weapon. So with or without Psalm 12:6-7, I see a very compelling case to be made throughout the Bible that God will faithfully protect His words. In fact, I see preservation of God's words as a sign how He will treat us. He is not one to let a single promise fall to the ground, and neither will He let us fall.
Psalm 12:6-7 are taken out of context by many KJVO people. The Psalm is a promise from God to protect his people from that generation stated and forever. It is not a reference to protecting each and every word of the Bible. Read it in context. The context will show the true meaning.
Right! Thank you, brother!
Exactly this!
One may note that the ASV has the same reading (only using "Jehovah", as is its wont, instead of "The LORD").
The Reina-Valera makes the antecedent clear here by definite article choice, something that does not work in English and that Spanish-speaking KJVOs find inconvenient; it uses "los" (them, masculine), meaning "los pobres...los menesterosos" (the poor and the needy) in v.5, and not "las palabras" (the words) in v.6.
Pastor Brett
Agreed. I believe the antecedent is the people mentioned in verse one.
@@larrytruelove8659
Are you related to Robert Truelove?
2:40 if that is true, in the way that they mean it, was there a perfectly preserved, transmitted and translated Bible available, preserved by God in 1601 (the year before the KJV started to get translated, if I'm mistaken please correct me. But my point is still clear) of there was one, then why did they need to produce the KJV? Could they not have then been rightly accused of what modern KJVO advocates accuse modern translators and readers of today? And if not then why? How can that be??
Yeah textual absolutism straight up fails historically. According to their standard of preservation, the KJV or its base text would be a resurfacing of the text from imperfect sources (with presumably a perfect text elsewhere), rather than a continous preservation.
@maxxiong exactly! And that is WAY worse than saying we might have a word or 2 wrong here or there and trying to get them correct. Actually it's Ruckmanism. Not to say that all KJVO people are Ruckmanites. They're not. But only out of inconsistency with their own position. The reinspiration view is the only way to be consistent. Even the TR of 1602 couldn't have yet been the resurfaced original reading because all of them differed from the KJV. It would have to be Scrivener's.
It would appear if the King James version did not contain one single error, then all of the translations in English that came before it that had any different words whatsoever would be incorrect??
Yes, that's the logical conclusion. Or, at the very least, when differing words don't mean the exact same thing.
@curtthegamer934 But things that are different are not the same, correct?? It doesn't matter the meaning, if the words are different....... I have been told before that the absolute words are correct. Ruth 3:15 in the 1611 vs 1769..,. Was it Ruth or Boaz?
@@kdeh21803 Some KJV-Onlyists hold to the exact words mattering, but some other KJV-Onlyists are fine as long as the differing words still mean the same thing. Either way, it would still lead to the logical conclusion that the translations prior to the KJV were incorrect and that we had no perfect Bible before that.
@curtthegamer934 how did it become perfect 1600 years after the originals??
@@kdeh21803 It didn't. I'm not a KJV-Onlyist.
I think if it meant that, the scriptures would have never been translated to other languages, we would all have to learn and know the language of the “original” text. Pretty simple I think, and logical, I think.
"I am not my brother's keeper." Is the the word of God?
Not sure I follow, friend!
@@markwardonwords I was too concise. It troubles me that people call the Bible, the word of God. This happens frequently, and is perplexing. For the Bible was written by men. Inspired men no doubt. But inspiration does not mean infallibility. The man of Eden, who became known as Adam, was inspired. Yahweh Elohim breathed his spirit into him, and he became a living soul. But he was unfaithful, followed the serpent, and ate of the forbidden fruit. He then had to cover his nakedness with fig leaves. In the old testament, uncovering nakedness is a euphemism for infidelity. So inspiration does not mean infallibility.
What is the word of God? Of course Jesus the messiah is the Word of God. But that is another part of the discussion .
In the context of the a written record like the Bible, the word of someone means the words they say, or the message they give. In the new testament of my NKJV, the words of God in the NT are printed in red. Thomas Nelson did not give the same consideration to the words of Yahweh in the old testament. Nonetheless it is evident that the words of God only make up a part of scripture. There are the words directly spoken by God, and spoken through the prophets. It may have been God who wrote on the wall at Belshazzar's feast.
But the Bible contains other material. History, poetry, genealogies, and even the ravings of crazies like Cain, Jereboam, Saul and many more.
So it is perplexing when people call the Bible the word of God, when in fact it is a biography of God, and his people Israel. It includes crimes, catastrophes, and terrible utterances like that of Nahash the Ammonite, who said, "On this condition I will make a covenant with you, that I may put out all your right eyes, and bring reproach on all Israel." 1 Samuel 11:2
Many Christians, in devotion and happiness, confidently call the Bible, the word of God. No-one else seems to mind, but personally, it strikes me as contrived to do so.
You do realize that the 10 Words (Commandments) were written in King James English 😮
Yup! ;)
Haven't watched yet.
* reads title *
* looks up verse *
Oh, no. Don't tell me people are going to use THESE verses to promote the KJVO view. Please, no!
This video is going to set my stomach churning in frustration and anger again, isn't it?
Not only that, it's the most common passage they use.
In short a very good Video.👍
Many thanks!
Mark, what is the purpose of Psalm 12:6? If what you're saying is true, it seems out of place with the other seven verses of the Psalm.
"The words of the LORD are pure words,
like silver refined in a furnace on the ground,
purified seven times."
I don't think so. I think we're dealing with an insistence that God's promises to the poor and needy are trustworthy.
Isn't a promise a series of words?
"Pure" (טְהֹרוֹת) means clean or pure. The words (of promise) are clean. There are no blemishes in them. The impurities are removed by the refining fire.
Verse 5: God promises to protect the poor.
Verse 6: God's promises are very reliable.
Verse 7: Thus, the poor will be protected.
@@MAMoreno Very well put! Thanks, I needed that clarity.
For this exercise I read the whole psalm, in the KJV, therefore understand those two verses relatively to the whole. God’s word stands forever no matter how evil the world gets. Same difference in all my other translations. May I make a suggestion, Mark? Would you please write the KJV text examples in a modern typeface instead of that awful olde world font? In fact, all of your type styles are lumpy serif faces.
Never! ;) I love Brokenscript! It's a beautiful contemporary gothic font!
@@markwardonwords Please keep it!
Another example of a feminine word that isn't masculinized is God's wisdom in Proverbs 8. There wisdom is portrayed as a woman who is at God's side at creation.
Was there a woman God had in mind?
On this specific topic I just like to challenge KJVOists to define what the “word of God” even is.
We know the Bible makes distinction between the “word of God” and “Written scriptures”.
In *most* instances, I argue the “word of God” is not the canonized scripture at all. But rather the essence of God. We see this in John 1, where the Word (big W) is directly referred to Jesus, and the word (little w) is the referred to the glory of God without the use of spoken, or written, words in Psalm 19.
I would always recommend doing a deep dive on what the word of God actually is. I find that many Christians, KJVOists or not, don’t actually understand what it is.
While the word of God includes written scriptures, I hold the view that it’s the essence and glory of God as a whole. Wherever Jesus is, so is the word. Doesn’t matter if it’s a “Jesus Saves” shirt, doesn’t matter if it’s a tattoo of the cross, doesn’t matter how or where, if it contains the power of Christ, that’s the word.
Of course; we also have the instances where the “word” is referred to as actual angelic beings, or so that’s how I’ve interpreted that part. Could be wrong.
Anyway, back to the video!
That was a good discussion of Psalms 12:5-7. On another note, now, some KJVO people are saying that the Septuigent is fake.Maybe you can do a video on this sometime. {I spelled Septuigent wrong)
Psalms 41:2 The LORD will preserve him, and keep him alive; and he shall be blessed upon the earth: and thou wilt not deliver him unto the will of his enemies.
Psalms 97:10. Ye that love the LORD, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked.
Psalms 140:4 Keep me, O LORD, from the hands of the wicked; preserve me from the violent man; who have purposed to overthrow my goings.
Most of the time the word (preserve) shows up in the Psalms it looks like the examples above. Why would Psalm 12 be any different?
That is a component of an important argument: what does “preserve” even mean?
@markwardonwords I don't know Greek or Hebrew or even good English, haha. But based on what I've seen in the bible, it seems to mean that you prevent something negative from happening to a person, place, or thing. (Preserve a soul from perishing, preserve somebody from suffering consequences from wicked men) so in order for God to (preserve) this word, what is He (preserving) it from....or what is He (keeping) from happening to them?
I like asking questions. :)
I have a question. Is bible related to neuroscience?
ew = o as in _nose_
shew = sho (long o)
Courtesy of the Cambridge Dictionary (rowing team - joking)
Hi Mark, will you be transitioning to speaking about more edifying subjects? I would love to see you use your gifts and learning to speak about Jesus himself rather than Bible translation polemics!
Yes, that is my most definite plan! I've already shot my final video on the KJV controversy. I will release it in time.
@ Very glad to hear that! Blessings.
How ironic that the DSSs didn't preserve this verse.
Nope. Man just saying that is quicker than a video. But way less apologetically effective and less edifying lol.
The fact is plain they don't use the 1611 K.J.V.
You should read what is said about Psalm 12:6-7 in chapter five of Dr. Chester Kulus' book "Those So-Called Errors." One thing in there is a list of gender discordance regarding to God's Word--not only in the Psalms, but also in much of the Bible (Lev 22:31, 26:3, Num 15:39, 1Ki 6:12, Ezk 18:19, etc.).
I’m interested. Can you get a page scan to me?
@@heybuster RUclips takes links out or kills comments with links. You can send this through the contact form at forwarddesigner.net.
@@markwardonwords
Just left comments on that contact page. Thank you.
Dr. David L. Brown addresses Psalm 12 in his talk titled Providential Preservation: The Doctrine that Virtually Disappeared on the King James Bible Research Council's website.
Do you think he said anything my paper doesn't answer?
It seems the idea was God does preserves His promises and doctrines through time, whatever the arguments. Meaning the KJV have been for many years the Bible of those promises and doctrines. Except for Catholic Bibles, many years KJV was for awhile, only game in town. So, fulfilling God's promise of God's word in every generation. So, a translation can come from the foundation of KJV, not so much from outside of it.
Well, we can point to two major revisions of the KJV:
- Revised Version (1885)
- New King James Version (1982)
There are also a slew of other updates. The MEV, KJVER, and SKJV are probably the best-known examples from the past decade or so.
The Revised Version received a minor update in the 1901, known as the American Standard Version. Then the ASV itself would be the direct basis for three prominent versions of the mid-20th century.
Major ASV updates:
- Revised Standard Version (1952, 1971)
- New American Standard Bible (1971, 1977, 1995, 2020)
- The Living Bible (1971)
Additionally, the Amplified Bible and the World English Bible, along with some even more obscure revisions, have sprung from the ASV.
The more prominent updates would too see their own revisions:
- RSV > New Revised Standard Version (1989, 2021)
- RSV > English Standard Version (2001, 2016)
- NASB > Legacy Standard Bible (2021)
- TLB > New Living Translation (1996, 2015)
So we have quite a few options coming from the foundation of the KJV. The furthest departure is probably the NLT, but it is still part of the lineage.
This video exemplifies a broad ignorance of the position of King James Bible only supporters, either misrepresenting them, or presenting the view of a minority (e.g. TROs). It also exemplifies the manifest problem of the "grammatico-" component of modernistic hermeneutics in how interpreting Psalm 12 is approached and explained.
Further, this video does not at all show the meaning of the prophecy of Psalm 12 as a whole, which would be an important bearing in examining the words and their meaning.
This video (as is typical of the anti-King James Bible perfection position) misunderstands the footnotes/margins/centre columns of the KJB, by acting as though the variant translations there are equal to or even part of the sacred deposit. Everything known about these variants, including from John Bois' notes, from the Preface to the KJB and from other sources going to those times, as well as scholars afterwards and common sense, shows that the variant translations were provided, and had been judged or resolved to be less preferred than the main rendering.
Finally, KJBOs do not believe that there are perfect copies in Greek or perfect Greek MSS or a perfect Greek TR somewhere, they do not believe literally that there was a perfect copy of the NT extant in the Reformation, and when the Westminister men spoke of the words being kept pure in all ages, they meant words being kept, not immaculate manuscripts. This video implies wrongly that KJBOs believe things which they do not believe.
I actually know about your website, so I do have a question: if there is no perfect Greek manuscript, why are you obsessing over US vs UK spellings?
Westminister is clear that it's the original language text that is preserved and infallible, not translations.
I have met a lot of people that claim to be KJVO that have told me that it is completely without a single error and used those verses as a proof text
@@maxxiong The WCF also lets you how to access that "original text" scripture, and that is by translation. Thus Scripture is in English.
@@maxxiong I'm not obsessed. Also, if there is no perfect Greek manuscript, why are you supporting textual criticism which you know is going to fall short of the goal of textual resolution?
@@bibleprotector The WCF doesn't say English but every nation's language. It also says the infallibility comes from the fact that the original language text is "immediately inspired by God", and it's clear from the careful ordering that the infallible authority is only in the original language.
Not to mention that KJV English certain does not meet the standard of "vulgar language" for the simple reason that "thou" is not used in common speech.
Only Mark Ward sees female in a Psalm that mentions "men", "his", "him"...
He’s talking about grammatical gender, not sex. Many European languages still have a grammatical gender system. Even Old English used to distinguish between male and female nouns before the 12th century
Do you know anything at all about grammatical gender used in other languages? What are you even implying?
@@emiroviloria7368Yup, Spanish has this kind of thing. Things that end with "o" are masculine, things that end with "a" are feminine. This applies even when it's something that's neither male nor female by definition. For instance "mano" for hand.
The English transliteration for the Greek noun for “sin” is “hamartia”. It’s a feminine noun. Would you suggest that only women can be sinners?
It seems to me you are just wishing that it does. Originally the Bible was perfect but man in his greed has distorted it, to the point where people have become corrupted by newer versions. All of the newer version are corrupt. The KJV is the only Bible with out corruption
He's wishing that it does what? That Ps 12:6-7 makes a promise to us about the perfect preservation of the Bible? It doesn't even remotely do that. Read the Psalm in its entirety and it becomes quite evident that the Psalmist is bring comfort to God's oppressed people because they serve a God whose word is trustworthy and reliable, unlike (by contrast) the unreliable, flattering and boastful lips (words) of the wicked.
Do you have proof that modern translations are all influenced by greed? Have you evaluated *every* (keyword every) translation post-KJV to arrive at such an amazing allegation?