This video reminded me of something that haunted me in Bible college. How can we know something that we don't know? I spent 55 years in the KJV and for most of that time had accepted archaic terms that I struggled with in my youth. Much later in life I learned that there are numerous false friends/cognates that we were misunderstanding. I now have 13 English Bible translations and it is remarkable how often they agree and the AV is the odd one out. Such as in John 1 where the darkness couldn't 'comprehend' the Light. A reader might never consult a dictionary if they fail to know that they don't actually understand a word. We must understand the Word! 🙏🏼
I know this is an older video, but I just want to say I really appreciate your ministry and I particularly liked this survival-style video of you in the wilderness.
In my opinion, if someone is KJV only, there is probably much more wrong with their beliefs that goes deeper than their love for KJV. I used to care more about arguing with people over this but I found it more productive focusing on what views we share. If they can’t accept me as a never KJV I have to move on.
I think this is often the case; the KJV-Only folks who are nasty online clearly have more wrong with them than just this. But I'd like to think that this was one of relatively few problems-and a minor one at that-in my own mind and heart as a teenager when I accepted this teaching. I don't remember ever being a jerk about it, either. I do remember arguing for the KJV with a college student after my freshman year, and I don't remember being nasty. I try to assume that KJV-Only folks *don't* have much more wrong with their beliefs unless they give me more evidence.
Another enlightening video, thank you Mark. Since listening to your book Authorized just under a week ago I have been greedily gobbling up scripture. I don’t want to sleep at night as I have a fervour for the Bible that I haven’t had in many years. The KJV Bible is beautiful and I never want to stop reading it but now I read it with the freedom to cross reference other translations. I praise our God who answers my prayers about blind spots in my life.
Random comment, probably not directly related to this video: you've often cited 1 Cor 14 for the proposition that edification requires intelligibility, and I've heard you mention that you've gotten some pushback on that application. But the Westminster Confession of Faith agrees with this application in Ch 1 ¶ 8. After observing that the original texts are inerrant, it continues, "But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come..." As authority for the last phrase, they cite 1 Cor 14. So, while your application of that passage may not have been universally held in the past, the Westminster Divines agreed with you.
@@markwardonwords I may be a year late to your channel or so I am not a kjvo I almost was one for about 60 literally second many years ago. But I would like to e mail you if that be alright with you.
I love your book, have recommended it several times to people to help them in their ability to talk to kjv only people. Appreciated your chapel messages at BJU a while back. Keep up the good work, and eat thou some lunch.
Thank you for this! It's been a true gift of God to watch this book travel past some very "watchful dragons," as Lewis called them! And then to see them find that the book holds truths the dragons were actually meant to guard in the first place and not to keep at bay.
With all the modern Translations I've wondered why no one has taken on the task of updating the archaic wording to a modern wording without changing the word order? Which in my opinion would make the KJV easier to understand but still hold to the traditional and poetic setting of the text.
Easier said than done; word order is an aspect of language, and it, too, can be archaic. And why should all the decisions of the KJV translators be considered inviolate? They didn’t think of their own work that way.
I appreciate very much your effort to emphasize the need to consult or read modern Bible translations and versions and the need to help Bible readers to understand the Bible and of course to help a modern plowboy.I look at 2 Chronicles 2:2 in NKJV it reads Solomon selected ESV and NASV 1995 read Solomon assigned,I can understand it more than the KJV rendition.
Hey Mark, not really related to this video, but what are your thoughts of the idea that the church should be in charge of the text of scripture and that it shouldn’t be left to secular scholars? I have to say, I am sympathetic to this idea, myself.
Matt, I am sympathetic to this idea, too-but in my judgment, the situation we want is the situation we have. All of the translators of the versions I use are strong evangelical Christians. And though they use the work of secular textual scholars, they are also independent judges of that work. They make their own textual-critical decisions in both testaments, just as the KJV translators did before them. They don't blindly follow the work of secular scholars. And consider that apart from the very rare conjectural emendation-and I'm not personally aware of any of these that have made it into any evangelical Bible translations, though I could be wrong-every single variant chosen by secular biblical scholars was found in some ancient or medieval person's Bible. It's really only in the OT that conjectural emendations-scholarly guesses-are employed at all, and even there, we're mostly talking about very obscure passages with no clear doctrinal implications. I'm not saying they're unimportant, just not weightier matters of the law. Secular scholars are currently ascendant in textual criticism: the Nestle-Aland 28 has the most cachet. I grant that. But I see this situation changing. The THGNT is an example of this. Strong evangelicals put it out. Crossway publishes it. It could someday form the textual basis of the ESV, I think. Lastly, do look at kjvparallelbible.org, a project I made and that I need to talk about more on this channel. The differences between the Texti Recepti and the critical texts are simply not massive. They are mostly excessively minor.
@@markwardonwords "And consider that apart from the very rare conjectural emendation-and I'm not personally aware of any of these that have made it into any evangelical Bible translations, though I could be wrong" The ESV retains at least one of the RSV's conjectural emendations. It appears in Psalm 73.10. I'll include the NKJV for comparison because it doesn't include the emendation. - The RSV reads this way: "Therefore the people turn and praise them; and find no fault in them." - The ESV reads this way: "Therefore his people turn back to them, and find no fault in them." - The NKJV reads this way: "Therefore his people return here, And waters of a full cup are drained by them." The RSV had two conjectural emendations here (labeled as "cn" for "correction"). The ESV rejects the emendation in the first line, but it keeps the one in the second line. The ESV's footnote identifies this as a "probable reading" before giving the NKJV's wording as a translation of the Hebrew text. Out of all the examples of RSV emendations listed in "Revised Version or Revised Bible?" by Oswald T. Allis, this is the only one of note that I've also found in the 2016 ESV. (The ESV also follows the RSV's "cn" note in 2 Chronicles 11.23, but that's really a case of interpretive translation rather than a true emendation. Even the NASB and NKJV include the words "for them" at the end of the verse as the RSV does, albeit in italics.) EDIT: I made the much simpler move of Googling "ESV probable reading" and also found Deuteronomy 33.7 and Job 14.6. There are surely others, but the ESV has reversed quite a few of the RSV's conjectural emendations.
@@markwardonwords Thank you for your thoughts. That makes a lot of sense. I think it’s easy to be really protective of the text of scripture considering what we evangelicals believe about it. I have wondered the same thing about the esv and the thgnt. Perhaps it will. Also thank you for your work on the parallel Bible. It helps to bring perspective to the whole debate about text families; so does my wife when she rolls her eyes anytime I bring up Bible versions…
multiple locations, B-roll footage for when you've got text on the screen, interspersed images... Mark, you're really starting to make these videos snazzy. Content wise, I remember reading the "told out" passage as a kid, and being so confused by it that I gave up trying to figure it out. I even looked up "told" in a dictionary and it didn't help at all.
I am indeed working to improve! I live in such a beautiful part of the country; it's a shame not to use the PNW as a backdrop! But it's harder than I ever thought to do it right.
Could evil be considered a false friend especially in the context given in Amos? Evil according to the 1828 Webster, and I think in this context, could mean anything which produces pain, distress, loss, or calamity. Where as evil in today’s English is often referred to something more sinister, wicked, villainous, or morally wrong. I think there may be a false friend here.
I think that is a real possibility. I checked the OED just now, and I see "What is mischievous, painful, or disastrous" listed as one of the senses. It would take me some real additional time to be sure about this; I'd need to spend some real time looking at translators' renderings of the relevant Hebrew word, especially.
‘Who are you going to listen to; me or the scholars whom study and understand the original language for context’ 😄 Conscripted is common in international English… which the NIV is interpreted as.
It’s a convention I use to help me and viewers distinguish the KJV (and other Early Modern English writings) from contemporary translations. Plus, I really like the font, Brokenscript.
To the people that say "which translation is harder to read again?" like the meme says... The KJV is definitely one of the harder, if not the hardest, translations to grasp out there. I started reading a KJV as a young teen, from about 12 until 15 years old? Let me tell you, there was a TON of stuff that I never even remotely understood, when I went back and read the start of the Bible again(yes, I read the Bible start to finish the first time, I know it's not the best study method lol) in my NLT there was a lot of things I felt like were BRAND new information because I didn't even understand them the first time around. Let me ask KJV onlyers; if a young teen can't even remotely understand some parts of the KJV, how can anyone argue it's easier to grasp than other translations, even remotely??
I'm a big reader. I read ALL the time. I have tackled some tough books and I read a KJV. I also read an LSB, an ESV, and a NKJV. The KJV has beautiful language but it is definitely the hardest to read. I have to really slow down and have to look stuff up to understand what was being said or reference what I knew from other translations. I was spending more time looking things up than actually reading the word. As a consequence, I've not read the KJV from beginning to end yet. I really like my LSB which is my go to for every day reading because I'm able to understand and spend more time on the actual word than I am looking things up. It took me a long time to get past the KJV only thing because I was being told by so many great teachers that it was the only correct version. I came to a realization though, none of the respected translations take away from the gospel. None of them take away from the things we should be discussing with our brothers and sisters. There is too much division in the church right now over things that aren't of consequence to our salvation and all it does is help the enemy in making us look like a bunch of squabbling children to non-believers.
Was introduced to you on Remnant Radio. This video and your homosexuality word study video have been SUPER insightful to me as a simple seminary student (lots to learn still). Just wanted to say thank you.
It's fun to check the Douay Rheims when you talk about difficult verses in the KJV, so here I go again. It says "numbered out" for instead of "told out". Interesting. Though how much of that is the original 1609 translation versus the 1750s revision of Bishop Challoner I don't know. For what it's worth, I think conscripted is the better word to use.
Thank you. I really appreciate your approach to this topic. I recently discovered your work due to the lectures you gave at BJU. I have an interest in learning more about Textual Criticism and gain more knowledge of the Biblical languages. I really appreciate you recommending some great sources for further study. I'm currently working through the Credo House course by Daniel Wallace and find it helpful and fascinating. I thank the Lord for you brother.
"I've often wondered if there should be a modern translation that solely changes these kinds of things, but it would be such a huge task I couldn't imagine trying to tackle it myself" So, let's get a bunch of people together and do it...I'd be happy to be a part of that team of people.
I've done more work on this possibility since then. Getting a bunch of people together isn't easy either. It's a slow, slow thing. Many fits and starts.
@@markwardonwords Just wanted you to know the KJV guys weren't attributing evil to God! It's a false friend. You actually knew that it meant that, I bet, deep in your brain--it's just stuck in fixed old-fashioned now phrases: "It was an evil day that I was born!"
Thank you so much for your response! Southern Georgian here. We agree indeed the Hebrew verb, in this verse contextually points to counting. Klein compares saphar "he counted," and sipper "he told".To be clear my argument supports the KJV translation of "told out".On the surface this appears archaic and out of place, however this english verb is used colloquially to mean other than "to narrate". “tell” (of which “told” is the past tense); Rooted in the Old English “tellan,” meant : “to count” or “to keep track of,” a sense we still use when we “tell time” and which underlies the word “teller,” [MWone that reckons or counts:] which is used in modern day banks. A modern phrase such as “All told” embodies this archaic sense of “tell” in the past tense to mean “all counted and added up, in summation.” So “all told” can be properly used today in a numerical sense (“All told, twelve soldiers were killed.”) as well as a more figurative sense of “the end result” (“All told, it was a pretty successful debate.”). Interestingly, the evolution of “to tell” from meaning “to count” to meaning “to narrate a story” is paralleled by another common word, “recount” (as well as an “account” for the story itself). Another jewel of this study is the word tally, which we still use; (root in Latin taele (a cutting rod, stick) think of stick with tally marks to keep track of contracts. These sticks could be split (the original duplicate receipt). Another modern example is telltale. [MW a device for indicating or recording something:]. One final thought regarding the ESV "assigned" and NIV "conscripted" translations; both of these, to me at least, have the connotation of compulsory or even against ones will (more so with conscripted) [MW conscript: enrolled into service by compulsion] I would argue that those that were accounted for in the preparation of the building of the Temple were wholeheartedly voluntary and willing. This point would argue against the NIV translation.
In shakespeare told out or tell just means count. Tell is commonly used as count in shakespeare. A teller in a bank does count money as is often mentioned by kjv only believers to claim that tell = count is not archaic. Jubilee Bible correctly modernized told to counted. Jubilee Bible is translated from textus receptus to spanish to english.
@markward..I have noticed that kjv and nkjv are worded in a manner that shows dispensational doctrine much clearer than the niv and nlt. Admittedly I mainly use nkjv and nlt.I enjoy teading the word of God but as you say there is no perfect translation..Blessings brother. Toni's husband
They also hid a couple of wild things Luke 17:34 “I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left
Another really good video. I used to be KJV-only, but over the past couple of years, I've changed my mind on this issue. While I still love and read the KJV, I no longer believe that the King James Bible is the only translation that English readers should use today and that all other translations since the KJV are at best flawed and at worst demonic. I've come to love the RSV and NASB (1977), as they retain the thee's and thou's, but only in reference to God, so it still has some of that KJV language and they used it as a way to elevate God with this choice, which I love. I also love the fact that the NASB capitalises pronouns for God (like He, Him, etc.) and that it contains Old Testament quotes in the New Testament in full caps. You can feel the passion for God's Word with these choices in these particular translations. Lastly, I also like the thought-for-thought and interpretive choices in the New Living Translation. Obviously, a word-for-word approach (like the NASB, NKJV, ESV, KJV, etc.) will always trump a thought-for-thought translation (like the NIV and NLT), I do like to use the NLT, when it comes to a difficult passage or verse, as translating word-for-word into another language doesn't always communicate the meaning very well.
I love to give examples of overliteral translations. My favorite comes from the 1609 Douay at Isaiah 5.1b: "A vineyard was made to my beloved in horn the son of oil." If you translate too literally, it can often become word salad.
I appreciate the humble and charitable manner in which you deal with KJVO proponents. There is not enough kindness and charity extended to Christians who hold ideas that we might disagree with. Having said that, I would go a step further. I believe that many of those pushing KJVO theories are intentionally using dishonest means to advance their belief. I believe that we know them by their fruits, those fruits are division in the Church, sowing doubt about the trustworthiness of God’s Word and placing barriers between the Bible and a world is desperate need of truth. I pray that they repent of the harm they have done.
@@markwardonwords Your attitude is the right one and that is what makes your book (Authorized - The Use and Misuse of The King James Bible, a book that I believe every Christian should read) and RUclips channel so different and so valuable. You dispense kindness and honesty in equal doses and I appreciate that. I grew up in a KJVO church, if I had had you book and channel 20 years ago it would have saved me a lot of time and hand-wringing.
Good vid!....one thing you’ve said before has stuck with me which is...instruction/edification requires intelligibility...or something phrased like that.
Right! People can't be edified by things they don't understand. And yes, teachers can help. But why make teachers' jobs unnecessarily difficult by using English even the teachers don't speak and don't fully understand-when intelligible alternatives are available in contemporary English!
I have a question along with my comment. Comment first. I don’t use the KJV any for the simple reason that I don’t use or speak Elizabethan English. I also don’t use or speak Japanese, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and I don’t use Bibles in those languages either. So, what’s the problem? Nobody is criticizing me for not using those Bibles so why criticize me for not using a KJV? And for those that do I have a good answer. Every version I have quotes Jesus as saying, “I am the way, the truth, and the light and no one comes to the Father except through me.” Pretty plain I’d say. Now the question. Have any of you folks with advanced degrees considered how much more you could contribute to the unsaved if you would spend as much time teaching from the modern versions and explaining things so new Christians could understand the Bible in today’s English as you do debating a non-issue?
Brother, as best I can tell, there are hundreds of thousands of Christians who believe that the KJV is the only reliable translation there is. They go beyond this belief, however, to construct a doctrine that they all confess in the very first points of their church (and mission board and school and publishing house) doctrinal statements, namely that God himself insists that we all read only the KJV. This is doctrinal error, and it has definite practical implications. It divides churches and Christians from one another; it splits families; it stunts the education of pastors, because they aren't permitted to consider translation options outside what the KJV has already concluded-so expository preaching suffers. KJV-Onlyism is not a non-issue *among those many sheep of Christ for whom it is an issue.* I wish it were a non-issue! I wish I didn't have to talk about it. Sometimes I simply cannot believe that anybody in the world swallows some of the obvious untruths touted by KJV-Onlyism-like the one in this meme. But they do. So what can I do? Ignore them? Blow them off? No, I love them. They are my brothers. I am working to rescue them, as I believe the New Testament demands: "Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." (Galatians 6:1-2 ESV)
Right. And on the local church and pastoral level, I obey that verse to the letter. But does that mean I should stop appealing to the countless pastors and laypeople out there whom I do not know personally? People who, by and large, have no idea that they have adopted a divisive and false doctrine?
@@markwardonwords but at what point do you become Don Quixote? Do you believe this is a salvation issue, do you think this gets in the way of them living a Christian life most of the time it seems that they would rather be left alone to worship God, 98% of the attacks I see originate against the KJV people, why is it so important to attack this version, why don’t you spend as much time on the Message and such version let that are born. Under questionable circumstances and have very little value.
I missed this video and only just now got the chance to view it. I really appreciate your humility in showing these errors in the KJVO movement yet unwilling to judge them even when they themselves are very judgemental. This is true Christian love. Thank you so much for sharing these videos. I've learnt a lot from these and your blog posts. Incidentally, after watching one of your videos on Bible typography, I've realised reading from a single column setting (my android tablet was actually set to double column) makes my Bible reading time more productive. Because I was a reader of the NKJV for such a long time paragraph seeting was my default, and it really helped with context when studying. Now combing paragraphs with single column is making my Bible time much more productive and effective. I just now need a physical Bible to match this and thus far the ESV Preaching Bible fits this perfectly for me.
@@markwardonwords Wow and sigh from me myself too. It is what it is. Anyhow, I really look forward to your uploads as they are very informative and enlightening. Thank you for your postings.
If "told out" was good enough for Coverdale, Geneva, and the Bishops, it's good enough for me! ;) As an aside, here's how the KJV's descendants handle the passage. The 1885 RV unwisely retained "told out," whereas ASV had the good sense to change it to "counted out" (which remains the reading in the WEB). The RSV and NASB changed that to "assigned" (which is retained in the ESV), and the NRSV followed the NIV's example by switching to "conscripted." Meanwhile, Noah Webster went for "numbered out," the NKJV opted for "selected," and the MEV currently has "designated."
told out = 'all told' , a common modern use of the word meaning the same as contextually , 'counted' ; in conjunction with v. 18 'he set'. Conscripted would not have the same meaning as we are talking of building the temple and NOT military service. The KJV holds to intended meaning of 'setting out a total account'.
This is the kind of counter-argument I've been looking for-rather vainly, I must say. You're engaging me on the ground I chose. - On "tell out": where are you from? I have never heard this use of the phrase. NOAD doesn't include it in its list of phrasal verbs including "tell." Neither does Merriam-Webster. Neither does American Heritage. Maybe "tell out" is holding on as a regionalism somewhere, or maybe indeed as a military phrase?? You say the phrase is common; I say I've never heard it, and I've got evidence. Do you have counter-evidence? - I also have evidence that not all "conscription" is military. NOAD: "enlist (someone) compulsorily, typically into the armed services." MW: "to enroll into service by compulsion." AHD: "To enroll compulsorily into service." - Where I'm more willing to give is on the meaning of the Hebrew word. Indeed it means "to count." But I think "assigned" (ESV) and "conscripted" (NIV) are both contextually appropriate glosses. The KJV translators did this kind of thing, too.
Oh, and I forgot: the OED lists this sense of "told out" as obsolete! There's more direct evidence from lexicographers that my read is right, that people won't reason from their knowledge of "all told" (although it was very perceptive for you to pick up that connection; I did not think of it) to the meaning of "told out."
Another issue with it is they are only using one modern translation the NIV is great but like any translation it has mistakes my ESV says Assigned I honestly think the NIV did better with the word conscript but my point is they seem to only go after the NIVwhen there are other modern translations that don't use that word.
It's ironic that the first example of "evil" could be considered a false friend. Such memes assess individual examples, and not the general character of modern translations as a whole. The KJV surely contains more dead words than difficult words in modern translations. And of course it doesn't engage with false friends at all. (Funnily enough I would argue that "conviction" 1 Thess 1:5 in the ESV is actually similar to a false friend in that it creates an ambiguity in the English translation)
I often wonder why so many in Christian circles feel free to violate the 9th commandment. It is so disappointing. Think of someone who is to be preaching the Word of God, simply ignores that commandment and makes up the conspiracy theories and half truths. Thank you for your videos.
Right. It's deeply disappointing to see this happen over and over. I must entrust myself to God, because it's hard to see these untruths getting answered and no one taking responsibility-apologizing-for promoting them.
Thank you for this great video Mark! I wish I could do a better job of countering the KJVO lies in the caring Christian way that you do. I confess that at times when posting a comment to a KJVO post that has a lie in it, I might sound angry in my reply to them with the honest fact. Hopefully, the more I watch your videos & read your book soon, the more your conduct will rub off on me. I most remind myself that I too use to believe those lies by those KJVO people that you mentioned in this video. Keep up the great work! 👍🏻
Too many KJ only “followers” will believe ANY thing, regardless of how far fetched, that props UP their argument and/or goes against the modern translations
Mark, I have listened to many of your RUclips videos and your book Authorized. I really enjoy your work. I love to learn languages. My primary language is English, but I dabble in Spanish and German. My goal, ultimately, is to get to Heaven. Therefore, I want to be able to understand what God has given us. When I translate, I have to say words that the person (or victim), since I am so bad at it, can understand. If not, I am wasting my time. One of the Elders at my church recently told me that he spent a week or 2 listening to the Bible in Spanish. He eventually gave it up because it made no sense to him. This goes back to your argument in 1 Cor 14. If people believe that the KJV is the only version, why don’t they just start speaking in that language? Probably because people would look at them silly. However, when I speak Spanish for my Spanish speaking friends it helps them know what I want them to do. We use languages for a purpose. The only languages that God ever indicated that He had a preference in, would be Hebrew, Koine Greek and Aramaic. We should be striving to understand Gods word not dividing us over which language He wants us to use. Great work. Keep it up. I would like to hear more on specific words.
You need to name names if the person in question is misleading more folks other than those at his own church. Follow the example of Paul's letters to Timothy.
I honestly don't remember, at this point, who shared this meme. And I resist your argument: I think naming names, when this meme is shared by so many, will actually confuse the issues. This meme is also representative, as I can testify, of countless KJV-Onlyists. Why make the followers of any one of these men (pastors, usually), or of the institutions they represent, defensive by naming names? I do this sometimes, but what can I say-I try to be very careful when doing this.
@@markwardonwords that's neat. Everyone I know who went there was a really nice person and devoted Christian. I left that church years ago and wouldn't feel comfortable attending a KJV only church anymore, but I have lots of great memories and appreciate the strong foundation in the faith I got there.
@@tayh.6235 Amen. This is the way the real world is: good Christian people can be wrong about something without vitiating all their other good qualities, the fruits of the Spirit in them. I worked with Ambassador grads at a Christian camp, and they were fine, humble Christian folks.
Video looks great 👌 would be really cool if you can look at something like the track from chick tracts titled "the attack" A kjvo person from the USA sent me that booklet with a kjv Bible, a few ago I got some more pro kjv material sent to me from the USA with a kjv bible. Had I not known any better these materials would really make me believe all translations are corrupt 🤪 I admire the passion these kjvo ministries have for getting bibles out, just a shame about the kjvo material that the send with it.
Not always the case that easier reading means easier understanding. Let have the transliteration of Sheol, Sheol could refer to grave, hell (hades) or even Abraham’s bosom, so Sheol does little to nothing for the English reader. The context rarely gives answer with Sheol, atleast in English, maybe for the Hebrew reader might have more insight, so just a bad choice for the English, especially when there are English words are current usage
I tend to agree with you, honestly. I think "Sheol" should get translated rather than transliterated-if we all use only one Bible translation. But thankfully we don't have to. I see value in some translations acknowledging, "This one is just really hard to translate, and you're going to have to do some more study to know what 'Sheol' is." But the reason this one is hard is that it's hard in the Hebrew. I see that as rather different from the problem now existing in the KJV: the wholly unnecessary problem of archaisms.
Similar. Not the same. But yes, my whole case is that Elizabethan English-though clearly not "an entirely different language" from what we speak-nonetheless can usefully be regarded as one.
I love reading and studying the Bible but when I was tricked by lies into being KJV only I started to dread reading the Bible I would lose focus or get a headache from trying to understand it in places it made me not want to read or study scripture anymore. I actually like that type of English but so many words mean something completely different now compared to then. For a long time after I hated the KJV would tell anyone who would listen that it was a horrible translation based off of very bad and corrupted manuscripts. I was wrong it is a good translation but we have good ones now that are a joy and blessing to read.
I'm so glad you're now avoiding both extremes! The KJV is a great translation, but its archaic English presents a sufficient number of readability difficulties that no one should be insisting that others use it exclusively.
I shifted away from the KJV decades ago purely for readability and understandability reasons, not because of the textual issues which I was unaware of at the time.
When someone says that KJV is the only accurate and suitable version ask them to read and explain 1 Chronicles 26:17-18 in the KJV. There are also several instances of Elizabethan words that mean entirely the opposite today. Read KJV if you like, but a good student compares many versions and will access the Greek/Hebrew when possible. Be good Bereans.
I agree. The KJV only movement is a cancerous cult filled with catch phrases, scripted responses and emotional nonsense that defies logic and undisputed facts.
Nice video, Mark. Yes, it almost seems some deception or not enough thorough study is done in those memes! I always like to compare multiple translations. Even on just the two verses you mention... On Amos 3:6 The ESV; “Does disaster come to a city...”. The NWT; has “If a calamity occurs in the city....” The ESV; has in 2 Chronicles 2:2 “... Solomon assigned 70,000 men. The NWT; has “...Solomon enlisted...” Yes, the KJV wording isn’t nearly so clear. Multiple translations - the best way to go!
As a former KJV Onlyist, I have come to see much of this dishonesty like shown in the meme. The KJVO knows (as you stated) that “told out” is obviously less clear and therefore only cited part of the phrase in order to make it sound easier than the NIV. I constantly see these type of dishonest tactics and when I call them out, I am usually condemned to hell 🤦🏻♂️
I've thought a billion times about the waiter illustration I give in this video (an illustration I took from a great movie). Somehow, the mistakes in understanding are all made in favor of the KJV, never against it. I don't know that that means the progenitor of this meme "did it on purpose," that he knew he was misleading people. It does mean that he was too quick to hit "save," that he didn't do his homework.
I used to think this, too. Until I realized how much I myself was missing because of changes in English over time. I invite you to test yourself at kjbstudyproject.com.
I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. How in the world does this guy study and yet cannot get to the root of the problem. Does he not see that it all wrapped around codex a and b.... Does he know nothing of the Catholic and Protestant war on the Bible. Surely he's aware of what's going on. Or maybe, his childhood with his parents encouraging them to read the king James Bible, his own hatred for being encouraged in that direction has caused him to lose sight of the issues. It's not readability, it's manuscript. It's inspiration. And it's attack on the foundation of truth. I hope my brothers in Christ can reason with him better than I can but I would love to see this man change so my prayers go out to him
My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
@@markwardonwords great I probably don’t have a problem with those Bibles. They’re gonna be way better off than the junkie, modern textual scholar ones that many people support and subscribe to. Like the ESV NLT CSB NIV ASV
My personal preference is the KJV using 1828 Webster's dictionary when needed and quite rewarding. I often make comparisons using Jewish translations and many times am amazed how well the KJ translators did. That said the archaic words are a problem for many unaccustomed to the King James version language. My over all source is acknowledging the Holy Spirit trusting as He leads and guides me into all truth.
Here's the thing: I used to think that I was accustomed to the Elizabethan language and didn't need help. But it took years of study of Hebrew and Greek-and especially years of checking other translations-to show me places where I wasn't understanding the KJV as well as I thought I was. Check out my Fifty False Friends in the KJV series: ruclips.net/p/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc. See if you don't learn a few things! =) I know I did.
Mark has never said the archaic words were the problem. Those are easily looked up. He has always addressed the words we think we know but don't because the meaning has changed. Does the Holy Spirit point out and define those words for you?
of all the issues of our day to be concerned about. this is the least important. we are waiting for the return of Christ and the last days events. Get a reliable bible and love your neighbor.
Many thousands of Christians are dividing Christ's body over KJV-Onlyism. It does matter, my friend. Surely your last line is right, but it's my reliable Bible that tells me, "Blessed are the peacemakers."
Please sir, reveal any new doctrine you have uncovered from your work with words. I've learned more from KJ only teachers in a 30 minute video than from you in hours and hours of your videos. Did you go to seminary to learn of God? If so give use one small nugget of scriptural revelation gleaned from your work.
@@markwardonwords "openly vile" now that's a phrase to ponder. Many view the KJB as the word of God so they thus see it a vile abusive act to change it. I'm reminded of the old adage: "one man's trash is another man's treasure. But I wish to be open minded here and give you every opportunity to prove your Biblical prowess. You have no doubt read through the scriptures uncountable times seeking false friends so you might further your Wardisms. So please give us one little nugget of scriptural revelation, anything no matter how trivial. Perhaps just the tense of a verb that completely changes the meaning of a passage? Ok, we'll make this easy for you. Rather than something new, how about something old? At Mat 19: 17 Jesus instructs a man to keep the commandments to receive eternal life, a harsh undertaking in my opinion however it is repeated at Rev 22:14. But wedged in between these two instructions Paul tells us to only believe and describes what to believe at 1Cor 15:3. How confusing! Perhaps you might shed some light on these instructions from God. I do still feel that you believe we should do what God tells us. and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Matt.18.3 NKJV Come on now, for once do as instructed by Jesus and think like a small minded child. Oh yes, I'm wondering if it vile to refer to another as small minded? One of "vile's" synonyms is offensive. Is it offensive to you for someone to point out weakness? All I can say is if you can't stand the heat, get out of the RUclips cash cow fire.
@@markwardonwordsPS, I find it offensively vile to presumptuously claim no doctrines are lost in the writing of new versions. Unless of course you do know each and every doctrine in the KJB which a child like small mind might enjoy having the pleasure of at least deciding for themselves. I wonder what yet unrevealed message from God you and your associate "scholars" are covering over that He might wish to convey?
I like the 2011 NIV the most, as they seem to have corrected a few things. However, I'm still relying on the TR and the KJV just because I like the way it says certain passages. Using all of my versions seems to help me understand quite a bit more. Yes, the KJV has flaws! Example the translators of the KJV had a prejudice against women, even going so far as changing the leadership in the church from women's to mens names, yet Jesus never had that against women at all. This always confused me. The NIV 2011 has corrected this, as far as I can tell. If the KJV translators could change all of that, then what else is "not quite right" with the translation (I have to ask myself). Are you aware there were women in church leadership in the early church? No? Thank the KJV for that. I am now studying the NRSVue to see how I like it, or not. So far, I like it. 🙂
Its dishonest when you’re making comparisons without context and leading people astray. When that kind of thing is established as a habit, its a sin. Misrepresenting the truth to give yourself an advantage doesn’t redound to your credit. Falsifying what modern Bible translations actually say shows up the KJV-Only movement. Other people may have a good reason for rendering a certain passage in the sense that they give it and only that is considered suspect or controversial. Translation comes with choices and the KJV translators themselves admitted, some readings can be preferred over others. That’s exactly what translators in modern Bibles seek to establish. If you favor the KJV fine but it isn’t the gold standard of translation practice. Things can and will always be improved upon as the English language undergoes change.
I know what you mean when you say this, and I've mentioned this before, but the KJV is not written in Elizabethan English. It's a translation, and as such the translators chose the best English words to communicate the meaning of the original Hebrew and Greek words. The English of the KJV is unique (and not Elizabethan) for this reason. For more on this, read Gerald Hammond's book "The Making of the English Bible" (if you can find it).
I do acknowledge that there is some Biblish in the KJV; I think any version that leans literal is going to have Biblish. The NASB has Biblish. I don’t mind it much in the KJV or the NASB. But it simply cannot be an accident that, around 50 times for around 50 words, I have checked the OED and discovered that a sense for those words existed in 1611 that does not exist in our English today. The predominant character of the KJV is that of Elizabethan English.
@@markwardonwords Perhaps originally it was, more or less, as you say... but since the wording of the KJV we read today was updated in 1762 it's really not fair to say the KJV we read today is written in Elizabethan English. I think 1762 English would be considered modern English. But of course if you were to say the KJV we read today is written in modern English you would lose most all of the force behind your argument.
@@AJMacDonaldJr The KJV editions of the 1760s updated the spelling and punctuation to mid-18th century standards, but there was no real effort by Parris or Blayney to replace archaic words. And even if they had, we'd still be talking about a form of English that predates the American Revolution. The English of Jonathan Edwards is certainly more modern than the English of John Milton, but they're both obscure to most modern readers. You'd think that the champions of the Textus Receptus would at least be considerate enough to promote Noah Webster's mild revision of the KJV from 1833, as that one makes some effort to update the most outdated word choices while remaining essentially the same translation.
@@MAMoreno Okay, well, how many English words still have the same meaning today versus 1611? About 95%? The language hasn't changed that much. I have no trouble reading the KJV.
@@AJMacDonaldJr You THINK you have no trouble reading the KJV. I've found that readers of the KJV frequently misinterpret key passages because they're unfamiliar with the changes in word meanings since 1611. Every time I see someone quote 2 Timothy 2.15 in order to argue that Bible study leads to divine approval, I'm tempted to take their KJV from them and never let them abuse the poor thing again.
If one were to simply take the KJV as presented in the Cambridge New Paragraph and make the word/phrase changes that are in the Thomas Nelson footnotes... The KJV would be sufficiently and minimally updated to serve another 400 years.
I love the KJV but it's just not the book for the Nicolaitan church of our day. The language is not near the problem as the demands of doctrinal understanding. All the modern church wants to do is dance to religious rock and role. Saying Sam Gipp hasn't done his homework is a lie, or an unresearched mis-conclusion in itself.
I believe that the only consistent biblical position concerning the Bible itself is that God’s pure words ARE available for all generations. And in one Book. I believe that book is the King James AV 1611. Brother Mark. Per any written dialogue we have had, can you “honestly” say that I have been inconsistent or dishonest.? I HAVE read your book and find MUCH fault in it. Yet, as Pilate said of the Incarnate Word, so say I of the written word (as found in the Monarch of all Books), I find no fault in him. BTW I have done my homework
I see that now. I get the connection. Kirby, I will speak clearly: I *do* believe you have been dishonest, but not that you have lied. I do not recall specifics-I have lots of conversations in public and private about the KJV-but during the last interaction we had, you managed to find a way not only to insist that your interpretation of an extremely obscure poetic line in Job 17:6 was the only right one (though multiple other KJV-Only commenters offered different interpretations), but you also insisted that this obscure verse taught a key truth that was essential to NT theology. I'm sorry if I didn't get that quite right. Friend, that is interpretive dishonesty, because it fails to do what the NT itself does. Peter is willing to acknowledge what you were not, namely that some passages are hard to understand. And Jesus was willing to affirm what you weren't willing to affirm when an example was sitting in front of you: that there are weightier and less weighty matters of the law. Each of your interpretive mistakes can be honest, but they always go for you. I haven't seen you do what honest people do, and what I try to do, and acknowledge when your opponent makes a good point.
You actually commended me in the comments section of my RUclips video titled “Are Promoters of Modern Bible Versions Deceptive?” for doing the very thing you are now saying I NEVER do! (ie. acknowledging the strengths and skills of men who stand in opposition to my beliefs). Also the Job passage was NOT our last conversation. I say this to point out how sloppy you are at research. And also how willing you are to virtue shame others for the things you repeatedly do yourself. You speak of my errors in biblical interpretation. Yet I never claimed to interpret anything. Instead I made reference to “application” and there is a difference. (EVERY poetical book in the Bible is loaded with prophetic material). I am absolutely convinced that you have no idea of the biblical method of interpreting scripture. I stand by every thing I said in the job comments. Especially the part where I said, You are far to careless with your words to be correcting God’s. I will gladly discuss “Interpretive Honesty” with you any time you wish. Having proved my sword (time and again) I have so learned to let the Book stand as it is. (eg. tabret stays in Job 17). I would expose the consequences of changing it as I did with “begotten” in John 3:16 in my video titled “Our Outdated Bible”. Bro. Mark, you have for some reason chosen to enter into the Bible-correcting business. Not a good investment man
This video reminded me of something that haunted me in Bible college. How can we know something that we don't know? I spent 55 years in the KJV and for most of that time had accepted archaic terms that I struggled with in my youth. Much later in life I learned that there are numerous false friends/cognates that we were misunderstanding. I now have 13 English Bible translations and it is remarkable how often they agree and the AV is the odd one out. Such as in John 1 where the darkness couldn't 'comprehend' the Light. A reader might never consult a dictionary if they fail to know that they don't actually understand a word. We must understand the Word! 🙏🏼
I know this is an older video, but I just want to say I really appreciate your ministry and I particularly liked this survival-style video of you in the wilderness.
Thank you so much!
In my opinion, if someone is KJV only, there is probably much more wrong with their beliefs that goes deeper than their love for KJV. I used to care more about arguing with people over this but I found it more productive focusing on what views we share. If they can’t accept me as a never KJV I have to move on.
I think this is often the case; the KJV-Only folks who are nasty online clearly have more wrong with them than just this. But I'd like to think that this was one of relatively few problems-and a minor one at that-in my own mind and heart as a teenager when I accepted this teaching. I don't remember ever being a jerk about it, either. I do remember arguing for the KJV with a college student after my freshman year, and I don't remember being nasty. I try to assume that KJV-Only folks *don't* have much more wrong with their beliefs unless they give me more evidence.
Agreed
Another enlightening video, thank you Mark. Since listening to your book Authorized just under a week ago I have been greedily gobbling up scripture. I don’t want to sleep at night as I have a fervour for the Bible that I haven’t had in many years. The KJV Bible is beautiful and I never want to stop reading it but now I read it with the freedom to cross reference other translations. I praise our God who answers my prayers about blind spots in my life.
Wonderful! I couldn't get any better news from a viewer.
Random comment, probably not directly related to this video: you've often cited 1 Cor 14 for the proposition that edification requires intelligibility, and I've heard you mention that you've gotten some pushback on that application. But the Westminster Confession of Faith agrees with this application in Ch 1 ¶ 8. After observing that the original texts are inerrant, it continues, "But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come..." As authority for the last phrase, they cite 1 Cor 14. So, while your application of that passage may not have been universally held in the past, the Westminster Divines agreed with you.
Excellent! I hadn’t noticed this! And guess who else appealed to this passage during their discussion of Bible translation? The KJV translators.
Thank you for sharing this!
@@markwardonwords I may be a year late to your channel or so I am not a kjvo I almost was one for about 60 literally second many years ago. But I would like to e mail you if that be alright with you.
@@ericjustasinner5695 byfaithweunderstand.com/contact !
I love your book, have recommended it several times to people to help them in their ability to talk to kjv only people. Appreciated your chapel messages at BJU a while back. Keep up the good work, and eat thou some lunch.
Thank you for this! It's been a true gift of God to watch this book travel past some very "watchful dragons," as Lewis called them! And then to see them find that the book holds truths the dragons were actually meant to guard in the first place and not to keep at bay.
The Plowboy can never use the plow correctly if he doesn't understand the instructions.
Right!
With all the modern Translations I've wondered why no one has taken on the task of updating the archaic wording to a modern wording without changing the word order? Which in my opinion would make the KJV easier to understand but still hold to the traditional and poetic setting of the text.
Easier said than done; word order is an aspect of language, and it, too, can be archaic. And why should all the decisions of the KJV translators be considered inviolate? They didn’t think of their own work that way.
@@markwardonwords oh no sir I agree with you, no KJVO here just saying that the kjv could use an update as well 😉
Agreed!
Thank you for your patient, gracious truth-telling. Your ministry is a blessing!
Please pray for me!
I appreciate very much your effort to emphasize the need to consult or read modern Bible translations and versions and the need to help Bible readers to understand the Bible and of course to help a modern plowboy.I look at 2 Chronicles 2:2 in NKJV it reads Solomon selected ESV and NASV 1995 read Solomon assigned,I can understand it more than the KJV rendition.
Right! It's as simple as that!
Hey Mark, not really related to this video, but what are your thoughts of the idea that the church should be in charge of the text of scripture and that it shouldn’t be left to secular scholars? I have to say, I am sympathetic to this idea, myself.
Amen,
Matt, I am sympathetic to this idea, too-but in my judgment, the situation we want is the situation we have. All of the translators of the versions I use are strong evangelical Christians. And though they use the work of secular textual scholars, they are also independent judges of that work. They make their own textual-critical decisions in both testaments, just as the KJV translators did before them. They don't blindly follow the work of secular scholars.
And consider that apart from the very rare conjectural emendation-and I'm not personally aware of any of these that have made it into any evangelical Bible translations, though I could be wrong-every single variant chosen by secular biblical scholars was found in some ancient or medieval person's Bible. It's really only in the OT that conjectural emendations-scholarly guesses-are employed at all, and even there, we're mostly talking about very obscure passages with no clear doctrinal implications. I'm not saying they're unimportant, just not weightier matters of the law.
Secular scholars are currently ascendant in textual criticism: the Nestle-Aland 28 has the most cachet. I grant that. But I see this situation changing. The THGNT is an example of this. Strong evangelicals put it out. Crossway publishes it. It could someday form the textual basis of the ESV, I think.
Lastly, do look at kjvparallelbible.org, a project I made and that I need to talk about more on this channel. The differences between the Texti Recepti and the critical texts are simply not massive. They are mostly excessively minor.
Aaron KJV isn’t free to publish on UK or other commonwealth countries.
@@markwardonwords "And consider that apart from the very rare conjectural emendation-and I'm not personally aware of any of these that have made it into any evangelical Bible translations, though I could be wrong"
The ESV retains at least one of the RSV's conjectural emendations. It appears in Psalm 73.10. I'll include the NKJV for comparison because it doesn't include the emendation.
- The RSV reads this way: "Therefore the people turn and praise them; and find no fault in them."
- The ESV reads this way: "Therefore his people turn back to them,
and find no fault in them."
- The NKJV reads this way: "Therefore his people return here,
And waters of a full cup are drained by them."
The RSV had two conjectural emendations here (labeled as "cn" for "correction"). The ESV rejects the emendation in the first line, but it keeps the one in the second line. The ESV's footnote identifies this as a "probable reading" before giving the NKJV's wording as a translation of the Hebrew text.
Out of all the examples of RSV emendations listed in "Revised Version or Revised Bible?" by Oswald T. Allis, this is the only one of note that I've also found in the 2016 ESV. (The ESV also follows the RSV's "cn" note in 2 Chronicles 11.23, but that's really a case of interpretive translation rather than a true emendation. Even the NASB and NKJV include the words "for them" at the end of the verse as the RSV does, albeit in italics.)
EDIT: I made the much simpler move of Googling "ESV probable reading" and also found Deuteronomy 33.7 and Job 14.6. There are surely others, but the ESV has reversed quite a few of the RSV's conjectural emendations.
@@markwardonwords Thank you for your thoughts. That makes a lot of sense. I think it’s easy to be really protective of the text of scripture considering what we evangelicals believe about it. I have wondered the same thing about the esv and the thgnt. Perhaps it will. Also thank you for your work on the parallel Bible. It helps to bring perspective to the whole debate about text families; so does my wife when she rolls her eyes anytime I bring up Bible versions…
multiple locations, B-roll footage for when you've got text on the screen, interspersed images... Mark, you're really starting to make these videos snazzy.
Content wise, I remember reading the "told out" passage as a kid, and being so confused by it that I gave up trying to figure it out. I even looked up "told" in a dictionary and it didn't help at all.
I am indeed working to improve! I live in such a beautiful part of the country; it's a shame not to use the PNW as a backdrop! But it's harder than I ever thought to do it right.
Great video! And thank you for recognizing Surrett's humility and integrity-he's a godly man whom I highly respect!
Thanks, Omar! Yes, I wish we didn't have to be divided. Some day we will not be!
Could evil be considered a false friend especially in the context given in Amos? Evil according to the 1828 Webster, and I think in this context, could mean anything which produces pain, distress, loss, or calamity. Where as evil in today’s English is often referred to something more sinister, wicked, villainous, or morally wrong. I think there may be a false friend here.
I think that is a real possibility. I checked the OED just now, and I see "What is mischievous, painful, or disastrous" listed as one of the senses. It would take me some real additional time to be sure about this; I'd need to spend some real time looking at translators' renderings of the relevant Hebrew word, especially.
@@markwardonwords I think of Isaiah 45.7 "I make peace, and create evil" (KJV), "I make weal and create woe" (RSV).
‘Who are you going to listen to; me or the scholars whom study and understand the original language for context’ 😄
Conscripted is common in international English… which the NIV is interpreted as.
Why did you use a different font style when you showed the quotes from the KJV?
It’s a convention I use to help me and viewers distinguish the KJV (and other Early Modern English writings) from contemporary translations. Plus, I really like the font, Brokenscript.
To the people that say "which translation is harder to read again?" like the meme says... The KJV is definitely one of the harder, if not the hardest, translations to grasp out there. I started reading a KJV as a young teen, from about 12 until 15 years old? Let me tell you, there was a TON of stuff that I never even remotely understood, when I went back and read the start of the Bible again(yes, I read the Bible start to finish the first time, I know it's not the best study method lol) in my NLT there was a lot of things I felt like were BRAND new information because I didn't even understand them the first time around.
Let me ask KJV onlyers; if a young teen can't even remotely understand some parts of the KJV, how can anyone argue it's easier to grasp than other translations, even remotely??
I'm a big reader. I read ALL the time. I have tackled some tough books and I read a KJV. I also read an LSB, an ESV, and a NKJV. The KJV has beautiful language but it is definitely the hardest to read. I have to really slow down and have to look stuff up to understand what was being said or reference what I knew from other translations. I was spending more time looking things up than actually reading the word. As a consequence, I've not read the KJV from beginning to end yet. I really like my LSB which is my go to for every day reading because I'm able to understand and spend more time on the actual word than I am looking things up. It took me a long time to get past the KJV only thing because I was being told by so many great teachers that it was the only correct version. I came to a realization though, none of the respected translations take away from the gospel. None of them take away from the things we should be discussing with our brothers and sisters. There is too much division in the church right now over things that aren't of consequence to our salvation and all it does is help the enemy in making us look like a bunch of squabbling children to non-believers.
Right!
Thank you for your work and I appreciate your efforts to educate people.
Thank you for the kind word.
Was introduced to you on Remnant Radio. This video and your homosexuality word study video have been SUPER insightful to me as a simple seminary student (lots to learn still). Just wanted to say thank you.
You're so welcome! Glad to serve!
It's fun to check the Douay Rheims when you talk about difficult verses in the KJV, so here I go again. It says "numbered out" for instead of "told out". Interesting. Though how much of that is the original 1609 translation versus the 1750s revision of Bishop Challoner I don't know. For what it's worth, I think conscripted is the better word to use.
Interesting. The Hebrew word, as often, is pretty general. It's acceptable to come up with various solutions for translating it.
Thank you. I really appreciate your approach to this topic. I recently discovered your work due to the lectures you gave at BJU.
I have an interest in learning more about Textual Criticism and gain more knowledge of the Biblical languages. I really appreciate you recommending some great sources for further study. I'm currently working through the Credo House course by Daniel Wallace and find it helpful and fascinating.
I thank the Lord for you brother.
Excellent! Wallace is top notch!
"I've often wondered if there should be a modern translation that solely changes these kinds of things, but it would be such a huge task I couldn't imagine trying to tackle it myself" So, let's get a bunch of people together and do it...I'd be happy to be a part of that team of people.
I've done more work on this possibility since then. Getting a bunch of people together isn't easy either. It's a slow, slow thing. Many fits and starts.
@@markwardonwords if and when you do get people together, please keep me in mind. I'm serious.
@@seekingthekingdomfirst Can you email me at byfaithweunderstand.com/contact? And in the email tell me what some of your skills are for such a task?
Lots of talk of "lists" here. I'm confused. Where is this brother listing? Port? Starboard? Like the Spirit, listing where he will? Zounds!
FYI, evil used to very often mean calamity in English in the 17th century.
I went and looked this up; I hadn't yet. I can confirm that this is true.
@@markwardonwords Just wanted you to know the KJV guys weren't attributing evil to God! It's a false friend.
You actually knew that it meant that, I bet, deep in your brain--it's just stuck in fixed old-fashioned now phrases: "It was an evil day that I was born!"
Thank you so much for your response! Southern Georgian here. We agree indeed the Hebrew verb, in this verse contextually points to counting. Klein compares saphar "he counted," and sipper "he told".To be clear my argument supports the KJV translation of "told out".On the surface this appears archaic and out of place, however this english verb is used colloquially to mean other than "to narrate". “tell” (of which “told” is the past tense); Rooted in the Old English “tellan,” meant : “to count” or “to keep track of,” a sense we still use when we “tell time” and which underlies the word “teller,” [MWone that reckons or counts:] which is used in modern day banks. A modern phrase such as “All told” embodies this archaic sense of “tell” in the past tense to mean “all counted and added up, in summation.” So “all told” can be properly used today in a numerical sense (“All told, twelve soldiers were killed.”) as well as a more figurative sense of “the end result” (“All told, it was a pretty successful debate.”). Interestingly, the evolution of “to tell” from meaning “to count” to meaning “to narrate a story” is paralleled by another common word, “recount” (as well as an “account” for the story itself). Another jewel of this study is the word tally, which we still use; (root in Latin taele (a cutting rod, stick) think of stick with tally marks to keep track of contracts. These sticks could be split (the original duplicate receipt). Another modern example is telltale. [MW a device for indicating or recording something:]. One final thought regarding the ESV "assigned" and NIV "conscripted" translations; both of these, to me at least, have the connotation of compulsory or even against ones will (more so with conscripted) [MW conscript: enrolled into service by compulsion] I would argue that those that were accounted for in the preparation of the building of the Temple were wholeheartedly voluntary and willing. This point would argue against the NIV translation.
Joseph, I lost track of this conversation: did you answer my most recent comments to you?
In shakespeare told out or tell just means count. Tell is commonly used as count in shakespeare. A teller in a bank does count money as is often mentioned by kjv only believers to claim that tell = count is not archaic. Jubilee Bible correctly modernized told to counted. Jubilee Bible is translated from textus receptus to spanish to english.
I'm sure we could come up with untold (uncounted) examples if we put our minds to it.....
@markward..I have noticed that kjv and nkjv are worded in a manner that shows dispensational doctrine much clearer than the niv and nlt. Admittedly I mainly use nkjv and nlt.I enjoy teading the word of God but as you say there is no perfect translation..Blessings brother. Toni's husband
They also hid a couple of wild things
Luke 17:34
“I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left
Nice to see Seattle in the background ... Childhood home ...
Always appreciate your clarifications of half truths.
May I ask where you attend church? It was 1976 when we moved, and much has changed in those years ...
Emmanuel Baptist Church of Mount Vernon, WA.
Another really good video. I used to be KJV-only, but over the past couple of years, I've changed my mind on this issue. While I still love and read the KJV, I no longer believe that the King James Bible is the only translation that English readers should use today and that all other translations since the KJV are at best flawed and at worst demonic.
I've come to love the RSV and NASB (1977), as they retain the thee's and thou's, but only in reference to God, so it still has some of that KJV language and they used it as a way to elevate God with this choice, which I love. I also love the fact that the NASB capitalises pronouns for God (like He, Him, etc.) and that it contains Old Testament quotes in the New Testament in full caps. You can feel the passion for God's Word with these choices in these particular translations.
Lastly, I also like the thought-for-thought and interpretive choices in the New Living Translation. Obviously, a word-for-word approach (like the NASB, NKJV, ESV, KJV, etc.) will always trump a thought-for-thought translation (like the NIV and NLT), I do like to use the NLT, when it comes to a difficult passage or verse, as translating word-for-word into another language doesn't always communicate the meaning very well.
Thank you! Our thinking has traveled down similar paths!
I love to give examples of overliteral translations. My favorite comes from the 1609 Douay at Isaiah 5.1b: "A vineyard was made to my beloved in horn the son of oil." If you translate too literally, it can often become word salad.
I appreciate the humble and charitable manner in which you deal with KJVO proponents. There is not enough kindness and charity extended to Christians who hold ideas that we might disagree with.
Having said that, I would go a step further. I believe that many of those pushing KJVO theories are intentionally using dishonest means to advance their belief. I believe that we know them by their fruits, those fruits are division in the Church, sowing doubt about the trustworthiness of God’s Word and placing barriers between the Bible and a world is desperate need of truth.
I pray that they repent of the harm they have done.
You are correct. And yet I can't always know what's in the heart of these folks, so I start with the assumption that they are sincerely wrong.
@@markwardonwords Your attitude is the right one and that is what makes your book (Authorized - The Use and Misuse of The King James Bible, a book that I believe every Christian should read) and RUclips channel so different and so valuable. You dispense kindness and honesty in equal doses and I appreciate that.
I grew up in a KJVO church, if I had had you book and channel 20 years ago it would have saved me a lot of time and hand-wringing.
@@wnccoins4104 These are very kind words. Thank you. Pray for me!
@@markwardonwords I definitely will and I am deeply honored that you took time to reply to my comments!
Good vid!....one thing you’ve said before has stuck with me which is...instruction/edification requires intelligibility...or something phrased like that.
Right! People can't be edified by things they don't understand. And yes, teachers can help. But why make teachers' jobs unnecessarily difficult by using English even the teachers don't speak and don't fully understand-when intelligible alternatives are available in contemporary English!
I have a question along with my comment. Comment first. I don’t use the KJV any for the simple reason that I don’t use or speak Elizabethan English. I also don’t use or speak Japanese, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and I don’t use Bibles in those languages either. So, what’s the problem? Nobody is criticizing me for not using those Bibles so why criticize me for not using a KJV? And for those that do I have a good answer. Every version I have quotes Jesus as saying, “I am the way, the truth, and the light and no one comes to the Father except through me.” Pretty plain I’d say.
Now the question. Have any of you folks with advanced degrees considered how much more you could contribute to the unsaved if you would spend as much time teaching from the modern versions and explaining things so new Christians could understand the Bible in today’s English as you do debating a non-issue?
Brother, as best I can tell, there are hundreds of thousands of Christians who believe that the KJV is the only reliable translation there is. They go beyond this belief, however, to construct a doctrine that they all confess in the very first points of their church (and mission board and school and publishing house) doctrinal statements, namely that God himself insists that we all read only the KJV. This is doctrinal error, and it has definite practical implications. It divides churches and Christians from one another; it splits families; it stunts the education of pastors, because they aren't permitted to consider translation options outside what the KJV has already concluded-so expository preaching suffers. KJV-Onlyism is not a non-issue *among those many sheep of Christ for whom it is an issue.* I wish it were a non-issue! I wish I didn't have to talk about it. Sometimes I simply cannot believe that anybody in the world swallows some of the obvious untruths touted by KJV-Onlyism-like the one in this meme. But they do. So what can I do? Ignore them? Blow them off? No, I love them. They are my brothers. I am working to rescue them, as I believe the New Testament demands:
"Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ."
(Galatians 6:1-2 ESV)
@@markwardonwords Excellent point! I concede - keep up the good work.
@@markwardonwords 10
“A man that is an heretike, after the first and second admonition, reiect”
Right. And on the local church and pastoral level, I obey that verse to the letter. But does that mean I should stop appealing to the countless pastors and laypeople out there whom I do not know personally? People who, by and large, have no idea that they have adopted a divisive and false doctrine?
@@markwardonwords but at what point do you become Don Quixote? Do you believe this is a salvation issue, do you think this gets in the way of them living a Christian life most of the time it seems that they would rather be left alone to worship God, 98% of the attacks I see originate against the KJV people, why is it so important to attack this version, why don’t you spend as much time on the Message and such version let that are born. Under questionable circumstances and have very little value.
The NLT uses the word enlisted.
A good choice.
That’s how i would translated the word too
Another great video my brother!
Thank you!
@@markwardonwords you’re welcome brother
Mark, that was told out perfectly! I am secretly hoping to find some tough ones in the KJV that I know you'll sort out for me ;-)
;) I’ll do my best!
You are doing such great work.
I really enjoy what I get to do! Thank you for the kind word!
I missed this video and only just now got the chance to view it. I really appreciate your humility in showing these errors in the KJVO movement yet unwilling to judge them even when they themselves are very judgemental. This is true Christian love. Thank you so much for sharing these videos. I've learnt a lot from these and your blog posts.
Incidentally, after watching one of your videos on Bible typography, I've realised reading from a single column setting (my android tablet was actually set to double column) makes my Bible reading time more productive. Because I was a reader of the NKJV for such a long time paragraph seeting was my default, and it really helped with context when studying. Now combing paragraphs with single column is making my Bible time much more productive and effective. I just now need a physical Bible to match this and thus far the ESV Preaching Bible fits this perfectly for me.
I gave one of those away not too super long ago, and I don't think the owner is using it. Sigh!
@@markwardonwords Wow and sigh from me myself too. It is what it is.
Anyhow, I really look forward to your uploads as they are very informative and enlightening. Thank you for your postings.
Hi Mark very interesting as usual my friend 😊 thank you very much, for making things clear. God Bless
Thank you! Glad to serve!
If "told out" was good enough for Coverdale, Geneva, and the Bishops, it's good enough for me! ;)
As an aside, here's how the KJV's descendants handle the passage. The 1885 RV unwisely retained "told out," whereas ASV had the good sense to change it to "counted out" (which remains the reading in the WEB). The RSV and NASB changed that to "assigned" (which is retained in the ESV), and the NRSV followed the NIV's example by switching to "conscripted." Meanwhile, Noah Webster went for "numbered out," the NKJV opted for "selected," and the MEV currently has "designated."
Helpful! Thank you for this. I should be doing this little check every time I make a video, but it's hard to remember to do it!
told out = 'all told' , a common modern use of the word meaning the same as contextually , 'counted' ; in conjunction with v. 18 'he set'. Conscripted would not have the same meaning as we are talking of building the temple and NOT military service. The KJV holds to intended meaning of 'setting out a total account'.
This is the kind of counter-argument I've been looking for-rather vainly, I must say. You're engaging me on the ground I chose.
- On "tell out": where are you from? I have never heard this use of the phrase. NOAD doesn't include it in its list of phrasal verbs including "tell." Neither does Merriam-Webster. Neither does American Heritage. Maybe "tell out" is holding on as a regionalism somewhere, or maybe indeed as a military phrase?? You say the phrase is common; I say I've never heard it, and I've got evidence. Do you have counter-evidence?
- I also have evidence that not all "conscription" is military. NOAD: "enlist (someone) compulsorily, typically into the armed services." MW: "to enroll into service by compulsion." AHD: "To enroll compulsorily into service."
- Where I'm more willing to give is on the meaning of the Hebrew word. Indeed it means "to count." But I think "assigned" (ESV) and "conscripted" (NIV) are both contextually appropriate glosses. The KJV translators did this kind of thing, too.
Oh, and I forgot: the OED lists this sense of "told out" as obsolete! There's more direct evidence from lexicographers that my read is right, that people won't reason from their knowledge of "all told" (although it was very perceptive for you to pick up that connection; I did not think of it) to the meaning of "told out."
Another issue with it is they are only using one modern translation the NIV is great but like any translation it has mistakes my ESV says Assigned I honestly think the NIV did better with the word conscript but my point is they seem to only go after the NIVwhen there are other modern translations that don't use that word.
People do hate the NIV!
It's ironic that the first example of "evil" could be considered a false friend.
Such memes assess individual examples, and not the general character of modern translations as a whole. The KJV surely contains more dead words than difficult words in modern translations. And of course it doesn't engage with false friends at all. (Funnily enough I would argue that "conviction" 1 Thess 1:5 in the ESV is actually similar to a false friend in that it creates an ambiguity in the English translation)
Mark, do you have a hearing aid in your right ear? Just asking....
It’s for the video.
I often wonder why so many in Christian circles feel free to violate the 9th commandment. It is so disappointing. Think of someone who is to be preaching the Word of God, simply ignores that commandment and makes up the conspiracy theories and half truths. Thank you for your videos.
Right. It's deeply disappointing to see this happen over and over. I must entrust myself to God, because it's hard to see these untruths getting answered and no one taking responsibility-apologizing-for promoting them.
Thank you for this great video Mark! I wish I could do a better job of countering the KJVO lies in the caring Christian way that you do. I confess that at times when posting a comment to a KJVO post that has a lie in it, I might sound angry in my reply to them with the honest fact.
Hopefully, the more I watch your videos & read your book soon, the more your conduct will rub off on me.
I most remind myself that I too use to believe those lies by those KJVO people that you mentioned in this video.
Keep up the great work! 👍🏻
I think all the time of 1 Cor 4:7. God help us both.
@@markwardonwords Thank you Mark. And thank you for the Scripture reference. 🙏🏻
Too many KJ only “followers” will believe ANY thing, regardless of how far fetched, that props UP their argument and/or goes against the modern translations
I'm afraid this is common to the human condition! I can only pray that I am not guilty of the same thing on my side!
Mark, I have listened to many of your RUclips videos and your book Authorized. I really enjoy your work. I love to learn languages. My primary language is English, but I dabble in Spanish and German. My goal, ultimately, is to get to Heaven. Therefore, I want to be able to understand what God has given us. When I translate, I have to say words that the person (or victim), since I am so bad at it, can understand. If not, I am wasting my time. One of the Elders at my church recently told me that he spent a week or 2 listening to the Bible in Spanish. He eventually gave it up because it made no sense to him. This goes back to your argument in 1 Cor 14. If people believe that the KJV is the only version, why don’t they just start speaking in that language? Probably because people would look at them silly. However, when I speak Spanish for my Spanish speaking friends it helps them know what I want them to do. We use languages for a purpose. The only languages that God ever indicated that He had a preference in, would be Hebrew, Koine Greek and Aramaic. We should be striving to understand Gods word not dividing us over which language He wants us to use. Great work. Keep it up. I would like to hear more on specific words.
Right! And his use of Hebrew, Koine Greek, and Aramaic does not baptize those languages and make them holy. They, too, were human languages.
Told out. Good catch.
Thank you, Scott!
You need to name names if the person in question is misleading more folks other than those at his own church. Follow the example of Paul's letters to Timothy.
I honestly don't remember, at this point, who shared this meme. And I resist your argument: I think naming names, when this meme is shared by so many, will actually confuse the issues. This meme is also representative, as I can testify, of countless KJV-Onlyists. Why make the followers of any one of these men (pastors, usually), or of the institutions they represent, defensive by naming names? I do this sometimes, but what can I say-I try to be very careful when doing this.
kjv onlysist told me christians are supposed to look weird to the world because we are a 'peculiar' people
Yes, I did a video on that word.
Wow, wasn't expecting to hear Ambassador college mentioned. I know a lot of people, including my childhood pastor's kids, who went there.
I have several respected friends, fans of this channel, who attended there.
@@markwardonwords that's neat. Everyone I know who went there was a really nice person and devoted Christian. I left that church years ago and wouldn't feel comfortable attending a KJV only church anymore, but I have lots of great memories and appreciate the strong foundation in the faith I got there.
@@tayh.6235 Amen. This is the way the real world is: good Christian people can be wrong about something without vitiating all their other good qualities, the fruits of the Spirit in them. I worked with Ambassador grads at a Christian camp, and they were fine, humble Christian folks.
Sentence structure is everything.
Yup!
'Told out'? 'Score' as a number? 'Hew'? As a non-native speaker of English, I needed the context and my native language to understand these words.
Right!
Well done bro!
Thank you!
This is great stuff. You are doing a good work.
Much appreciated!
Psh, context? All the cool kids take verses out-of-context. Only noobs look at the context. Lol. 😂😂
I guess I'll never be anything but a noob! ;)
Video looks great 👌 would be really cool if you can look at something like the track from chick tracts titled "the attack"
A kjvo person from the USA sent me that booklet with a kjv Bible, a few ago I got some more pro kjv material sent to me from the USA with a kjv bible. Had I not known any better these materials would really make me believe all translations are corrupt 🤪
I admire the passion these kjvo ministries have for getting bibles out, just a shame about the kjvo material that the send with it.
Thank you! And I'm with you: zeal without knowledge is still zeal, and zeal for the Bible is a good thing!
Not always the case that easier reading means easier understanding. Let have the transliteration of Sheol, Sheol could refer to grave, hell (hades) or even Abraham’s bosom, so Sheol does little to nothing for the English reader. The context rarely gives answer with Sheol, atleast in English, maybe for the Hebrew reader might have more insight, so just a bad choice for the English, especially when there are English words are current usage
I tend to agree with you, honestly. I think "Sheol" should get translated rather than transliterated-if we all use only one Bible translation. But thankfully we don't have to. I see value in some translations acknowledging, "This one is just really hard to translate, and you're going to have to do some more study to know what 'Sheol' is." But the reason this one is hard is that it's hard in the Hebrew. I see that as rather different from the problem now existing in the KJV: the wholly unnecessary problem of archaisms.
@@markwardonwords I have to disagree, it equally obscures the meaning, atleast the KJV can blame time and change for its short comings
@@markwardonwords I have to disagree, it equally obscures the meaning, atleast the KJV can blame time and change for its short comings
I’m not saying you’re wrong here.
@@markwardonwords sorry not why my comment posted 3x
Trying to read the KJV would be similar to learning a new language. I would rather learn Spanish
Similar. Not the same. But yes, my whole case is that Elizabethan English-though clearly not "an entirely different language" from what we speak-nonetheless can usefully be regarded as one.
KJ onlyism appears to have some marks of cultism.
In the fringe, yes.
I love reading and studying the Bible but when I was tricked by lies into being KJV only I started to dread reading the Bible I would lose focus or get a headache from trying to understand it in places it made me not want to read or study scripture anymore. I actually like that type of English but so many words mean something completely different now compared to then. For a long time after I hated the KJV would tell anyone who would listen that it was a horrible translation based off of very bad and corrupted manuscripts. I was wrong it is a good translation but we have good ones now that are a joy and blessing to read.
I'm so glad you're now avoiding both extremes! The KJV is a great translation, but its archaic English presents a sufficient number of readability difficulties that no one should be insisting that others use it exclusively.
I shifted away from the KJV decades ago purely for readability and understandability reasons, not because of the textual issues which I was unaware of at the time.
When someone says that KJV is the only accurate and suitable version ask them to read and explain 1 Chronicles 26:17-18 in the KJV. There are also several instances of Elizabethan words that mean entirely the opposite today. Read KJV if you like, but a good student compares many versions and will access the Greek/Hebrew when possible. Be good Bereans.
Yup! Those I call “false friends”! ruclips.net/p/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc
Sam Gipp is notoriously nasty and mean spirited towards non kjv onlyist-very similar to Ruckman
I agree. =(
I agree. The KJV only movement is a cancerous cult filled with catch phrases, scripted responses and emotional nonsense that defies logic and undisputed facts.
Thank you for the video!
You’re so welcome! RUclips says I don’t get many female viewers. Glad you found me!
Great video
Thank you!
Nice video, Mark. Yes, it almost seems some deception or not enough thorough study is done in those memes! I always like to compare multiple translations. Even on just the two verses you mention...
On Amos 3:6 The ESV; “Does disaster come to a city...”. The NWT; has “If a calamity occurs in the city....”
The ESV; has in 2 Chronicles 2:2 “... Solomon assigned 70,000 men. The NWT; has “...Solomon enlisted...”
Yes, the KJV wording isn’t nearly so clear. Multiple translations - the best way to go!
Right! Check multiple!
Why woul anyone use the corrupt Jehovahs Witness bible as a source UNLESS one were actually a JW posing as an orthodox Christian?
Great Video!
Thank you!
Great job!
Many thanks for watching and commenting!
As a former KJV Onlyist, I have come to see much of this dishonesty like shown in the meme. The KJVO knows (as you stated) that “told out” is obviously less clear and therefore only cited part of the phrase in order to make it sound easier than the NIV. I constantly see these type of dishonest tactics and when I call them out, I am usually condemned to hell 🤦🏻♂️
I've thought a billion times about the waiter illustration I give in this video (an illustration I took from a great movie). Somehow, the mistakes in understanding are all made in favor of the KJV, never against it. I don't know that that means the progenitor of this meme "did it on purpose," that he knew he was misleading people. It does mean that he was too quick to hit "save," that he didn't do his homework.
i could make a case that reading the king james has improved my vocabulary. easy bibles are an excuse for people who don't want to learn
I used to think this, too. Until I realized how much I myself was missing because of changes in English over time. I invite you to test yourself at kjbstudyproject.com.
I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. How in the world does this guy study and yet cannot get to the root of the problem. Does he not see that it all wrapped around codex a and b.... Does he know nothing of the Catholic and Protestant war on the Bible. Surely he's aware of what's going on. Or maybe, his childhood with his parents encouraging them to read the king James Bible, his own hatred for being encouraged in that direction has caused him to lose sight of the issues. It's not readability, it's manuscript. It's inspiration. And it's attack on the foundation of truth.
I hope my brothers in Christ can reason with him better than I can but I would love to see this man change so my prayers go out to him
My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
@@markwardonwords great I probably don’t have a problem with those Bibles. They’re gonna be way better off than the junkie, modern textual scholar ones that many people support and subscribe to. Like the ESV NLT CSB NIV ASV
👍
✔
My personal preference is the KJV using 1828 Webster's dictionary when needed and quite rewarding. I often make comparisons using Jewish translations and many times am amazed how well the KJ translators did. That said the archaic words are a problem for many unaccustomed to the King James version language. My over all source is acknowledging the Holy Spirit trusting as He leads and guides me into all truth.
Here's the thing: I used to think that I was accustomed to the Elizabethan language and didn't need help. But it took years of study of Hebrew and Greek-and especially years of checking other translations-to show me places where I wasn't understanding the KJV as well as I thought I was. Check out my Fifty False Friends in the KJV series: ruclips.net/p/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.
See if you don't learn a few things! =) I know I did.
Mark has never said the archaic words were the problem. Those are easily looked up. He has always addressed the words we think we know but don't because the meaning has changed. Does the Holy Spirit point out and define those words for you?
of all the issues of our day to be concerned about. this is the least important. we are waiting for the return of Christ and the last days events. Get a reliable bible and love your neighbor.
Many thousands of Christians are dividing Christ's body over KJV-Onlyism. It does matter, my friend. Surely your last line is right, but it's my reliable Bible that tells me, "Blessed are the peacemakers."
Please sir, reveal any new doctrine you have uncovered from your work with words.
I've learned more from KJ only teachers in a 30 minute video than from you in hours and hours of your videos.
Did you go to seminary to learn of God? If so give use one small nugget of scriptural revelation gleaned from your work.
We’re done here. You may continue to comment as long as you are not openly vile.
@@markwardonwords "openly vile" now that's a phrase to ponder. Many view the KJB as the word of God so they thus see it a vile abusive act to change it. I'm reminded of the old adage: "one man's trash is another man's treasure.
But I wish to be open minded here and give you every opportunity to prove your Biblical prowess. You have no doubt read through the scriptures uncountable times seeking false friends so you might further your Wardisms.
So please give us one little nugget of scriptural revelation, anything no matter how trivial.
Perhaps just the tense of a verb that completely changes the meaning of a passage?
Ok, we'll make this easy for you. Rather than something new, how about something old?
At Mat 19: 17 Jesus instructs a man to keep the commandments to receive eternal life, a harsh undertaking in my opinion however it is repeated at Rev 22:14.
But wedged in between these two instructions Paul tells us to only believe and describes what to believe at 1Cor 15:3.
How confusing! Perhaps you might shed some light on these instructions from God.
I do still feel that you believe we should do what God tells us.
and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Matt.18.3 NKJV
Come on now, for once do as instructed by Jesus and think like a small minded child.
Oh yes, I'm wondering if it vile to refer to another as small minded? One of "vile's" synonyms is offensive.
Is it offensive to you for someone to point out weakness? All I can say is if you can't stand the heat, get out of the RUclips cash cow fire.
@@markwardonwordsPS, I find it offensively vile to presumptuously claim no doctrines are lost in the writing of new versions. Unless of course you do know each and every doctrine in the KJB which a child like small mind might enjoy having the pleasure of at least deciding for themselves.
I wonder what yet unrevealed message from God you and your associate "scholars" are covering over that He might wish to convey?
I like the 2011 NIV the most, as they seem to have corrected a few things. However, I'm still relying on the TR and the KJV just because I like the way it says certain passages. Using all of my versions seems to help me understand quite a bit more. Yes, the KJV has flaws! Example the translators of the KJV had a prejudice against women, even going so far as changing the leadership in the church from women's to mens names, yet Jesus never had that against women at all. This always confused me. The NIV 2011 has corrected this, as far as I can tell. If the KJV translators could change all of that, then what else is "not quite right" with the translation (I have to ask myself). Are you aware there were women in church leadership in the early church? No? Thank the KJV for that. I am now studying the NRSVue to see how I like it, or not. So far, I like it. 🙂
Its dishonest when you’re making comparisons without context and leading people astray. When that kind of thing is established as a habit, its a sin. Misrepresenting the truth to give yourself an advantage doesn’t redound to your credit. Falsifying what modern Bible translations actually say shows up the KJV-Only movement. Other people may have a good reason for rendering a certain passage in the sense that they give it and only that is considered suspect or controversial. Translation comes with choices and the KJV translators themselves admitted, some readings can be preferred over others. That’s exactly what translators in modern Bibles seek to establish. If you favor the KJV fine but it isn’t the gold standard of translation practice. Things can and will always be improved upon as the English language undergoes change.
I know what you mean when you say this, and I've mentioned this before, but the KJV is not written in Elizabethan English. It's a translation, and as such the translators chose the best English words to communicate the meaning of the original Hebrew and Greek words. The English of the KJV is unique (and not Elizabethan) for this reason. For more on this, read Gerald Hammond's book "The Making of the English Bible" (if you can find it).
I do acknowledge that there is some Biblish in the KJV; I think any version that leans literal is going to have Biblish. The NASB has Biblish. I don’t mind it much in the KJV or the NASB. But it simply cannot be an accident that, around 50 times for around 50 words, I have checked the OED and discovered that a sense for those words existed in 1611 that does not exist in our English today. The predominant character of the KJV is that of Elizabethan English.
@@markwardonwords Perhaps originally it was, more or less, as you say... but since the wording of the KJV we read today was updated in 1762 it's really not fair to say the KJV we read today is written in Elizabethan English. I think 1762 English would be considered modern English. But of course if you were to say the KJV we read today is written in modern English you would lose most all of the force behind your argument.
@@AJMacDonaldJr The KJV editions of the 1760s updated the spelling and punctuation to mid-18th century standards, but there was no real effort by Parris or Blayney to replace archaic words. And even if they had, we'd still be talking about a form of English that predates the American Revolution. The English of Jonathan Edwards is certainly more modern than the English of John Milton, but they're both obscure to most modern readers.
You'd think that the champions of the Textus Receptus would at least be considerate enough to promote Noah Webster's mild revision of the KJV from 1833, as that one makes some effort to update the most outdated word choices while remaining essentially the same translation.
@@MAMoreno Okay, well, how many English words still have the same meaning today versus 1611? About 95%? The language hasn't changed that much. I have no trouble reading the KJV.
@@AJMacDonaldJr You THINK you have no trouble reading the KJV. I've found that readers of the KJV frequently misinterpret key passages because they're unfamiliar with the changes in word meanings since 1611. Every time I see someone quote 2 Timothy 2.15 in order to argue that Bible study leads to divine approval, I'm tempted to take their KJV from them and never let them abuse the poor thing again.
If one were to simply take the KJV as presented in the Cambridge New Paragraph and make the word/phrase changes that are in the Thomas Nelson footnotes... The KJV would be sufficiently and minimally updated to serve another 400 years.
But how to make this accepted?
I love the KJV but it's just not the book for the Nicolaitan church of our day. The language is not near the problem as the demands of doctrinal understanding. All the modern church wants to do is dance to religious rock and role. Saying Sam Gipp hasn't done his homework is a lie, or an unresearched mis-conclusion in itself.
Please interact with the arguments made in the video.
I believe that the only consistent biblical position concerning the Bible itself is that God’s pure words ARE available for all generations. And in one Book. I believe that book is the King James AV 1611.
Brother Mark. Per any written dialogue we have had, can you “honestly” say that I have been inconsistent or dishonest.?
I HAVE read your book and find MUCH fault in it. Yet, as Pilate said of the Incarnate Word, so say I of the written word (as found in the Monarch of all Books), I find no fault in him.
BTW I have done my homework
Kirby, I encourage you to interact with the specific claims of this video.
@@markwardonwords and I encourage you to answer my simple question
My question is specific to your video. Need I remind you of your closing statements about honesty?
I see that now. I get the connection. Kirby, I will speak clearly: I *do* believe you have been dishonest, but not that you have lied. I do not recall specifics-I have lots of conversations in public and private about the KJV-but during the last interaction we had, you managed to find a way not only to insist that your interpretation of an extremely obscure poetic line in Job 17:6 was the only right one (though multiple other KJV-Only commenters offered different interpretations), but you also insisted that this obscure verse taught a key truth that was essential to NT theology. I'm sorry if I didn't get that quite right. Friend, that is interpretive dishonesty, because it fails to do what the NT itself does. Peter is willing to acknowledge what you were not, namely that some passages are hard to understand. And Jesus was willing to affirm what you weren't willing to affirm when an example was sitting in front of you: that there are weightier and less weighty matters of the law. Each of your interpretive mistakes can be honest, but they always go for you. I haven't seen you do what honest people do, and what I try to do, and acknowledge when your opponent makes a good point.
You actually commended me in the comments section of my RUclips video titled “Are Promoters of Modern Bible Versions Deceptive?” for doing the very thing you are now saying I NEVER do! (ie. acknowledging the strengths and skills of men who stand in opposition to my beliefs).
Also the Job passage was NOT our last conversation. I say this to point out how sloppy you are at research. And also how willing you are to virtue shame others for the things you repeatedly do yourself.
You speak of my errors in biblical interpretation. Yet I never claimed to interpret anything. Instead I made reference to “application” and there is a difference.
(EVERY poetical book in the Bible is loaded with prophetic material).
I am absolutely convinced that you have no idea of the biblical method of interpreting scripture.
I stand by every thing I said in the job comments. Especially the part where I said, You are far to careless with your words to be correcting God’s.
I will gladly discuss “Interpretive Honesty” with you any time you wish.
Having proved my sword (time and again) I have so learned to let the Book stand as it is. (eg. tabret stays in Job 17).
I would expose the consequences of changing it as I did with “begotten” in John 3:16 in my video titled “Our Outdated Bible”.
Bro. Mark, you have for some reason chosen to enter into the Bible-correcting business. Not a good investment man