A perfectly excellent, concise, and heart-felt explanation of what can be a problem verse. And that video quality and color is gorgeous. Well done Sir!!
When I was a kid reading the King James and New King James, I literally had that incorrect idea of robbery. I thought the Bible was saying that Jesus was not God and refused to steal that position. Which was confusing because I knew I had been taught that Jesus was God in the flesh and member of the Trinity. Oll translations can be very confusing to children. Reading modern versions helped me clear up the Bible verse much better. But now I keep running into people who say, "The new versions say Jesus gave up his divinity." Ugh....
Honestly the AV & NKJV were clear to me but at first reading I thought the ESV, NASB, NIV, CSB, NRSV, etc. were saying Jesus did not think he was equal with God, some time ago I realized both translations (either way, not just the AV & NKJV) are giving divinity to Christ in this verse.
Yes! They do say the same thing . And to be clear, I was quite young when I was getting confused. Maybe 7-8 years old. And I have pointed out How they both have the same meaning in my more recent conversations with my KJV friends. Though, I'm afraid I don't think I was extremely successful.
I am a grown man and l thought the same, coming across this passage as an adult human new believer reading the KJV. At the very least, l thought "what? That doesn't make sense, given the context. I'll have to put that aside to understand later." I only understood it when l switched to the ESV.
Dr Ward, thanks so much for all the insights. There's a video of yours I watched before, but I can't remember the title. I'm trying to locate it so that I can share with my students. I'm an English Teacher to foreign students. The video was about 5 or 10 KJV words you explained. One of the words I'm interested in, was the meaning of "fair". I'd be grateful if you could provide the link. Thanks so much Dr. Ward and God bless.
I think it was this one: ruclips.net/video/1awUlUOhwfI/видео.html But here's the text: FF No. 30 is “fair.” Now this one is really easy, because the relevant sense of this word is definitely not obsolete; it’s only archaic, as the dictionaries show. “In which time Moses was born, and was exceeding fair, and nourished up in his father’s house three months.” (Acts 7:20 KJV) Now “fair” can still be a false friend in some places for some people, because we don’t produce this use of the word; no one says this anymore. But it’s among those words that, because of BBC historical dramas and because of obvious contexts in the KJV like “thou art fair, my love,” many people do know. “Fair” meant “beautiful,” not that Moses was exceedingly average or exceedingly just (Acts 7:20). There are one or two places in the KJV where I think there isn’t quite enough context to make certain that today’s readers will catch this minor false friend. Ezek 31:7 is one: “Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters.” I could see people mistaking “fair” to mean “just” there. Of course, the Hebrew and Greek words translated “fair” didn’t sound archaic to their original hearers. “Beautiful” will eliminate confusion and sound like contemporary speech instead of sounding archaic.
I am not sure what the link is, but you may be talking about his false friends video. The Cambridge dictionary and I disagree with his definition of false friends, but I believe it is what you are looking for.
@@timlemmon2332 I checked the link and it is indeed what I was looking for. It corresponds with the text Dr. Ward provided. I'm actually right now discovering that many of the definitions Dr. Ward provides are different to many prominent dictionaries out there. My students pointed this out to me, because I have already shared this video with them. They pointed out chapters 1 and 2 of Esther (KJV) as well where she is described as fair and beautiful. So if Dr. Ward maintains that fair means beautiful, then it reads in Esther as being beautiful and beautiful. That doesn't make sense, right? Another verse says Esther is beautiful because she is fair. So I'm trying to figure out how Esther is beautiful because she is beautiful? 🤔 Again doesn't make sense, right? The word fair appears about five times in Esther and 50 times in the rest of the KJV. I checked the Webster's 1828 (which Dr. Ward claims in another video that Webster's "is on my side") and the FIRST definition given is having a white skin. My students also pointed out that popular RUclips channels teaching English defines fair as having a white skin. The 2nd definition of Merriam-Webster also defines fair as having a white skin. So if having a white skin is the correct definition, it literally means that Esther is beautiful because she is white. My students also pointed out that Dr. Ward didn't refer to the Webster's definition while he claims Webster's is on his side. If you search on RUclips for Mark Ward Webster's 1828, you should find that video. I believe it was posted less than a year ago. My students are Asian and they really keep me on my toes. That's soooo gooood 🥳🤣 So yes, I agree that Dr. Ward gets many definitions wrong. My students want to know why Dr. Ward disregarded both Webster's 1828 and Merriam-Webster when he often refers to these dictionaries in other videos. Maybe Dr. Ward noticed those definitions but didn't want to appear as being politically incorrect. Imagine telling an audience that Esther is beautiful because she is white. There would be an outcry, right? Thanks again and God bless!
Well done! I read the NKJV and had the opportunity to lead a Bible study a couple of times a few weeks ago where we were going through this passage. While reading through I asked others with a different translation to read it out loud as well, to make special notr of the difference there. It is one of my favorite passages in all of scripture and my understanding of the Lord and humility generally was greatly enhhanced by newer translation making it more decipherable what Paul was saying. It seems to me that Paul was trying to communicate that Jesus, being God, did not consider full equality with God something to be held onto, as with whited knuckles or clenched fists, but willingly gave it up in humility. This fits the context of much of Philippians, particluarly chapter 3 where Paul says he "counts as loss" all the worldly things he could have prided himself in for the sake of the knowledge of Christ. Thanks, Mark! Keep up the good work!
I have heard textual notes being discouraged many times in my life... I realized over time, that the true reason I did not like notes, is because it forced me to think, and learn. And that meant change sometimes. And it meant I was wrong sometimes. And I wanted to be right about everything. And at its roots, I felt I needed to be right about everything, because I thought I could not have confidence in my salvation, without knowing everything correctly. It was my error, and I don't feel that way now. Sometimes hating on notes is masked as zeal. But sometimes its simply zeal without knowledge.
I have been using the NKJV as a main translation for decades. Not out of any kind of only-ism, just what I liked. I often don't even think about words like this one with "robbery" or even verses like 1 Pet 1:13 NKJV "Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest [your] hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ". When I read them in the ESV I realized how complicated my language must seem for younger people. Just because I know these more archaic words doesn't mean I want to spend my time explaining them to people. I've since gotten my hands on several other translations. I still love the NKJV, but I'm trying to read more broadly.
This was great. Would love you do the same thing with monogenes. And why modern versions have chose only Son over only begotten. It could help a lot of people.
Here's some information on "monogenes" (only-begotten) using references commonly found it "Logos" software. A brief and casual video I put together during the covid shut down.. ruclips.net/video/nnDoqGvl8zQ/видео.htmlsi=SGzT5EbFMZx17ksF
@@markwardonwords Good. With the single "nu", it would seem to come from ginomai, "come to be", rather than gennao, "beget". But the Nicene Creed makes it clear "begotton not made". :--}>
I’m subscribed! I just watched the discussion of 7 translation that are bad. I was delightfully surprised by your measured and clear comments. I worked on this Philippians passage very hard. Not being a biblical scholar as you are I was still able with a great deal of effort come to the same conclusion of what this passage meant. I admit, because of my lack of biblical education, I felt a great sense of confirmation. This is not an easy passage to get to the meaning without kind of making it up. But what a great insight into the unbelievable humility of Christ, My Savior and Lord! I’m so proud He would include me in His kingdom along with His Father. That He would leave all behind for us. Absolutely amazing!
I am indeed impressed with the quality of your research with Plutarch. I taught Philippians at Bible College for years and absolutely throughly appreciated.your video. Well done
Great video! Thanks. This is actually a verse that (in my Utah context) takes added significance. Because the LDS church uses it as a proof text for their teaching that humans can obtain godhood. I am curious, though, with your methodology on examining it. There's a listing in the OED for "robbery" that is obsolete here, and it seems to align with BDAG and modern translations. Why didn't you entertain the possibility of this being a false friend? I know technical questions like this can be tough to answer in a youtube comment, but I am very curious.
I saw that-I'm just not sure I want to go to that level of micro-shades of meaning, not when BDAG still lists "robbery" (presumably as it's used in our English) as a sense of the Greek word. Does that make sense?
Great video. I appreciate your insight and grace as you discuss these things. I’ve never been a regular KJV reader. I grew up reading the NIV, and now a mix of NIV and NRSV. Maybe I’m not understanding correctly, but the KJV translation, at least to me, seems to be saying something different than the other translations in this verse. To say “not robbery to be equal with God“, seems to be saying it was his right to be equal with God, or that it wasn’t inappropriate for him to be equal with God. Whereas the other translations seem to be saying that Jesus voluntarily released his grasp on being equal with God. Any thoughts about this?
I cant remember which expositor i heard give an alternate explanation for harpogmon years ago, so forgive my failing memory there, but his explanation was that the force of the word here could well be something like, "thought equality with God wasnt something to be held onto/clung to". This keeps jesus having already had the equality, and yet also keeps Jesus having emptied himself to some degree to become a man before taking his divinity back up in full after being raised. That is to say, the force of the sentence is to remind us that Jesus was willing to set Himself aside to do the eork.
Thank you, Mark! A closer look at this verse and the surrounding verses would "fit" in better with the idea for the "equality" over "robbery". I understand what the KJV was going for and it isn't heresy, but it might not be the best word to use if a deeper dive into context was considered, esp. in light of verse 7 and following.
Admittedly the entire passage (Phillians 2:5-8) can be hard to translate.I remember particularly struggling with that phrase. Our class has to do these verses with explanations or justication for our word choices. No 2 students used the exact wording. I remember having a similar discussion with a parishioner over the phrase "made himself of no reputation " because i used a translation that used the phrase " emptied himself " . i was a young pastor who started explaining kenosis. Ironically she went to another KJV only church due to my use strange teachings. Ive learned to use more tact with people.
Since I don't read the KJV, my main takeaway is a better understanding of the historical use of "rape" and how it relates to both kidnapping and robbery -- the "Rape of the Sabines" statue, with the "rape = kidnapping" meaning never made complete sense until watching this video. I'm grateful for Bibles translated into our contemporary English -- I don't think I would've understood the meaning of Philippians 2:6 if I only had the KJV or NKJV to understand Paul's exhortation; I probably would've just mentally shrugged and gotten the gist of what he meant from the rest of the chapter.
www.amazon.com/dp/0785295143?tag=3755-20 (Affiliate link!) I can't say I love the interior layout. But the Bible is beautiful, the typeface is from my friend Klaus Erik Krogh, and if you like verse-by-verse formats, it's a good one!
Another great instructive video. Thanks. The passages from Plutarch 🤮 really serve to underscore how ethics that secularists take to be timeless and self-evident, are not, and came about due to the radical moral teachings of Christianity. Even if secularists are now winding back some of that ethical progress.
Nice video, thanks. I do agree with one Mormon commenter that you are losing the context of why this verse is so important in different sects, as you seem to omit discussion of the imperative which precedes the phrase in question: “Let that mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus…” So we are not dealing with just how Jesus perceived his divinity but how Paul wants us to perceive ourselves. That being said, the perspective you give here is enlightejing. As i understand the KJV syntax, the immediate phrase would be something like our Mormon friend said-don’t think it a crime to become like God. But this is belied by the consequent “but took upon himself the form of a servant…”. So even though i will always prefer the poetry and music of the original KJV above all others, this exegesis brings a truly new meaning to this verse, for which I am truly grateful.
Perhaps so, yet IMO mainstream churches with more orthodox ‘Christologies’ have devolved into worshippers of the idol of Tolerance. I think God is less concerned about the wording of our theology than with our surrender to His will. “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.”
That is a point that does come up sometimes. Sometimes an entire argument will boil down to "This rendering of the verse doesn't agree with my interpretation, so therefore it must be wrong." I always say that interpretation should come from Scripture, not the other way around.
Love the video and always wondered what that phrase in Philippians 2:6 meant. I love the way the NLT translates this verse and it makes so much sense to me. New Living Translation Philippians 2:6 Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.
Dear Mr Ward, I have a question about 1 corinthians 1 18. KJVO people say that the modern versions are wrong because they say “being saved” where the KJV says “saved”. I can’t find a video explaining this and I don’t know Greek. Could you help with this or point me towards a video or article that explains it please?
If you really want to learn more about the development of the English progressive tense than you'll ever need in everyday life, check out this article: cpercy.artsci.utoronto.ca/courses/6362-lamont.htm See the sections "Expressing Progressive-Passive Actions before Progressive-Passive Verbs" and "The True Progressive-Passive Verb." Here's the important takeaway: the English language didn't allow for the grammatical construction "are being saved" until the mid-1700s (and even then it was controversial among grammarians). If you wanted to say "are being saved" in 1611, you would say one of the following options: 1. are a-saving 2. are saving 3. are saved To say that the KJV disagrees with the modern versions here is to ignore the history of our language and to treat a 400-year-old translation as if it conforms to 21st century grammar.
Being saved is works salvation...ARE saved align to: 1 Cor. 1:18 - 1 Cor. 15:2 - Romans 8:24 - Ephesians 2:6-8: All say ARE saved...when you believed on Christ you ARE saved, not being saved..being saved is a catholics work...
Hi mark, What do you think of this translation? Philippians 2:6-8 (REB): 6 ‘He was in the form of God; yet he laid no claim to equality with God, 7 but made himself nothing, assuming the form of a slave. Bearing the human likeness, 8 sharing the human lot, he humbled himself, and was obedient, even to the point of death, death on a cross!
I'm okay with that, because I think that in context (in the context of the whole NT) it's clear that "laid no claim to equality with God" means "didn't insist on remaining in heaven and instead submitted himself to the limitations, such as they were, of the incarnation."
Really, your motivation and the King James Onlyists could be interpreted to be very much the same - that no one would be deceived by inerrant translations of the Bible, because you value God's Word so much.
I’m not sure I understand: not deceived by inerrant translations? You mean *errant* translations? If that’s what you mean then, yes, there is some common ground between me and my KJV-Only brothers, and it’s the common ground I’m continually trying to get them to step onto with me: we both want to understand what God has said in Scripture.
The Greek text says "ουχ αρπαγμον ηγησατο το ειναι ισα Θεω". Why "ισα"? I'd expect "ισον" (masculine accusative, because it agrees with the (implicit) subject of an infinitive).
It never occurred to me to think of this verse as Jesus "stealing" from God. Yet when I first saw this verse in a different translation from the NKJV or KJV, I was like, yeah this makes more sense (that was the ESV translation that gave me a sense of what the verse meant. Thank you for your videos, I'm learning quite a bit from them.
Frankly, I’d be more suspicious of your motives because of your being a ginger plowboy, lol. Just kidding. I am always struck by how well you handle yourself under such criticisms, although I’ve never seen you in a live-action confrontation. But I have no doubt you are steadfast. I am equally struck by how snarky one particular side of the matter always seems to be, similar to neo-hyper-Calvinists. But along the same lines as you allude to, I doubt they would understand your regular references to a plowboy either. Many thanks, as always, for this video and all your hard work behind all your presentations in all formats. And this updated backdrop is quite impressive, though grasping the flora around you might be considered robbery without careful prior consideration, lol. As for the KJV, if it was good enough for Paul and the Apostles… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Blessings to you!
Ha! Love it! Thank you! Yes, I'm not sure I trust myself in a live encounter. I don't want to sin. If I ever do a debate, it will be with someone who's already proven himself to be able to have civil discourse. And we won't do a cross-ex-this is what my friend, a debate coach, suggested.
I was looking at that, just recently. ............ Like yourself, pastors and teachers know well: My brethren, let not many of you become teachers [TR didaskaloi, lit.], knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment. --James 3:1 (NKJV) Anyone who negates Bible teaching, as in contradicting yourself or another, is thereby exercising the office of teacher in so doing. And therefore is responsible for being right! ............ In the NT, there is more, including strong statements, about true and false teaching, plus true and false teachers, than about love! ............ I have seen this "Yea hath God said" teaching, used to mean, "Is this a valid translation?" But the SERPENT was NOT asking, "What words did God say?", as this disrespectful comparison implies. Au contraire, that SNAKE was casting DOUBT: "Did God really mean", what we both know He actually said? There is a vast difference between, "Did He say it?", and "Did He speak truth when He said that?" ............ Kurios Iesous Xristos :--}>
@@MartinLujanJr-o8s I would start with the NKJV because you’re a new Christian. It will be much easier for you to understand and learn. Welcome to the family of Christ btw 🙌🏽.
Given that the one Person of Jesus Christ is the union of two natures, God the Word/Son and man, it may be said that the human spirit/soul of Jesus was in the form of God, ie., had the glory of God, being the human nature God had created for Himself, and knew that this was not something he had snatched from God, and was also something which, for the sake of his earthly ministry, he readily accepted to cover with the form of a humble servant. From the instant of its creation the human spirit/soul of Jesus knew that he was equal to God, that is, equal to the Word who is God, being the human nature the Word had created for Himself as His very own. The mystery of the union of the two nature in Christ is the central truth of Christianity.
@@markwardonwords Very cool. It was a brilliant move on the part of Swatch. Apparently the sales were huge and the Omega Speed Timer sales jumped incredibly as well. It’ll be interesting to see how the new 50 Fathoms does. That has always been my favorite dive watch. Such class!
"if I were to treat the King James with the same suspicion that the modern versions nearly always received from King James Defenders however I could say..." -- not going to agree with that statement. The problem I would have with Philippians 2:6 is you are simply all over the board related to meaning of this verse depending on version. The NLT does not agree with the CSB, does not agree with the ESV. The NIV says something different. Actually, this video put into more question how some of the translations justified how this verse was rendered.
@@NIFBer The problem is we have too many simpletons. It really is the fault of KJVO pastors for not teaching any Bibliology. When I talk to people at Church I encourage them to watch Dr. Ward, I give them the top 20 "issues" or reasons to get rid of the KJB. I try to be vocal when I hear stupid arguments like "The KJB does not have a copyright." Dr. Ward is not the problem, sure he has been successful because he delivers a polished presentation, but nothing he is saying is new.
*The NLT does not agree with the CSB, does not agree with the ESV. The NIV says something different.* Setting aside the ESV for now, let's look at the other three... NLT: Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. So we have the following assertions in the NLT: - Jesus was already God - Jesus chose not to cling to his equality with God - Jesus gave up his privileges as God - Jesus became a slave, i.e. a human being CSB: who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be exploited. Instead he emptied himself by assuming the form of a servant, taking on the likeness of humanity. Let's look at these assertions from the CSB: - Jesus exists in the form of God - Jesus chose not to exploit his equality with God - Jesus emptied himself of that status - Jesus took on the form of a servant, i.e. a human likeness NIV: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. So we can now consider the assertions in the NIV: - Jesus is God in his very nature - Jesus chose not to take selfish advantage of his equality with God - Jesus made himself nothing rather than retaining his status - Jesus took on the nature of a servant, i.e. a human likeness Where exactly are the differences here? They all say: - Jesus is God in form/nature - Jesus chose not to retain the perks of his equality with God - Jesus instead lowered himself to a humble status - Jesus took on a human form/nature Other translations with similar interpretations include the CEB and NCV. The ESV (following the ASV and RSV) is more ambiguous with its "to be grasped" language, which allows for differing interpretations without committing to one in particular. (So too the NASB, NJB, NET, NABRE, MEV, LSB, and NRSVue.)
@@MAMorenoI think the ESV makes it more interesting: "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" So, form but not equality because it could not be counted something to be grasped? I will give it to you, all the verses mean "the same thing" but only if you want them too. You have to read the various translations through your theological lens to make it all work. I am still not seeing "grasped" to be equal to "robbery" in this context. You state: "Jesus emptied himself of that status" ("Instead he emptied himself.") Well, that is one way you could read it. If I read it "He emptied himself of his divinity and died on the cross as a man" would I be making a leap? That would be heretical for me to say, but texturally correct? If Christ emptied himself than by what power did he perform miracles? Slave vs. Servant? I'll pass on that. and we are not doing any comparison the the KJV from which the foundational doctrines were based. If I was to do what a lot of Churches do today and mix and match versions throughout a sermon or lesson, I could really make a mess of a lot of doctrines. So..... You are taking the approach of how to harmonize these variations, which is fair. I think you are stretching a bit though objectively. Would it also be fair for me to state there are no copyright violations between version, and changes were made with different meanings yielding "new authorship" which of and in itself is copyrightable? Once the publisher for these varying version sign FormVA for the derivative copyright, I can state factually changes have to be made to make the different versions unique in wording and meaning. I can make the assertion these changes were done for copyright purposes and degrade the text. You can counter that all changes were based on Scholarship. The difference between our statements is mine has factual basis and quantifiable results were your is based on faith frankly.
Is there a clear and unambiguous occurrence of "harpagmos", not "harpagma" or any [actual or alleged] synonym, meaning other than "robbery / act of robbing/seizing/snatching - or such."? If there is no such evidence, then the known and admitted active sense of “harpagmos” must stand, and those who claim that it can be a word with a passive sense must be wrong.
I am honored that you made a 15 minute response to my question and comments. While I am not a Greek scholar, I am pretty well versed in the English language. As I see you struggle to defend your point of view by referring back to the Greek, I noticed your painfully literal translation matched the KJV and NKJV. When you show the possible translations of the Greek word, it also mentions robbery. Thank you for confirming the KJV got it right. Now let's look at the meaning of the English word "Robbery". according to the Cambridge Dictionary, it means the act of stealing from someone or somewhere. Stealing means taking something you have no right to, or claiming something as yours when it isn't. This Scripture is saying Jesus is equal with God and His claim on that equality is true. This is backed up by by other Scriptures like John 5:17-18 John 14:9 and John 1:1-14 Here is the meaning of the word Grasp. To seize quickly and hold onto. Did Jesus think that equality with God could not be seized and held onto? Not according to Scripture. What makes more sense? What is confirmed by other Scripture? That is what you should believe. Now let me surprise you a little bit. I am well aware that the KJV is not always word for word. Sometimes it is also phrase for phrase, because an exact phrase is sometimes difficult to translate. For instance try to translate "Gimme a break" into another language. Word for word would not convey the same meaning. Translating it to "I don't believe you" would be an accurate translation. I have read most of the footnotes in the KJV. I find that the translators made the correct choices in their word selection. It is very readable. Yes, there are a few footnotes that say some manuscripts don't say this or that, however it does not give opinion as to the accuracy or reliability of those manuscripts. They do not question the validity of Mark 16:9-20 or Acts 8:37 or any of the other numerous verses the other versions call into question. These are the footnotes that add confusion. You seem to have misunderstood my final comment. It was not aimed at you, but at those who would create confusion in the Word of God. I do find it interesting that you can read Greek, but find the KJV too hard for you to understand. One last note, I don't know if you realize it or not, but you come across as very condescending to those who do not agree with you. this is not something a reasonable person would do. it does not seem Christ like at all. Once again, thank you and I will see you in another video.
It’s interesting that you highlight the meaning of “Robbery” as” the act of stealing from someone or somewhere. Stealing means taking something you have no right to, or claiming something as yours when it isn't.” That is actually what the meaning/usage of the Greek word “Harpagmos/Harpagmon” and other derivatives means as well. It appears in the Greek LXX as such. Here are well over 30 examples of how it is used in the same centuries of Jesus and the Apostles. 1. In Plato's "Republic," Socrates describes the tyrant as someone who "having tasted of the sweets of freedom and equality, and having become a popular ruler, turns out to be a tyrant, and in order to keep his power, he must seize, by force and arms, that which belongs to others." (562d) 2. Plutarch uses the term "harpagmos" in his account of the kidnapping of Persephone by Hades in Greek mythology. In this context, the term refers to the act of seizing or taking something by force, which in this case is the abduction of Persephone. 3. In the philosophical work "De Anima" by Aristotle, the term "harpagmos" is used to describe the process of taking in sensory information from the external world and incorporating it into one's perception of reality. 4. In the play "The Bacchae" by Euripides, the character Pentheus accuses the god Dionysus of being a thief who has stolen the worship of his followers. (lines 232-233) 5. In the play "Prometheus Bound" by Aeschylus, Prometheus speaks of Zeus' "harpagmos" of fire, describing how the god took the gift of fire from him and gave it to mortals. (lines 122-123) 6. In the writings of the philosopher Plato, the term "harpagmos" is used to describe the act of seizing or taking something by force. In his dialogue "Gorgias," he uses the word to describe the behavior of politicians who take advantage of the masses. (Gorgias 466c) 7. In the writings of the historian Herodotus, the term "harpagmos" is used to describe the act of plundering or looting. He uses it to describe the actions of the Persian army after it conquered Babylon. (The Histories 1.191) 8. In the play "Eumenides" by Aeschylus, the Furies describe their own actions as a "harpagmos" or seizure of their victims. (lines 142-144) 9. In the works of the poet Hesiod, the term "harpagmos" is used to describe the act of snatching or seizing, as when birds snatch food from the ground. (Works and Days 217-220) 10. In the writings of the philosopher Aristotle, the term "harpagmos" is used to describe the act of taking or stealing something that belongs to someone else. He uses it to describe the behavior of some people who take things that belong to the community for their own personal gain. (Politics 2.6) 11. In the writings of the philosopher Aristotle, the term "Harpagmos" is used to describe the act of seizing power, often through violent means. He uses it to describe the behavior of those who overthrow a tyrant and seize control of a government. (Politics 5.10) 12. In the play "Alcestis" by Euripides, the character Admetus uses the term "Harpagmos" to describe how he was forced to give up his wife, Alcestis, to Death, in exchange for his own life. (lines 172-173) 13. In the works of the poet Homer, the term "Harpagmos" is used to describe the act of taking something by force, as in the plundering of a city or the taking of prisoners of war. (Iliad 3.382) 14. In the writings of the philosopher Plato, the term "Harpagmos" is used to describe the act of grasping or taking hold of something. In his dialogue "Timaeus," he uses the word to describe the way in which the soul is bound to the body. (Timaeus 35c) 15. In the writings of the historian Thucydides, the term "Harpagmos" is used to describe the act of forcibly taking something that belongs to someone else, such as land or property. He uses it to describe the behavior of the Athenians towards their neighbors during the Peloponnesian War. (The History of the Peloponnesian War 2.8) 16. In the play "Phoenician Women" by Euripides, the character Jocasta uses the term "Harpagmos" to describe how she was forced to give up her infant son, Oedipus, to be exposed on a mountain as a baby. (lines 31-32) 17. In the works of the poet Hesiod, the term "Harpagmos" is used to describe the act of taking something that belongs to someone else, particularly in the context of theft or robbery. (Works and Days 259) 18. In the play "Antigone" by Sophocles, the character Creon uses the term "Harpagmos" to describe the act of defying his authority and taking something that is not his to take. (lines 707-708) 19. In the philosophical work "De Anima" by Aristotle, the term "harpagmos" is used to describe the process of taking in sensory information from the external world and incorporating it into one's perception of reality. 20. In the writings of the philosopher Seneca, the term "Harpagmos" is used to describe the act of forcibly taking something that is not rightfully yours, particularly in the context of political power. (De Beneficiis 3.15) 21. In the play "Heracles" by Euripides, the character Amphitryon uses the term "Harpagmos" to describe how he was robbed of his cattle by the giant Cacus. (lines 609-610) 22. In the works of the philosopher Heraclitus, the term "Harpagmos" is used to describe the act of taking something that does not rightfully belong to you, particularly in the context of wealth or resources. He uses it to emphasize the transitory nature of material possessions. (Fragment 107) 23. In the works of the historian Herodotus, the term "Harpagmos" is used to describe the act of seizing something that belongs to someone else, often in the context of warfare or political conflict. (Histories 1.130) 24. In the writings of the poet Hesiod, the term "harpagmos" is used to describe the act of seizing something violently or by force, particularly in the context of warfare. 25. In the writings of the philosopher Aristotle, the term "Harpagmos" is used to describe the act of taking something by force or violence, particularly in the context of military conquest or aggression. (Politics 1254b) 26. In the play "The Persians" by Aeschylus, the term "Harpagmos" is used to describe the act of seizing control or dominion over others. (lines 60-61) 27. In the works of the philosopher Plato, the term "Harpagmos" is used to describe the act of taking something that is not rightfully yours, particularly in the context of wealth or power. He uses it to emphasize the importance of justice and fairness. (Republic 352e) 28. In the play "The Frogs" by Aristophanes, the character Aeschylus uses the term "Harpagmos" to describe how his plays were "stolen" by later generations of playwrights who copied his style and themes without giving him proper credit. (lines 1395-1397) 30. In the works of the philosopher Diogenes of Sinope, the term "Harpagmos" is used to describe the act of taking something by force or violence, particularly in the context of political power or domination. (Fragments 8 and 34) 31. In the writings of the historian Thucydides, the term "Harpagmos" is used to describe the act of plundering or looting in the context of war or conquest. (History of the Peloponnesian War 5.6.2) 32. In the play "The Clouds" by Aristophanes, the character Strepsiades uses the term "Harpagmos" to describe the act of stealing someone's intellectual property or ideas. (lines 1074-1075) 33. In the works of the philosopher Epictetus, the term "Harpagmos" is used to describe the act of taking something that rightfully belongs to someone else, such as property or honor. He uses it to illustrate the importance of being content with what one has. (Discourses 2.8.16) 34. In the play "The Suppliants" by Aeschylus, the term "Harpagmos" is used to describe the act of taking someone captive as a prisoner of war. (lines 251-252)
*When you show the possible translations of the Greek word, it also mentions robbery. Thank you for confirming the KJV got it right.* The lexicon said that the "robbery" meaning of this word makes no sense in context. If I say the room is hot, you can't just go to Merriam-Webster and say, "You must mean the room is 'angry' or 'eager' or 'peppery,' right?" So if you want to disagree with the Bauer lexicon's conclusions about Philippians 2.6 based on your own expertise in ancient koine Greek, that's one thing, but you can't simply say that any definition given in the lexicon is applicable to the word's usage in this verse.
@@NIFBer Considering that both Oneness Pentecostals and Latter Day Saints affirm 1 John 5.7, it's clearly not a magic bullet to repel all heresy. Modalists insist that the three are one person. Mormons insist that the three are one in purpose. The ancient creeds do not depend on 1 John 5.7 to affirm the doctrine of the Trinity. They instead depend on a variety of verses that define the variety of concepts that make up the doctrine of the Trinity, and they do so more precisely than 1 John 5.7 does.
@@NIFBer The Nicene Creed does not use it: We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
"Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point."
Their own translators condemned them hundreds of years before they were born.....its almost like the translators anticipated them and refuted them having never known them....
The clearest, most reasoned explanation I've encountered regarding this verse's translation difference. Thank you, and blessings.
You're very welcome
A perfectly excellent, concise, and heart-felt explanation of what can be a problem verse. And that video quality and color is gorgeous. Well done Sir!!
Wow, thank you!
Thank you for this deep dive. Our faith is truly both simple and deep. Beautiful location!
You are so welcome!
When I was a kid reading the King James and New King James, I literally had that incorrect idea of robbery. I thought the Bible was saying that Jesus was not God and refused to steal that position. Which was confusing because I knew I had been taught that Jesus was God in the flesh and member of the Trinity. Oll translations can be very confusing to children. Reading modern versions helped me clear up the Bible verse much better. But now I keep running into people who say, "The new versions say Jesus gave up his divinity." Ugh....
Yes! This is so sad!
Honestly the AV & NKJV were clear to me but at first reading I thought the ESV, NASB, NIV, CSB, NRSV, etc. were saying Jesus did not think he was equal with God, some time ago I realized both translations (either way, not just the AV & NKJV) are giving divinity to Christ in this verse.
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever Right!
Yes! They do say the same thing . And to be clear, I was quite young when I was getting confused. Maybe 7-8 years old. And I have pointed out How they both have the same meaning in my more recent conversations with my KJV friends. Though, I'm afraid I don't think I was extremely successful.
I am a grown man and l thought the same, coming across this passage as an adult human new believer reading the KJV. At the very least, l thought "what? That doesn't make sense, given the context. I'll have to put that aside to understand later." I only understood it when l switched to the ESV.
Dr Ward, thanks so much for all the insights. There's a video of yours I watched before, but I can't remember the title. I'm trying to locate it so that I can share with my students. I'm an English Teacher to foreign students.
The video was about 5 or 10 KJV words you explained. One of the words I'm interested in, was the meaning of "fair". I'd be grateful if you could provide the link.
Thanks so much Dr. Ward and God bless.
I think it was this one: ruclips.net/video/1awUlUOhwfI/видео.html
But here's the text: FF No. 30 is “fair.” Now this one is really easy, because the relevant sense of this word is definitely not obsolete; it’s only archaic, as the dictionaries show. “In which time Moses was born, and was exceeding fair, and nourished up in his father’s house three months.” (Acts 7:20 KJV) Now “fair” can still be a false friend in some places for some people, because we don’t produce this use of the word; no one says this anymore. But it’s among those words that, because of BBC historical dramas and because of obvious contexts in the KJV like “thou art fair, my love,” many people do know. “Fair” meant “beautiful,” not that Moses was exceedingly average or exceedingly just (Acts 7:20). There are one or two places in the KJV where I think there isn’t quite enough context to make certain that today’s readers will catch this minor false friend. Ezek 31:7 is one: “Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters.” I could see people mistaking “fair” to mean “just” there. Of course, the Hebrew and Greek words translated “fair” didn’t sound archaic to their original hearers. “Beautiful” will eliminate confusion and sound like contemporary speech instead of sounding archaic.
@@markwardonwords Yes, it's the correct one. It's great to have the text too. Thanks so much Dr. Ward!
I am not sure what the link is, but you may be talking about his false friends video. The Cambridge dictionary and I disagree with his definition of false friends, but I believe it is what you are looking for.
@@timlemmon2332 I checked the link and it is indeed what I was looking for. It corresponds with the text Dr. Ward provided. I'm actually right now discovering that many of the definitions Dr. Ward provides are different to many prominent dictionaries out there.
My students pointed this out to me, because I have already shared this video with them. They pointed out chapters 1 and 2 of Esther (KJV) as well where she is described as fair and beautiful. So if Dr. Ward maintains that fair means beautiful, then it reads in Esther as being beautiful and beautiful. That doesn't make sense, right?
Another verse says Esther is beautiful because she is fair. So I'm trying to figure out how Esther is beautiful because she is beautiful? 🤔 Again doesn't make sense, right? The word fair appears about five times in Esther and 50 times in the rest of the KJV.
I checked the Webster's 1828 (which Dr. Ward claims in another video that Webster's "is on my side") and the FIRST definition given is having a white skin. My students also pointed out that popular RUclips channels teaching English defines fair as having a white skin. The 2nd definition of Merriam-Webster also defines fair as having a white skin. So if having a white skin is the correct definition, it literally means that Esther is beautiful because she is white.
My students also pointed out that Dr. Ward didn't refer to the Webster's definition while he claims Webster's is on his side. If you search on RUclips for Mark Ward Webster's 1828, you should find that video. I believe it was posted less than a year ago.
My students are Asian and they really keep me on my toes. That's soooo gooood 🥳🤣
So yes, I agree that Dr. Ward gets many definitions wrong. My students want to know why Dr. Ward disregarded both Webster's 1828 and Merriam-Webster when he often refers to these dictionaries in other videos.
Maybe Dr. Ward noticed those definitions but didn't want to appear as being politically incorrect. Imagine telling an audience that Esther is beautiful because she is white. There would be an outcry, right?
Thanks again and God bless!
Well done! I read the NKJV and had the opportunity to lead a Bible study a couple of times a few weeks ago where we were going through this passage. While reading through I asked others with a different translation to read it out loud as well, to make special notr of the difference there. It is one of my favorite passages in all of scripture and my understanding of the Lord and humility generally was greatly enhhanced by newer translation making it more decipherable what Paul was saying. It seems to me that Paul was trying to communicate that Jesus, being God, did not consider full equality with God something to be held onto, as with whited knuckles or clenched fists, but willingly gave it up in humility. This fits the context of much of Philippians, particluarly chapter 3 where Paul says he "counts as loss" all the worldly things he could have prided himself in for the sake of the knowledge of Christ.
Thanks, Mark! Keep up the good work!
😃 oh my - I have always loved the idea of being a flower farmer.
Can't say it was on my bucket list, but I'm so proud of my wife! Blackburngardens.com!
I have heard textual notes being discouraged many times in my life... I realized over time, that the true reason I did not like notes, is because it forced me to think, and learn. And that meant change sometimes. And it meant I was wrong sometimes. And I wanted to be right about everything. And at its roots, I felt I needed to be right about everything, because I thought I could not have confidence in my salvation, without knowing everything correctly. It was my error, and I don't feel that way now. Sometimes hating on notes is masked as zeal. But sometimes its simply zeal without knowledge.
✔
Thank you, brother. You're always knocking it out of the park for us. So much appreciated, as always. - Smiles
My pleasure!
I have been using the NKJV as a main translation for decades. Not out of any kind of only-ism, just what I liked.
I often don't even think about words like this one with "robbery" or even verses like
1 Pet 1:13 NKJV "Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest [your] hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ". When I read them in the ESV I realized how complicated my language must seem for younger people. Just because I know these more archaic words doesn't mean I want to spend my time explaining them to people.
I've since gotten my hands on several other translations. I still love the NKJV, but I'm trying to read more broadly.
Thanks for explaining this passage. The wording has always sounded weird to me, but this helped a lot.
Glad it was helpful!
You have me AMENing out loud. Thank you for such valid points and research.
You are so welcome!
This was great. Would love you do the same thing with monogenes. And why modern versions have chose only Son over only begotten. It could help a lot of people.
This is a very good idea.
Here's some information on "monogenes" (only-begotten) using references commonly found it "Logos" software. A brief and casual video I put together during the covid shut down..
ruclips.net/video/nnDoqGvl8zQ/видео.htmlsi=SGzT5EbFMZx17ksF
@@markwardonwords Good. With the single "nu", it would seem to come from ginomai, "come to be", rather than gennao, "beget".
But the Nicene Creed makes it clear "begotton not made".
:--}>
I’m subscribed! I just watched the discussion of 7 translation that are bad. I was delightfully surprised by your measured and clear comments.
I worked on this Philippians passage very hard. Not being a biblical scholar as you are I was still able with a great deal of effort come to the same conclusion of what this passage meant. I admit, because of my lack of biblical education, I felt a great sense of confirmation. This is not an easy passage to get to the meaning without kind of making it up. But what a great insight into the unbelievable humility of Christ, My Savior and Lord! I’m so proud He would include me in His kingdom along with His Father. That He would leave all behind for us. Absolutely amazing!
Amazing grace!
I am indeed impressed with the quality of your research with Plutarch. I taught Philippians at Bible College for years and absolutely throughly appreciated.your video. Well done
Many thanks!
Great video! Thanks. This is actually a verse that (in my Utah context) takes added significance. Because the LDS church uses it as a proof text for their teaching that humans can obtain godhood.
I am curious, though, with your methodology on examining it. There's a listing in the OED for "robbery" that is obsolete here, and it seems to align with BDAG and modern translations. Why didn't you entertain the possibility of this being a false friend? I know technical questions like this can be tough to answer in a youtube comment, but I am very curious.
I saw that-I'm just not sure I want to go to that level of micro-shades of meaning, not when BDAG still lists "robbery" (presumably as it's used in our English) as a sense of the Greek word. Does that make sense?
@@markwardonwords fair enough! Occam’s razor. 🙂
You answer with patience, grace, and wit. Well done sir. Well done.
Thank you kindly!
Great video, wonderful explanation, and like always, really gracious. Thank you Dr Ward.
Love the setting between your wife’s flowers!
Many thanks!
Amen Mark! Well said!! Thanks for your ministry.
✔
Love your PLT translation there Dr. Ward.
Especially when it matches the KJV exactly.
Very good work, my friend.
Thank you very much, Kevin!
Great video. I appreciate your insight and grace as you discuss these things. I’ve never been a regular KJV reader. I grew up reading the NIV, and now a mix of NIV and NRSV. Maybe I’m not understanding correctly, but the KJV translation, at least to me, seems to be saying something different than the other translations in this verse. To say “not robbery to be equal with God“, seems to be saying it was his right to be equal with God, or that it wasn’t inappropriate for him to be equal with God. Whereas the other translations seem to be saying that Jesus voluntarily released his grasp on being equal with God. Any thoughts about this?
I cant remember which expositor i heard give an alternate explanation for harpogmon years ago, so forgive my failing memory there, but his explanation was that the force of the word here could well be something like, "thought equality with God wasnt something to be held onto/clung to". This keeps jesus having already had the equality, and yet also keeps Jesus having emptied himself to some degree to become a man before taking his divinity back up in full after being raised.
That is to say, the force of the sentence is to remind us that Jesus was willing to set Himself aside to do the eork.
✔
Thank you, Mark, excellent work!
Thank you so much!
Thank you, Mark! A closer look at this verse and the surrounding verses would "fit" in better with the idea for the "equality" over "robbery". I understand what the KJV was going for and it isn't heresy, but it might not be the best word to use if a deeper dive into context was considered, esp. in light of verse 7 and following.
As always, well done.
Thanks again!
Admittedly the entire passage (Phillians 2:5-8) can be hard to translate.I remember particularly struggling with that phrase. Our class has to do these verses with explanations or justication for our word choices. No 2 students used the exact wording. I remember having a similar discussion with a parishioner over the phrase "made himself of no reputation " because i used a translation that used the phrase " emptied himself " . i was a young pastor who started explaining kenosis. Ironically she went to another KJV only church due to my use strange teachings. Ive learned to use more tact with people.
Ha! Right! Join the club of men who have learned that lesson!
Since I don't read the KJV, my main takeaway is a better understanding of the historical use of "rape" and how it relates to both kidnapping and robbery -- the "Rape of the Sabines" statue, with the "rape = kidnapping" meaning never made complete sense until watching this video.
I'm grateful for Bibles translated into our contemporary English -- I don't think I would've understood the meaning of Philippians 2:6 if I only had the KJV or NKJV to understand Paul's exhortation; I probably would've just mentally shrugged and gotten the gist of what he meant from the rest of the chapter.
Right. And that's still way, way better than nothing!
The Bible you show. Where can I get a copy?
www.amazon.com/dp/0785295143?tag=3755-20
(Affiliate link!)
I can't say I love the interior layout. But the Bible is beautiful, the typeface is from my friend Klaus Erik Krogh, and if you like verse-by-verse formats, it's a good one!
Another great instructive video. Thanks. The passages from Plutarch 🤮 really serve to underscore how ethics that secularists take to be timeless and self-evident, are not, and came about due to the radical moral teachings of Christianity. Even if secularists are now winding back some of that ethical progress.
That is an excellent, excellent point.
Nice video, thanks. I do agree with one Mormon commenter that you are losing the context of why this verse is so important in different sects, as you seem to omit discussion of the imperative which precedes the phrase in question: “Let that mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus…”
So we are not dealing with just how Jesus perceived his divinity but how Paul wants us to perceive ourselves. That being said, the perspective you give here is enlightejing.
As i understand the KJV syntax, the immediate phrase would be something like our Mormon friend said-don’t think it a crime to become like God. But this is belied by the consequent “but took upon himself the form of a servant…”. So even though i will always prefer the poetry and music of the original KJV above all others, this exegesis brings a truly new meaning to this verse, for which I am truly grateful.
Yeah, it's hard to even make myself think of such a radically different Christology as that of Mormonism.
Perhaps so, yet IMO mainstream churches with more orthodox ‘Christologies’ have devolved into worshippers of the idol of Tolerance. I think God is less concerned about the wording of our theology than with our surrender to His will. “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.”
That is a point that does come up sometimes. Sometimes an entire argument will boil down to "This rendering of the verse doesn't agree with my interpretation, so therefore it must be wrong." I always say that interpretation should come from Scripture, not the other way around.
@@curtthegamer934 i would say it should come from the Holy Spirit first
Love the video and always wondered what that phrase in Philippians 2:6 meant. I love the way the NLT translates this verse and it makes so much sense to me.
New Living Translation Philippians 2:6 Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.
Right! That’s a good translation.
Thank you, Brother Mark🌹⭐🌹
You are so welcome
Dear Mr Ward, I have a question about 1 corinthians 1 18. KJVO people say that the modern versions are wrong because they say “being saved” where the KJV says “saved”. I can’t find a video explaining this and I don’t know Greek. Could you help with this or point me towards a video or article that explains it please?
I have touched on this. I think in my Albert Hembd videos. ruclips.net/video/_2T5B4JRwe8/видео.htmlsi=qMG8otP7F7meeHYw or the sequel.
If you really want to learn more about the development of the English progressive tense than you'll ever need in everyday life, check out this article: cpercy.artsci.utoronto.ca/courses/6362-lamont.htm
See the sections "Expressing Progressive-Passive Actions before Progressive-Passive Verbs" and "The True Progressive-Passive Verb."
Here's the important takeaway: the English language didn't allow for the grammatical construction "are being saved" until the mid-1700s (and even then it was controversial among grammarians). If you wanted to say "are being saved" in 1611, you would say one of the following options:
1. are a-saving
2. are saving
3. are saved
To say that the KJV disagrees with the modern versions here is to ignore the history of our language and to treat a 400-year-old translation as if it conforms to 21st century grammar.
@@markwardonwords thank you
@@MAMoreno thank you
Being saved is works salvation...ARE saved align to: 1 Cor. 1:18 - 1 Cor. 15:2 - Romans 8:24 - Ephesians 2:6-8: All say ARE saved...when you believed on Christ you ARE saved, not being saved..being saved is a catholics work...
Great explanation
Glad it was helpful!
Preach it brother!
My pleasure!
Hi mark, What do you think of this translation? Philippians 2:6-8 (REB): 6 ‘He was in the form of God; yet he laid no claim to equality with God, 7 but made himself nothing, assuming the form of a slave. Bearing the human likeness, 8 sharing the human lot, he humbled himself, and was obedient, even to the point of death, death on a cross!
I'm okay with that, because I think that in context (in the context of the whole NT) it's clear that "laid no claim to equality with God" means "didn't insist on remaining in heaven and instead submitted himself to the limitations, such as they were, of the incarnation."
Really, your motivation and the King James Onlyists could be interpreted to be very much the same - that no one would be deceived by inerrant translations of the Bible, because you value God's Word so much.
I’m not sure I understand: not deceived by inerrant translations? You mean *errant* translations? If that’s what you mean then, yes, there is some common ground between me and my KJV-Only brothers, and it’s the common ground I’m continually trying to get them to step onto with me: we both want to understand what God has said in Scripture.
The Greek text says "ουχ αρπαγμον ηγησατο το ειναι ισα Θεω". Why "ισα"? I'd expect "ισον" (masculine accusative, because it agrees with the (implicit) subject of an infinitive).
It never occurred to me to think of this verse as Jesus "stealing" from God. Yet when I first saw this verse in a different translation from the NKJV or KJV, I was like, yeah this makes more sense (that was the ESV translation that gave me a sense of what the verse meant. Thank you for your videos, I'm learning quite a bit from them.
To me, who read the BIble in Swedish first, the KJV translation actually seems misleading. It's bad baggage from the vulgate translation if anything.
If people would spend more time reading and studying the word, and less time worrying about every minor difference this world might be a better place.
I agree!
Similar word to "rapture" which is a snatching away.
Right! Good point! And "rapinam" also gives us "rapine," an uncommon but still used word.
Frankly, I’d be more suspicious of your motives because of your being a ginger plowboy, lol. Just kidding. I am always struck by how well you handle yourself under such criticisms, although I’ve never seen you in a live-action confrontation. But I have no doubt you are steadfast. I am equally struck by how snarky one particular side of the matter always seems to be, similar to neo-hyper-Calvinists. But along the same lines as you allude to, I doubt they would understand your regular references to a plowboy either. Many thanks, as always, for this video and all your hard work behind all your presentations in all formats. And this updated backdrop is quite impressive, though grasping the flora around you might be considered robbery without careful prior consideration, lol. As for the KJV, if it was good enough for Paul and the Apostles… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Blessings to you!
Ha! Love it! Thank you!
Yes, I'm not sure I trust myself in a live encounter. I don't want to sin. If I ever do a debate, it will be with someone who's already proven himself to be able to have civil discourse. And we won't do a cross-ex-this is what my friend, a debate coach, suggested.
Amen.
I was looking at that, just recently.
............
Like yourself, pastors and teachers know well:
My brethren, let not many of you become teachers [TR didaskaloi, lit.], knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.
--James 3:1 (NKJV)
Anyone who negates Bible teaching, as in contradicting yourself or another, is thereby exercising the office of teacher in so doing. And therefore is responsible for being right!
............
In the NT, there is more, including strong statements, about true and false teaching, plus true and false teachers, than about love!
............
I have seen this "Yea hath God said" teaching, used to mean, "Is this a valid translation?"
But the SERPENT was NOT asking, "What words did God say?", as this disrespectful comparison implies.
Au contraire, that SNAKE was casting DOUBT: "Did God really mean", what we both know He actually said?
There is a vast difference between, "Did He say it?", and "Did He speak truth when He said that?"
............
Kurios Iesous Xristos
:--}>
Right! I like your au contraire. That's a good way of putting it.
I am a baby Christian I like your channel you are smart
It's all camera tricks! ;)
Do you have a church to attend?
@@markwardonwords no should I read my KJV bible or NKJV bible?
@@MartinLujanJr-o8s Please send me an email! We need to find you a church. Byfaithweunderstand.Com/contact
@@MartinLujanJr-o8s
I would start with the NKJV because you’re a new Christian. It will be much easier for you to understand and learn. Welcome to the family of Christ btw 🙌🏽.
@@gracealone89 thank you brother I will take your advice and read my NKJV Bible have a blessed day
I love the MEV!
Excellent!
Given that the one Person of Jesus Christ is the union of two natures, God the Word/Son and man, it may be said that the human spirit/soul of Jesus was in the form of God, ie., had the glory of God, being the human nature God had created for Himself, and knew that this was not something he had snatched from God, and was also something which, for the sake of his earthly ministry, he readily accepted to cover with the form of a humble servant. From the instant of its creation the human spirit/soul of Jesus knew that he was equal to God, that is, equal to the Word who is God, being the human nature the Word had created for Himself as His very own. The mystery of the union of the two nature in Christ is the central truth of Christianity.
Seems like a strange location for this type of video/topic. LOL 😄
I don't disagree. Just so proud of my wife's work!
I love the setting
Could I, a KJV conspiracy worshiper EVER be wrong?
No, everyone else must be the devil.
Moonswatch? 😉
Yup! Got it at the Swatch store just across the border. I could never afford an Omega-unless they team up with Swatch! I love it!
@@markwardonwords Very cool. It was a brilliant move on the part of Swatch. Apparently the sales were huge and the Omega Speed Timer sales jumped incredibly as well. It’ll be interesting to see how the new 50 Fathoms does. That has always been my favorite dive watch. Such class!
"if I were to treat the King James with the same suspicion that the modern versions nearly always received from King James Defenders however I could say..." -- not going to agree with that statement.
The problem I would have with Philippians 2:6 is you are simply all over the board related to meaning of this verse depending on version. The NLT does not agree with the CSB, does not agree with the ESV. The NIV says something different. Actually, this video put into more question how some of the translations justified how this verse was rendered.
No reply.
@@markwardonwordsIs that your Proverbs 26:4 response? ;)
@@NIFBer The problem is we have too many simpletons. It really is the fault of KJVO pastors for not teaching any Bibliology. When I talk to people at Church I encourage them to watch Dr. Ward, I give them the top 20 "issues" or reasons to get rid of the KJB. I try to be vocal when I hear stupid arguments like "The KJB does not have a copyright."
Dr. Ward is not the problem, sure he has been successful because he delivers a polished presentation, but nothing he is saying is new.
*The NLT does not agree with the CSB, does not agree with the ESV. The NIV says something different.*
Setting aside the ESV for now, let's look at the other three...
NLT:
Though he was God,
he did not think of equality with God
as something to cling to.
Instead, he gave up his divine privileges;
he took the humble position of a slave
and was born as a human being.
So we have the following assertions in the NLT:
- Jesus was already God
- Jesus chose not to cling to his equality with God
- Jesus gave up his privileges as God
- Jesus became a slave, i.e. a human being
CSB:
who, existing in the form of God,
did not consider equality with God
as something to be exploited.
Instead he emptied himself
by assuming the form of a servant,
taking on the likeness of humanity.
Let's look at these assertions from the CSB:
- Jesus exists in the form of God
- Jesus chose not to exploit his equality with God
- Jesus emptied himself of that status
- Jesus took on the form of a servant, i.e. a human likeness
NIV:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God
something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
So we can now consider the assertions in the NIV:
- Jesus is God in his very nature
- Jesus chose not to take selfish advantage of his equality with God
- Jesus made himself nothing rather than retaining his status
- Jesus took on the nature of a servant, i.e. a human likeness
Where exactly are the differences here? They all say:
- Jesus is God in form/nature
- Jesus chose not to retain the perks of his equality with God
- Jesus instead lowered himself to a humble status
- Jesus took on a human form/nature
Other translations with similar interpretations include the CEB and NCV. The ESV (following the ASV and RSV) is more ambiguous with its "to be grasped" language, which allows for differing interpretations without committing to one in particular. (So too the NASB, NJB, NET, NABRE, MEV, LSB, and NRSVue.)
@@MAMorenoI think the ESV makes it more interesting: "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" So, form but not equality because it could not be counted something to be grasped?
I will give it to you, all the verses mean "the same thing" but only if you want them too. You have to read the various translations through your theological lens to make it all work.
I am still not seeing "grasped" to be equal to "robbery" in this context.
You state: "Jesus emptied himself of that status" ("Instead he emptied himself.") Well, that is one way you could read it. If I read it "He emptied himself of his divinity and died on the cross as a man" would I be making a leap? That would be heretical for me to say, but texturally correct?
If Christ emptied himself than by what power did he perform miracles?
Slave vs. Servant? I'll pass on that.
and we are not doing any comparison the the KJV from which the foundational doctrines were based.
If I was to do what a lot of Churches do today and mix and match versions throughout a sermon or lesson, I could really make a mess of a lot of doctrines.
So.....
You are taking the approach of how to harmonize these variations, which is fair. I think you are stretching a bit though objectively.
Would it also be fair for me to state there are no copyright violations between version, and changes were made with different meanings yielding "new authorship" which of and in itself is copyrightable?
Once the publisher for these varying version sign FormVA for the derivative copyright, I can state factually changes have to be made to make the different versions unique in wording and meaning. I can make the assertion these changes were done for copyright purposes and degrade the text. You can counter that all changes were based on Scholarship. The difference between our statements is mine has factual basis and quantifiable results were your is based on faith frankly.
Is there a clear and unambiguous occurrence of "harpagmos", not "harpagma" or any [actual or alleged] synonym, meaning other than "robbery / act of robbing/seizing/snatching - or such."?
If there is no such evidence, then the known and admitted active sense of “harpagmos” must stand, and those who claim that it can be a word with a passive sense must be wrong.
I am honored that you made a 15 minute response to my question and comments. While I am not a Greek scholar, I am pretty well versed in the English language. As I see you struggle to defend your point of view by referring back to the Greek, I noticed your painfully literal translation matched the KJV and NKJV. When you show the possible translations of the Greek word, it also mentions robbery. Thank you for confirming the KJV got it right.
Now let's look at the meaning of the English word "Robbery". according to the Cambridge Dictionary, it means the act of stealing from someone or somewhere. Stealing means taking something you have no right to, or claiming something as yours when it isn't. This Scripture is saying Jesus is equal with God and His claim on that equality is true. This is backed up by by other Scriptures like John 5:17-18 John 14:9 and John 1:1-14
Here is the meaning of the word Grasp. To seize quickly and hold onto. Did Jesus think that equality with God could not be seized and held onto? Not according to Scripture. What makes more sense? What is confirmed by other Scripture? That is what you should believe.
Now let me surprise you a little bit. I am well aware that the KJV is not always word for word. Sometimes it is also phrase for phrase, because an exact phrase is sometimes difficult to translate. For instance try to translate "Gimme a break" into another language. Word for word would not convey the same meaning. Translating it to "I don't believe you" would be an accurate translation. I have read most of the footnotes in the KJV. I find that the translators made the correct choices in their word selection. It is very readable. Yes, there are a few footnotes that say some manuscripts don't say this or that, however it does not give opinion as to the accuracy or reliability of those manuscripts. They do not question the validity of Mark 16:9-20 or Acts 8:37 or any of the other numerous verses the other versions call into question. These are the footnotes that add confusion.
You seem to have misunderstood my final comment. It was not aimed at you, but at those who would create confusion in the Word of God. I do find it interesting that you can read Greek, but find the KJV too hard for you to understand.
One last note, I don't know if you realize it or not, but you come across as very condescending to those who do not agree with you. this is not something a reasonable person would do. it does not seem Christ like at all.
Once again, thank you and I will see you in another video.
It’s interesting that you highlight the meaning of “Robbery” as” the act of stealing from someone or somewhere. Stealing means taking something you have no right to, or claiming something as yours when it isn't.” That is actually what the meaning/usage of the Greek word “Harpagmos/Harpagmon” and other derivatives means as well. It appears in the Greek LXX as such.
Here are well over 30 examples of how it is used in the same centuries of Jesus and the Apostles.
1. In Plato's "Republic," Socrates describes the tyrant as someone who "having tasted of the sweets of freedom and equality, and having become a popular ruler, turns out to be a tyrant, and in order to keep his power, he must seize, by force and arms, that which belongs to others." (562d)
2. Plutarch uses the term "harpagmos" in his account of the kidnapping of Persephone by Hades in Greek mythology. In this context, the term refers to the act of seizing or taking something by force, which in this case is the abduction of Persephone.
3. In the philosophical work "De Anima" by Aristotle, the term "harpagmos" is used to describe the process of taking in sensory information from the external world and incorporating it into one's perception of reality.
4. In the play "The Bacchae" by Euripides, the character Pentheus accuses the god Dionysus of being a thief who has stolen the worship of his followers. (lines 232-233)
5. In the play "Prometheus Bound" by Aeschylus, Prometheus speaks of Zeus' "harpagmos" of fire, describing how the god took the gift of fire from him and gave it to mortals. (lines 122-123)
6. In the writings of the philosopher Plato, the term "harpagmos" is used to describe the act of seizing or taking something by force. In his dialogue "Gorgias," he uses the word to describe the behavior of politicians who take advantage of the masses. (Gorgias 466c)
7. In the writings of the historian Herodotus, the term "harpagmos" is used to describe the act of plundering or looting. He uses it to describe the actions of the Persian army after it conquered Babylon. (The Histories 1.191)
8. In the play "Eumenides" by Aeschylus, the Furies describe their own actions as a "harpagmos" or seizure of their victims. (lines 142-144)
9. In the works of the poet Hesiod, the term "harpagmos" is used to describe the act of snatching or seizing, as when birds snatch food from the ground. (Works and Days 217-220)
10. In the writings of the philosopher Aristotle, the term "harpagmos" is used to describe the act of taking or stealing something that belongs to someone else. He uses it to describe the behavior of some people who take things that belong to the community for their own personal gain. (Politics 2.6)
11. In the writings of the philosopher Aristotle, the term "Harpagmos" is used to describe the act of seizing power, often through violent means. He uses it to describe the behavior of those who overthrow a tyrant and seize control of a government. (Politics 5.10)
12. In the play "Alcestis" by Euripides, the character Admetus uses the term "Harpagmos" to describe how he was forced to give up his wife, Alcestis, to Death, in exchange for his own life. (lines 172-173)
13. In the works of the poet Homer, the term "Harpagmos" is used to describe the act of taking something by force, as in the plundering of a city or the taking of prisoners of war. (Iliad 3.382)
14. In the writings of the philosopher Plato, the term "Harpagmos" is used to describe the act of grasping or taking hold of something. In his dialogue "Timaeus," he uses the word to describe the way in which the soul is bound to the body. (Timaeus 35c)
15. In the writings of the historian Thucydides, the term "Harpagmos" is used to describe the act of forcibly taking something that belongs to someone else, such as land or property. He uses it to describe the behavior of the Athenians towards their neighbors during the Peloponnesian War. (The History of the Peloponnesian War 2.8)
16. In the play "Phoenician Women" by Euripides, the character Jocasta uses the term "Harpagmos" to describe how she was forced to give up her infant son, Oedipus, to be exposed on a mountain as a baby. (lines 31-32)
17. In the works of the poet Hesiod, the term "Harpagmos" is used to describe the act of taking something that belongs to someone else, particularly in the context of theft or robbery. (Works and Days 259)
18. In the play "Antigone" by Sophocles, the character Creon uses the term "Harpagmos" to describe the act of defying his authority and taking something that is not his to take. (lines 707-708)
19. In the philosophical work "De Anima" by Aristotle, the term "harpagmos" is used to describe the process of taking in sensory information from the external world and incorporating it into one's perception of reality.
20. In the writings of the philosopher Seneca, the term "Harpagmos" is used to describe the act of forcibly taking something that is not rightfully yours, particularly in the context of political power. (De Beneficiis 3.15)
21. In the play "Heracles" by Euripides, the character Amphitryon uses the term "Harpagmos" to describe how he was robbed of his cattle by the giant Cacus. (lines 609-610)
22. In the works of the philosopher Heraclitus, the term "Harpagmos" is used to describe the act of taking something that does not rightfully belong to you, particularly in the context of wealth or resources. He uses it to emphasize the transitory nature of material possessions. (Fragment 107)
23. In the works of the historian Herodotus, the term "Harpagmos" is used to describe the act of seizing something that belongs to someone else, often in the context of warfare or political conflict. (Histories 1.130)
24. In the writings of the poet Hesiod, the term "harpagmos" is used to describe the act of seizing something violently or by force, particularly in the context of warfare.
25. In the writings of the philosopher Aristotle, the term "Harpagmos" is used to describe the act of taking something by force or violence, particularly in the context of military conquest or aggression. (Politics 1254b)
26. In the play "The Persians" by Aeschylus, the term "Harpagmos" is used to describe the act of seizing control or dominion over others. (lines 60-61)
27. In the works of the philosopher Plato, the term "Harpagmos" is used to describe the act of taking something that is not rightfully yours, particularly in the context of wealth or power. He uses it to emphasize the importance of justice and fairness. (Republic 352e)
28. In the play "The Frogs" by Aristophanes, the character Aeschylus uses the term "Harpagmos" to describe how his plays were "stolen" by later generations of playwrights who copied his style and themes without giving him proper credit. (lines 1395-1397)
30. In the works of the philosopher Diogenes of Sinope, the term "Harpagmos" is used to describe the act of taking something by force or violence, particularly in the context of political power or domination. (Fragments 8 and 34)
31. In the writings of the historian Thucydides, the term "Harpagmos" is used to describe the act of plundering or looting in the context of war or conquest. (History of the Peloponnesian War 5.6.2)
32. In the play "The Clouds" by Aristophanes, the character Strepsiades uses the term "Harpagmos" to describe the act of stealing someone's intellectual property or ideas. (lines 1074-1075)
33. In the works of the philosopher Epictetus, the term "Harpagmos" is used to describe the act of taking something that rightfully belongs to someone else, such as property or honor. He uses it to illustrate the importance of being content with what one has. (Discourses 2.8.16)
34. In the play "The Suppliants" by Aeschylus, the term "Harpagmos" is used to describe the act of taking someone captive as a prisoner of war. (lines 251-252)
No reply, my friend.
*When you show the possible translations of the Greek word, it also mentions robbery. Thank you for confirming the KJV got it right.*
The lexicon said that the "robbery" meaning of this word makes no sense in context. If I say the room is hot, you can't just go to Merriam-Webster and say, "You must mean the room is 'angry' or 'eager' or 'peppery,' right?" So if you want to disagree with the Bauer lexicon's conclusions about Philippians 2.6 based on your own expertise in ancient koine Greek, that's one thing, but you can't simply say that any definition given in the lexicon is applicable to the word's usage in this verse.
@@NIFBer Considering that both Oneness Pentecostals and Latter Day Saints affirm 1 John 5.7, it's clearly not a magic bullet to repel all heresy. Modalists insist that the three are one person. Mormons insist that the three are one in purpose.
The ancient creeds do not depend on 1 John 5.7 to affirm the doctrine of the Trinity. They instead depend on a variety of verses that define the variety of concepts that make up the doctrine of the Trinity, and they do so more precisely than 1 John 5.7 does.
@@NIFBer The Nicene Creed does not use it:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son].
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
"Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point."
Right!!
Their own translators condemned them hundreds of years before they were born.....its almost like the translators anticipated them and refuted them having never known them....