Here is the passage in Acts 8:36-39 in the ESV and other versions based on the critical text. " And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?”[e] 38 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. " Notice verse 37 which is in answer to the question of verse 36 is MISSING. Hence, the question by the Ethiopian eunuch does not get answered at all and it's an EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ANSWER. Here are the proper words of God Almighty as given in the KJV. If you don't know this is right you are not right in your heart. You are deceived by Satan plain and simple. Acts 8:36 -39 INCLUDING VERSE 37!!! "36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing."
You can take issue with the passages Mark selected, but why would we examine the most obvious and least confusing passages to determine whether the KJV is easily comprehensible? Is it somehow "good enough" to have a Bible that's *mostly* readable and *mostly* clear? Furthermore, if you are truly devoted to the text as you claim, then surely any faithful translation of the TR is sufficient. Better yet, from your perspective, should be a faithful translation of the Basiliensis codices without Erasmus's back-translations and corruptions from the Vulgate.
My biggest issue is with his conclusion to encourage people to go with other versions based on this, "study". You can't take, even 50 challenging passages and conclude that the KJV is generally unreadable, especially without doing a side-by-side comparison of modern version as they also have challenging wording in some places. And that is without getting into the underlying text differences.
@RiversideBaptistChurchCT Whether or not the KJV is readable doesn't depend on any other translation. Even if nothing better exists, the KJV is not necessarily perfect. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with Ward's advocacy of other translations, but the question stands - would a faithful translation of the Basiliensis codices into modern English be a proper Bible? Did Erasmus's use of the Vulgate corrupt the TR?
I took that test also , and was also tripped up on one of the singular and plural. I thought the same thing and the one I got wrong he edited the verse to make it look singular. I even questioned him on this and he said there was enough context and I should have known. I thought it was sneaky .
@theandybee3050 you may consider Mark Ward a "saint".. all peaches and cream and everything nice.. but I feel kind of like this pastor.. I have had inter actions and conversations with Mark thru several blogs.. and even though he puts up the pretense that he is trying to be helpful with his depiction of what he has labeled as "FALSE FRIENDS".. which are really what he has determined to be passages people misunderstand while reading the King James.. he does this in such a way.. which often times seems divisive or deceptive... at least to me... I have taken that test....and while I scored 15/20... and got all of the singular/plural questions correct... he does it as this pastor states here.. Not in a true examinational way.. the first answer was singular... and the other 9..( why there were 10 questions.. half of the quiz on the word use of "YOU".. I'll never know)..answers were all plural...in a seemingly singular bible setting... it seemed as if Mark almost was Hoping the vast majority of people would fail.. which they did... in order just to prove he is right... I do Not consider a person to be a great Christian or even a true friend.. of one is going to devise "traps".. in order to cause people to stumble about what they think they know from God's word.. I am STILL trying to determine if he REALLY believes in the King James as a great translation.. because if he did.. he would spend MORE time preaching it.. rather than spend time pointing out to people what they do Not understand about it... that is How King James haters operate...
nobody is going to hell over thinking the kjv is the literal word of God. People are going to hell because brainwashed seminary students regurgitate the lies they are told about the critical text. lots of sincere loving mormons out there. he isnt commited to the truth. he is committed to his work , his credentials and reputation. big difference.
I want to warn you to tell the truth pastor. As one who only uses the KJV you should know you are not using the majority text. Majority text advocates do not affirm the Textus Receptus since it departs from the Majority Text in over 1400 places. You have readings like 1 John 5:7 that are not in the Byzatine Majority Text. You have renderings like Revelation 16:5 that doesn't show up in any Greek Text until John Calvin's protege, Theodore Beza, puts it in. None of these are Majority Text readings. Do not mislead your people. If 5% is too much difference to affirm a different Critical Text, then 2.5% is also different but maybe you think 2.5% is enough to mislead your people into calling your text something it isn't. The TR texts differ from themselves in over 30,000 places. Research John Mills do did the work in 1705 to show the differences in the Textus Receptus texts. Whole verses missing from various TR texts like like Luke 17:36 which isn't in Stephanus 1550 but it is in Beza. Mark Ward doesn't talk about textual criticism because he doesn't care if you're a TR advocate, or truly a Majority Text advocates (which you aren't), or a different Critical Text advocate. He wants Christians to be able to read their Bible in their vernacular language, just as Tyndale did, just as Wycliffe did, just as all translators do, including the KJV Translators. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for the same kind of traditions they burdened their people with: Mark 7:13 KJV - Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. Instead of binding people's conscience to this tradition, be humble like the KJV translator was about his own on the KJV: "For first, if no translation may be read in the church but that which is free from all error, then none at all ought to be read, for there is none in which there are not some mistakes, more or less. The Bible Translated therefore is not the undoubted word of God, but so far only as it agreeth with the Original, which (as I am informed) none of you understand. You must be able to produce the Scriptures in the Original Languages, for no translation is simply authentical, or the undoubted word of God. In the undoubted word of God there can be no error. But in translations there may be, and are errors. Neither is there any error at all in it, which concerneth faith or manners; and other slips must be born withall in translations, or else we must read none at all till we have a translation given by divine inspiration, as the originals are." - Daniel Featley. Or Myles Smith who wrote to the readers of the KJV on behalf of the Translators who wrote the preface to the Reader missing in the majority of KJV Bibles. Why not allow your congregation to read other TR based translations like the NKJV, and the MEV, or the SKJV along side their KJV?
Your profile logo is a Triquetra. The spirit behind everything always reveals itself, which is reflected in the content of your comment. This is what Mark Ward attracts and why he is difficult to counter, as we are dealing with a spirit and spirits that are not of God. Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (King James Bible).
@@KJBChristian Which koolaid is that? The kind that doesn't believe in conspiracy theories that say all modern translations are corrupted and from Satan? The kind that argues against a 17th century English Bible translation being wholly without error and even "re-inspired" and the only valid English Bible?
@@childofthelight888 Classic. You attack the character and intent of the messenger rather than addressing the substance of the message. There is no basis in reality for KJV-onlyism, and the burden is on you to prove otherwise.
Peter believed he had God's Word right then; Jesus believed the Old Testament was still written when tempted by the Devil. Mark Ward doesn't believe God has preserved His Word like this. 2Pe 1:19 We also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
@@RiversideBaptistChurchCT Mark Ward believes in preservation. His doctrine of preservation is different from yours. But the handful of passages that are cited to support preservation fit his doctrine as well as yours. He's also fastidiously avoided discussing textual criticism for the very reason that people find it divisive. You're moving goalpost anyway. The Apostles didn't teach that the KJV was God's perfectly preserved word. You can't accuse Mark of teaching "doctrines" contrary to your church's doctrines. All that does is admit that you've been teaching an idea as actual doctrine that isn't really taught by the Apostles, namely: the KJV is specifically, exclusively and uniquely, The Preserved Word of God.
@@PrimitiveChristian-m3p No, He doesn't believe that there is one Bible including original languages that is God's perfect word. He doesn't believe the Bible is preserved. Instead he has textual "confidence" where he is mostly sure the significant meaning is there. That is different than the apostles. He also basically said in the last debate that it was a sin to give a kid a KJB.
@@RiversideBaptistChurchCT I can't tell if you are misunderstanding 25% of what I wrote above (like you did the KJV passages in the survey) or if you just didn't read what I said. Is this a literacy problem or did you just not carefully read what I wrote?
I don't think you understand what Ward believes and teaches. If all he thought was that there are some challenging passages in the KJV I wouldn't have made this video.
Brother, you might want to reshoot this video. You mistakenly said the KJV was based on the majority text. This may lead people to think you are uninformed about this issue. Good work defeating that quiz! You are right it was not very difficult.
@@gen_lee_accepted5530 jus state that you were in error in your response to @johnwoolery4699 the Majority Text... IS considered a different name for "the received text:... or "the traditional text".. the Greek word for received text.. is "Textus Receptus".. this from the internet... "Yes, the Textus Receptus is also known as the Majority Text. The Textus Receptus is a Greek text that was based on the Byzantine Text, and is considered the foundation for translating the King James Version (KJV) and the New King James Version (NKJV). The Majority Text is the Greek text that is considered to be the most accurate textual tradition of the New Testament. It is based on the readings found in the majority of Greek manuscripts. The Textus Receptus agrees with the majority of manuscripts because the modern Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society (NA/UBS) text is highly edited. The Textus Receptus was adjusted by Erasmus to match readings from the Vulgate and the Church Fathers. As a result, the Textus Receptus differs from the standard form of the Byzantine text in nearly 2,000 readings. " you might be confusing... the Alexandrian or Sinaiticus text.... with this "Majority Text".. but No... the Majority Text IS the same as the Received Text... the other text (Alexandrian or Sinaiticus text) was used by Westcott and Hort.. in Their abomination..
Excellent response. Couldn't have said it better. I grew up with critical text. 34 yrs of NIV, NLT, NASB, ESV, etc. After 34 yrs I actually switched OVER to the text received by all, TR. I simply researched it myself, wrote an 18 page paper on it, and repented of the 34 yrs of the new versions. I switched permanently to the King James, and started to relearn things that were hidden from me from the new versions. Scales came off.
@@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613 Protestants were born out of catholic heresy. That is the whole history of Protestants came to be. Catholics taught that you could not get your sins forgiven unless you pay money to the church. The same reason Jesus turned the tables over at the synagogue. They intentionally kept the Bible in Latin, a dead language, so the people would not know all the heretical things that they were doing. It was not until catholic priest read the Bible and notice all the heresies that the Catholics were doing.
I'm a little confused. How are difficult questions a trick? The point of readability isn't whether you understand the easy stuff its whether you understand the difficult stuff. The words that have different meanings. And as presented, you knew the singular and plural so how many questions skewed plural is not deceptive. If you are saying ton yourself "this one can't be plural because they all are" then you don't understand the foundation of the singular/plural which is what is being tested. (Note that I am saying you but as a general "you" not the you that posted the video as you said you got all of those right). This is an honest question not one pushing an agenda. I am just failing to see how asking tough questions is misleading. Thank you
Ward started with a purpose of persuading people that they should switch from KJV to modern versions. The singular/plural section was designed by his admission to see if people used the rule, not if they understood the passages. Then without any comparative data from any modern versions, he's tried to use the survey to say this shows we need to use modern versions. But I'm saying the whole survey isn't really about readability as advertised and is deceptively set up. It would be like taking a political survey but asking detailed trivia about one candidate and saying, see, you don't know your candidate therefore you should vote for this other one. That wouldn't be a survey. Political surveys are supposed to ask language neutral questions about both candidates to find what people think, not to sway voter opinion. Ward is trying to sway user opinions and call it a survey.
@@RiversideBaptistChurchCT Thank you for the clarity. As a TR person I don't feel he's making an argument to move from the TR as a base but that he wants consideration for an English update to the KJV or adoption of the NKJV or MEV. I have never heard him say he promotes dropping the KJV and adopting a CT based bible. Since one of the arguments is that the KJV English provides singular vs plural distinction that modern English does not those questions were there to determine if people even understand how to get that information. If people do not understand how to determine singular vs plural than it is not a benefit and cannot be used in a defensive argument. I think a better example would be if you backed a political candidate because they had a policy you liked so a survey was provided to see if you understood what the policy actually even was. I really appreciate your time in answering and helping me understand your pov.
@@jfb3415 if you watch any of Mark Ward's RUclips videos, you will understand that he defends modern versions, any modern version, as long as it is not the KJV. He says that each modern version is the best version of Bible, even though, the modern versions do not agree with each other in a number of ways. The question that might be asked is: How did the King James Bible bring the Received Text to the English speaking world? The versions issue is a real thing. The King James translators had a different standard for translation that the "translators" did in 1881. A study of that issue (both sides) is a worth while study. On a less time consuming level, sit down with a modern version and the KJV ... it is a comparative study, easily done by anyone curious or a layman. You do not have to know Hebrew or Greek. All you do is compare each version against the other one, verse by verse.
@@maryseaman312 Hi Mary, You said that Dr. Ward defends "any modern version, as long as it's not the KJV". This is not true. He has a video criticizing a few significant choices in the NRSVUE, two videos warning against TPT, and two more where he gives helpful categories for what makes a Bible translation bad. In various content I have heard him disagree with the RV's translation in Isaiah 7:14, NWT's translation of John 1:1, and Hebraisms inserted in the TLV.
I studied the NWT beside the KJV and the American Standard Version. The issue of versions was settled when I found the ASB to agree with the NWT against the KJV. I knew the situation was not going to be improved after that.
A well argued doctrinally sound presentation with which I agree. Even if Mark Ward was on the right side of the issue (he is not), to design a survey purposly to manipulate the answers you want shows a serious lack of character, integrity, and honesty.
If I understand correctly, and I only heard about this a week ago, the survey was to see if people misunderstood various passages. How can you trick someone this way? People either understand plain English or they don't understand it. Seriously? Why did any literate pastor not get 100% correct? It's not much to ask of a pastor.
The sound is poor and hard to hear on this video. To some of the comments: o The Authorised Version, often called the King James Version, is among the better translations into English. It is not perfect; no translation is. Nor is it contemporary. BUT it is the translation that actually helped establish the English language as we know it. It has been quoted and referred to in literature during long periods where it was the dominant English translation (as maybe it still is). o The AV was translated during a period when English was closer in development, size of vocabulary, and broadness of meaning to the original languages than is contemporary English. Today's English has a huge vocabulary, and sometimes achieves precision through choice of words, where historically the precise meaning in some places rested on context alone. This in some places, at least, allowed a more direct correspondence to the original languages; in any case, it is important to today's reader to have at least an awareness of these qualities, and some familarity with this venerable version. o The AV has warts. It has also been around long enough for them to be noted, commented upon, and well explained. This is so much less true of most contemporary versions. o We count the Scriptures inspired, verbally and plenary, in the original writings - which original writings we do not have. We DO have an incredible number of written witnesses to the original texts, and can have confidence in God's Word. We do NOT have an "inspired translation", but we do have several that are highly credible and that can be compared. We also have a number of translations that do not live up to that label.
That last point is why I dislike the appellation "modern versions". There are many recently translated versions, but all by different groups with different motives. I like some, and I dislike some, and I despise some.
That's good, as long as you're not deceptively editing it. Also, if you look in the comments, there is a free pdf download of the text version. It's the Lord's Work!
@@RiversideBaptistChurchCT this video was a lot of things. The Lords Work it is not. It’s the very opposite - slanderous, untruthful, divisive, and ignorant
@@RiversideBaptistChurchCT mark ward is a “player” of the devil. Terrible rationale, logical incoherence, historical ignorance, ad hominem argumentation and much more - all to argue that a 400 year old translation is something that its creators never intended.
Any person, no matter how scholarly or intelligent, who does not understand or believe that the last verses of Mark belong in our Bible deserves no respect and should not be followed. I certainly don't want anything to do with them. The same goes for Acts 8:37. If you can read that passage and you are so spiritually blind that you cannot see that verse 37 is part of the passage and therefore God's words, you have something seriously and fundamentally wrong with your spiritual discernment. Does it change doctrine? You better believe it does! Is it seriously important? If you don't know that you should not be teaching the Bible, period. The critical texts are EXTREMELY corrupt and I will not use any translation that is from them.
@@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613 First, I'm not now nor ever was a "Protestant". The Bible is my sole authority for all doctrine and practice. Most Protestants claim that but don't really practice it. They might say they're "Sola Scriptura", but in practice, they are not. I do not look to "church fathers", reformation leaders such as Calvin or Luther, confessions, or creeds to define my doctrine. That is not to say that I disagree with all of them, but I don't depend on them for my doctrine. The Bible itself must be the sole source for doctrine or you are going to be in error beyond any question. I can easily prove from the Bible that things such as the perpetual virginity of Mary or the baptizing of infants are wrong. You cannot prove such things as purgatory directly from the Bible or the practice of indulgences because NEITHER of them is found in the Bible or even suggested. They are made-up doctrines with no scriptural support. Ultimately, I must decide what I believe based on the word of God and nothing else.
@@randyd9805 "They might say they're "Sola Scriptura", but in practice, they are not. I do not look to "church fathers", Popes, confessions, or creeds to define my doctrine." Standard Protestant doctrine, why deny it? "The Bible itself must be the sole source for doctrine or you are going to be in error beyond any question. I can easily prove from the Bible that things such as the perpetual virginity of Mary or the baptizing of infants are wrong." 1) Why should be the Bible be my only source of doctrine? I don't agree with you or any other Protestants. 2) Where in the Bible does it say Mary was not virgin after the birth of Jesus or that baptizing infants are wrong? 3) Do you accept deuterocanonical section of the Old Testament? "You cannot prove such things as purgatory directly from the Bible or the practice of indulgences because NEITHER of them is found in the Bible or even suggested." Your premise I accept sola scriptura but II Maccabees 12:39-46 does show, so you are wrong hear. "Ultimately, I must decide what I believe based on the word of God and nothing else." This is spirit of Protestantism, I am the final authority, how is that not Satanism?
@@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613 I do not disagree with every detail that those who actually are Protestants believe. The problem is that like Catholics, they take the interpretations of men like Martin Luther and John Calvin and those become their official doctrines. To be a Protestant YOU MUST have come out of the Catholic Church. Some Baptists are really Protestant in doctrine and may call themselves "reformed Baptists" for example, but the Baptists did NOT come out of the Catholic Church. At no point in history were Baptists a part of the Catholic Church. No, I am not nor never was a Protestant. Yes, I deny I ever was or ever will be. 1. The Bible is the inspired word of God. If you don't believe that you are not a Christian. You have never come to Christ for salvation. It's clear you don't even know very basic Bible doctrine such as the VERBAL INSPIRATION of scripture. I suggest you look that up and study it for yourself. 2. That Mary was a perpetual virgin and never had another child after she bore Jesus by virgin birth is a made-up doctrine. Catholics LIE blatantly about this and refuse to acknowledge the clear scriptural evidence that Mary and Joseph had a normal marital relationship after the birth of their FIRSTBORN SON Jesus. Do you understand what the word "Firstborn" implies? It is very, very clear. Did you know that Mary and Joseph had at a minimum SIX more children AFTER the firstborn Son and that all of the other boys are NAMED in the Bible? Furthermore, two of them wrote part of the New Testament? Both James and Jude are the half-brothers of Jesus and are the sons of Mary and Joseph by natural birth. The 4 half brothers of Jesus are named in the Gospels. You may argue the point, but the Bible is crystal clear that Joseph and Mary had other children AFTER the virgin birth of Christ. Matthew 13:55, 56 "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren (literal brothers), James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56 And his SISTERS, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?" These are the literal children of Mary and Joseph by natural birth. Mark 6:3 "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James (the writer of the book of James), and Joses, and of Juda ( Jude, the writer of the epistle of Jude), and Simon? and are not his SISTERS here with us? And they were offended at him." (Mary and Joseph had a MINIMUM of 2 or more daughters whose names are not given.) The total family including Jesus would be at least SEVEN!!! Matthew 1:24, 25 " Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not TILL she had brought forth her FIRSTBORN son: and he called his name JESUS." Luke 2:7 "And she brought forth her FIRSTBORN son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn." You may argue some of my points, but you cannot argue and be truthful that Mary had no other children by natural relations with Joseph. You have to disregard abundant scriptural evidence to say that Mary was a perpetual virgin. She was a lost sinner like anyone else and had to be saved by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ like anyone else. Lastly, NONE of the Apocrypha including Maccabees is inspired scripture and that is why it is not and should not be included in most Bibles. Most Bible-believing Christians do not regard the apocryphal writings as inspired because God did NOT inspire those books. I read what was done in 2 Maccabees. They took up a sin offering for soldiers who had been slain in battle. That in no way teaches indulgences and even if it did, that is not inspired scripture.
No. Things that conflict are not the same. The issue is not how a Bible is worded, it is if there is a change in meaning.... which is what the modern Bible are full of.
@casey1167 LOL, oy my goodness, what and where and how in the world do you come up with that whackerdoodle conclusion. The up-to-date english translations are 95-98% the same as the kjv. And vice versa. The only difference comes in the mountains of discoveries of information that happened after the kjv was translated in the years leading up to the 1611. Please read the introduction to the reader in the 1611. Those translators wished they had more info to answer where they knew they lacked full knowledge in their efforts. And they also stated that God's word is found in other translations. All doctrines in all modern English language translation are the same. Nothing has changed in that arena. Please, step outside the coterie of your kjvonlist cult. Please use your KJV, it's a very good version. Although dated. But, you are totally and fully incorrect in your uninformed ignorance as to how good the up-to-date english translations are.
@@waynemccuen8213 When the ESV and CSB conflict in a verse, is stating such a "KJVO Cult Idea"? I always find it interesting to hear how all Bible are the same, it is like a person has not actually read multiple Bibles.
@@waynemccuen8213 98%.... are you serious? what percent of the Bible would you need to change to destroy the Trinity and salvation by grace? Maybe .0001%?
@@waynemccuen8213 Your conclusion that "All doctrines in all modern English language translation are the same" is sadly inaccurate. There are a number of modern translations that are clearly bad (and more every few years at that). Sadly still, that just makes the issue harder to defend.
I don't use the KJV for my daily bible reading, I use the ESV or NKJV, but your point about having a control with a modern translation is a good point.
@huntmanstation20 you may consider Mark Ward a "saint".. all peaches and cream and everything nice.. but I feel kind of like this pastor.. I have had inter actions and conversations with Mark thru several blogs.. and even though he puts up the pretense that he is trying to be helpful with his depiction of what he has labeled as "FALSE FRIENDS".. which are really what he has determined to be passages people misunderstand while reading the King James.. he does this in such a way.. which often times seems divisive or deceptive... at least to me... I have taken that test....and while I scored 15/20... and got all of the singular/plural questions correct... he does it as this pastor states here.. Not in a true examinational way.. the first answer was singular... and the other 9..( why there were 10 questions.. half of the quiz on the word use of "YOU".. I'll never know)..answers were all plural...in a seemingly singular bible setting... it seemed as if Mark almost was Hoping the vast majority of people would fail.. which they did... in order just to prove he is right... I do Not consider a person to be a great Christian or even a true friend.. of one is going to devise "traps".. in order to cause people to stumble about what they think they know from God's word.. I am STILL trying to determine if he REALLY believes in the King James as a great translation.. because if he did.. he would spend MORE time preaching it.. rather than spend time pointing out to people what they do Not understand about it... that is How King James haters operate...
Excellent response, maybe you should have debated Mark. I have mostly stopped watching debates because they never seem to accomplish anything. We are on opposite sides of the mountain and are heading in different directions. I don’t think we should meet in the middle. Just stick with the Book!📖
the Ironic thing regarding Mark Ward's survey.. ..is even at the conclusion if one walks away convinced that the KJV is too archaic to use today... Most modern translations have interpreted these archaic passages inaccurately themselves as well.... leaving us to Not trust the KJV.. AND to trust a translation ....when at best .....gives a doubtful translation of the verse.. hence.. what Mark Ward does.. is draw people out of their blissful ignorance and places them in a state of naive surety... believing Falsely... I would rather remain blissfully ignorant if that be the case... than to fall into the devil's trap of trusting as misinterpretation of God's word.. even if that interpretation IS understandable.. it does no good to one's soul if it is WRONG...
I am glad people are speaking out about this man. I only came across him a few months ago, and he grieved me greatly, as the spirit behind him is demonic. Reading the comments on his videos of the people whose faith he has shipwrecked has been a burden. His friend Tim Wildsmith, who I only came across a few days ago, is also on the same bandwagon, and he is an equally disturbing young man taking people back to so-called Mother Rome, as is Mark.
@@theobsoleteman7504 God bless. It is good to see that you are also doing exactly the same. We must all contend for the faith. And keep looking up as the way things are going; we might all be talking in person very shortly rather than over the Internet.
@childofthelight888 I totally agree with you regarding Mark Ward... I have had inter actions and conversations with Mark thru several blogs.. and even though he puts up the pretense that he is trying to be helpful with his depiction of what he has labeled as "FALSE FRIENDS".. which are really what he has determined to be passages people misunderstand while reading the King James.. he does this in such a way.. which often times seems divisive or deceptive... at least to me... I have taken that test....and while I scored 15/20... and got all of the singular/plural questions correct... he does it as this pastor states here.. Not in a true examinational way.. the first answer was singular... and the other 9..( why there were 10 questions.. half of the quiz on the word use of "YOU".. I'll never know)..answers were all plural...in a seemingly singular bible setting... it seemed as if Mark almost was Hoping the vast majority of people would fail.. which they did... in order just to prove he is right... I do Not consider a person to be a great Christian or even a true friend.. of one is going to devise "traps".. in order to cause people to stumble about what they think they know from God's word.. I am STILL trying to determine if he REALLY believes in the King James as a great translation.. because if he did.. he would spend MORE time preaching it.. rather than spend time pointing out to people what they do Not understand about it... that is How King James haters operate...
The New King James uses a different old Testament Text and has some unusual translation choices so I don't trust it. I don't know much about the MEV except some of the translators were Catholic or something like that but that has been more recently. In theory I would be open to a translation from the correct texts but there are also practical issues to consider such as, can you get VBS materials and study materials for the version plus it doesn't have a clear way to indicate singular or plural second person pronouns (You as in one person vs. Y'all/yous guys) so I'm just going to only use the King James.
Dr. Ward work on this issue has only been done with true love, restraint, compassion, and respect for all. He deserves the same courtesy, compassion, and respect. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ!
Nope. You can't say you love the KJB then say it is a sin to give someone the KJB. Mark Ward will never answer a question concerning a final written authority. It is a question he will not answer. He does not want to discuss the underlying texts of the modern versions at all. He doesn't want to address the differing texts. Nor does he reveal that all bibles have difficult words.
@@johnword4775 I don't think Dr.Ward ever said it was a sin to give someone a KJV. Where did he say that? Ahhhh, the final written authority? It would be the autographs of the 1st century......all we have are representitives of those translated into English, or whatever the target language is. There were a number of target languages prior to 1611. Today, none of us speaks the english of 413 years ago, hence the reason for up-to-date renderings of the manuscripts that are available now. I honestly dont know why one would want a bible that you needed to learn 413 year old english when you can have one accurately translated into the english we use today. But, if it is what you like, just use it! There's nothing wrong with the KJV. And btw, there is less than 5% difference between the KJV and the up-to-date versions.
If Dr. Ward had an alternative to the KJV, then maybe he would seem reasonable, but the "all versions are equal" ideology when they all conflict is problematic.
@@KJBChristianI am currently reading through the King James with my adult son who is reading it for the first time. He loves looking up English words in the dictionary while we progress. No problem understanding the wonderful language.
There are translation issues and compromises made in EVERY version. KJV, NKJV, ESV, NIV, whatever. There's no such thing as a perfect English translation. Some are more accurate to the original languages than others in various passages, and maybe less so in other places. Maybe they aren't all "equal" but they are all God's word. The difference is that nobody is dogmatic to the point of cult-like about any of them besides the KJV.
@@stephenwilson0386 Have you ever gone chapter by chapter comparing two version? I understand what you are saying, but have you ever turned to say Exodus and done a verse by verse comparison? None are perfect, but all God's Word. Okay, so if I asked for a listing of all the verses related to the Trinity, would you say those verses all are perfect? or do they have errors?
@@casey1167 I'm not sure what you're getting at. The measure of an English Bible translation isn't how it compares to the KJV or any other English Bible. The measure of any translation is how it compares to the original languages, as best we're able to determine the best manuscripts and interpretations (since there's no way to translate completely word for word from Hebrew/Greek into English). Maybe you're an expert in ancient Hebrew and Greek, but I'm not. So I defer to people who are experts - and those people say there is no basis for the claims made by KJV only folks.
@@casey1167 The difference is mainly that White and MacArthur mislead people about the Nature of God and the work of Christ. KJVO doesn't. It's mistaken, but innocent.
Typical "onlyist" response. Not only did you completely miss the reason for the survey, but you also ignored key points that Mark was making, argued other points out of context, and purposely mischaracterized Mark based on your own bias! You can disagree with someone without slaughtering their character and intentionally lying about their intentions. Congratulations... you learned nothing. In fact, you've proven 3 things (if I may use some tactics from your playbook): you have no integrity, you lack knowledge on the subject, and you live by fear not faith.
Ward says what he was trying to do with the pronouns in the following interview so I don't think you understand Ward: ruclips.net/video/9di15WWXcGE/видео.htmlsi=pIDLI20eTRFERXT1
I feel like i just wasted 21 minutes. Not a single mention of my Savior, Jesus. I thought the purpose of the written word was to reveal to us the Living Word, Jesus the Christ.
I'm just amazed at the detractors of Mark Ward...... let him alone......why can't there be legitimate differences of opinion on this issue without a person being a boogey-man Mark is a good man, and I know many good men that have a preference for the KJV......we will all live in eternity together.....just agree to disagree and move on...... I watched the debate he had last night, and I saw some the most vicious attacks against Mark by some who call themselves disciples of Christ...calling him Gay and Illiterate....all because they disagree with Mark.....could Mark be illiterate while knowing several languages and having an earned PHD? While we vilify the likes of Mark Ward......many of the same people wrap themselves around the likes of Donald Trump........ i just don't understand it.
He deceptively called me, used my information from his designed-to-fail survey to make multiple public videos. It is only reasonable to publicly respond and share my experience and thoughts on the issue. Tell him to leave me alone. If someone is just doing their own thing then yes, we can agree to disagree. But Ward has aggressively and deceptively tried to convert many people to his higher criticism doctrine. I've seen him damage pastor father/pastor son relationships and destroy whole churches. At least I could care enough to warn those who are willing to listen. I didn't watch the debate nor comment on it so talk to them about that. If you watch the rest of this video, it describes the Biblical importance of warning and separation.
@@RiversideBaptistChurchCT So spend your time on real threats like Joel Osteen and not Mark..... It's fine to have an opinion..... Speak to it and move on...... I've had many conversations with him and I don't feel he is the boogey man some have made him out to be. Just like Westcott and Hort.... They where not the boogey men they have been made out to be. Yes, Anglicans, and we'd have differences with them but most of the KJV translators were the same kind of Anglicans and we'd not be able to have any of them today in our church.
To those people who have phds I would tell you to be very careful because when Jesus came along he didn't pick one Apostle out of the school of the prophets or a PhD he didn't pick Galileo he didn't pick anybody that had an education just dirty fishermen and the like
I'm not understanding, so because he gave you 1 singular ("th-") and 9 plural ("y-") questions, it's disingenuous? The y- are not "harder" if the rule for thees and thous are so simple like we KJV-Onlyists always say. Dr. Ruckman always taught me how simple they are and easy to remember so it should be cake. So because the context makes it seem singular, Mark Ward is being deceptive? I'm sincerely asking! @4:40 and that's Ward's fault that KJV readers don't approach the Bible grammatically? He's asking pastors... that's why they're pastors! @8:05 hatches and bludgeons the King James? What? By showing you what the word really meant in 1611? @8:30 He can't love both? Dr. Ruckman loved Luthers 1545 German and the King James Bible and we all know Luther's doesn't match the KJV (See Isa. 14:12 in Luther 1545 "Morgenstern" just like the NIV). He's not allowed as a brother to disagree with the TR in places and agree with the CT and love the ESV as well as adore the KJV? This is a logical contradiction? @9:00 that is not what happens in most KJV-only churches unfortunately, and how are *pastors* going to be preaching God's word *fully* if they don't realize they're misunderstanding many words in their KJV? @10:10 NKJV AND MEV! NKJV AND MEV! Why are all of yall are controlled by my teacher Dr. Ruckman, while assuring us that you're not? Proof: You swear it's the underlying texts that's the issue but then in practice, IT'S NOT AT ALL. For us Ruckmanites, it's not the underlying texts that's the issue and that's why we're consistent (may be wrong, but we're consistent), so we can reject the NKJV and MEV. You swear it's the underlying texts but then in practice the NKJV and MEV are not accurate enough, *how convenient!* @21:05 he's helped me understand my KJB immensely, I was missing so many of God's riches that the translators put in there until Dr. Ward.
The ratio of singular/plural shows that the goal of the "survey" was not readability, it was to see if pastors used the rule. If someone used the rule like I did, the ratio wouldn't matter. But if the true goal was readability then it would matter. On the lone singular question, the pastors averaged a score of 98% while on the plural they averaged 37.5% correct. It is possible someone could love both but Ward's primary goal in his more than 1,500 videos is his anti-KJV only belief so I don't believe that loves the KJB. I havn't read his false friends book but before I realized he was anti-KJB and pro nearly every other English version, I thought, "Perhaps this book might be helpful to understand more challenging passages." But I believe he has done much more harm than good and we'll be reaping his fruits for the next generation.
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever It's simple to remember if you remember. KJV users definitely should emphasized the rule more and make a bigger deal of it. But again, if it's challenging to get it right with a rule, getting rid of the rule in modern versions is no improvement.
@@RiversideBaptistChurchCT It's simple to remember if you remember... why didn't 100 PASTORS? I appreciate the brotherly dialogue and push back, sincerely!
@@waynemccuen8213 not like the poison of the no perfect bible crowd that denies preservation of God's pure words and therefore calls God a liar by their view.
@@johnword4775 No where in the bible will you find a verse stating that the KJV is Gods preserved word. Particularly a version that the translators said in the preface that they wished they had more information to help with. Where they intimated they didn't have enough information to solve difficulties on some words/phrase/etc.
@waynemccuen8213 where is the verse saying the KJB isn't? See the fault with your argument? God delivered his pure words perfectly through imperfect men in the originals. God promised to preserve his pure words. The originals are long gone. There are some 70+ differing editions of Greek texts and several differing editions of Hebrew texts as well. Where SPECIFICALLY do you think all God's pure words are today? If you don't know, are you honest enough to say so?
@waynemccuen8213 I don't have a verse saying the KJB is God's pure words perfectly preserved in English and you don't have one saying the KJB is not God's pure words perfectly preserved in English. Can you answer my question to you? It leaves you open on where specifically you think all God's pure words are today. Do you believe we can have all God's pure words today? Yes or no? You haven't proven the KJB is not God's pure words perfectly preserved in English.
Amen! Thank you for your other thoughts in the comment section. The issue is much more than just the KJV with him. He doesn't believe in the doctrine of preservation which comes from the wrong spirit.
Ouch.. Scathing indictment. Not KJBO and I enjoy some of his work but Mark should be ashamed & seek repentance for his lies and deception. John 8:44 from the NIV so the plow boy can understand it, “You belong to your father…When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”
I appreciate you exposing the error and warning about the spirit behind Ward. You were able to put my thoughts about him into words - arrogant deceptive, a false friend indeed! He doesn’t LOVE the KJB, for if he did he would not attempt to undermine it and the faith of those who trust in it.
@@RiversideBaptistChurchCTI do not know how Mark Ward got into my YT feed, but I have watched enough of him to pick up on that spirit you identified. I can barely stand to listen at all, but sometimes I respond to comments.
Just now came across this video. Thank you pastor for this very thoughtful response and your observations to me are right on point. I’m not one to disparage a man’s character especially from someone I don’t know but after watching numerous videos from Mark Ward, I question his motives and whether there is a hidden agenda at hand. Nevertheless, no man will convince me that the King James Bible is not the perfectly preserved word of God. For those questioning God’s preservation capabilities ask yourself what would be the point to give inspiration to the scriptures only for it to be lost. God is not the author of confusion and the fruit that the KJB has produced in over 400 years is a testament to its authority. 2 Timothy 3:16 KJB All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
He gets some support from his books and RUclips channel. He worked and probably is still working for a Bible software company. For a time they allowed him to use their equipment to make his videos. Then he raised money from supporters to get some recording equipment. There is not a huge financial cost in what he is doing, just a lot of time so I admire his work ethic but not his conclusions. If you want to know more look on his personal website and it tells the story of how he was an assistant pastor at a church near his Alma Mater. When the head pastor resigned to take a teaching position at BJU, instead of him taking the church, the church voted to completely close. Perhaps that wasn't God's will but I found it striking he's trying to influence ministries worldwide without being in the ministry.
@@RiversideBaptistChurchCT I listened to a sermon he preached in the last year at the Church he goes to, so he does preach a bit. I think an issue he has is although a lot of Critical Text pastors will say all modern Bible are the same and non are 100% correct, Dr. Ward has stated this very publicly. I don't know how you would run a Church if all Bible were equal, and they all conflicted in places. I asked a local critical text pastor a while back if the Greek underlying John 3:16 was 100% the Word of God, as written in the originals. He could not say that it was. Once people realize their faith is based on the hope what is in the Bible they use might be right but might be wrong, I don't know how you maintain a religion.
@@casey1167 It is a strong point you make. I heard someone say something so simple that your initial thought might be that it is not complex or sophisticated enough to have much of substance to it, but it seems pretty on point to me: Two things that are different are not the same.
Here is the passage in Acts 8:36-39 in the ESV and other versions based on the critical text.
" And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?”[e] 38 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. "
Notice verse 37 which is in answer to the question of verse 36 is MISSING. Hence, the question by the Ethiopian eunuch does not get answered at all and it's an EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ANSWER. Here are the proper words of God Almighty as given in the KJV. If you don't know this is right you are not right in your heart. You are deceived by Satan plain and simple.
Acts 8:36 -39 INCLUDING VERSE 37!!! "36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing."
Yes, this is why readability can't be the most important criteria for a translation; you can't read a verse that isn't there!
You can take issue with the passages Mark selected, but why would we examine the most obvious and least confusing passages to determine whether the KJV is easily comprehensible? Is it somehow "good enough" to have a Bible that's *mostly* readable and *mostly* clear?
Furthermore, if you are truly devoted to the text as you claim, then surely any faithful translation of the TR is sufficient. Better yet, from your perspective, should be a faithful translation of the Basiliensis codices without Erasmus's back-translations and corruptions from the Vulgate.
My biggest issue is with his conclusion to encourage people to go with other versions based on this, "study". You can't take, even 50 challenging passages and conclude that the KJV is generally unreadable, especially without doing a side-by-side comparison of modern version as they also have challenging wording in some places. And that is without getting into the underlying text differences.
@RiversideBaptistChurchCT Whether or not the KJV is readable doesn't depend on any other translation. Even if nothing better exists, the KJV is not necessarily perfect. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with Ward's advocacy of other translations, but the question stands - would a faithful translation of the Basiliensis codices into modern English be a proper Bible? Did Erasmus's use of the Vulgate corrupt the TR?
I took that test also , and was also tripped up on one of the singular and plural. I thought the same thing and the one I got wrong he edited the verse to make it look singular. I even questioned him on this and he said there was enough context and I should have known.
I thought it was sneaky .
OK. Thank you for your input. Did you take the Pastor's survey over the phone or the online multiple choice one?
@@RiversideBaptistChurchCT
I am not pastor but i love the KJV .
I took it on his website . I made good score too.
Thanks for the video .
Mark ward is awesome. Humble and committed to truth. Displays genuine concern for people and the Word.
Truth > Certainty
@theandybee3050
you may consider Mark Ward a "saint".. all peaches and cream and everything nice.. but I feel kind of like this pastor..
I have had inter actions and conversations with Mark thru several blogs.. and even though he puts up the pretense that he is trying to be helpful with his depiction of what he has labeled as "FALSE FRIENDS".. which are really what he has determined to be passages people misunderstand while reading the King James.. he does this in such a way.. which often times seems divisive or deceptive... at least to me...
I have taken that test....and while I scored 15/20... and got all of the singular/plural questions correct... he does it as this pastor states here.. Not in a true examinational way..
the first answer was singular... and the other 9..( why there were 10 questions.. half of the quiz on the word use of "YOU".. I'll never know)..answers were all plural...in a seemingly singular bible setting...
it seemed as if Mark almost was Hoping the vast majority of people would fail.. which they did... in order just to prove he is right...
I do Not consider a person to be a great Christian or even a true friend.. of one is going to devise "traps".. in order to cause people to stumble about what they think they know from God's word..
I am STILL trying to determine if he REALLY believes in the King James as a great translation.. because if he did.. he would spend MORE time preaching it.. rather than spend time pointing out to people what they do Not understand about it...
that is How King James haters operate...
nobody is going to hell over thinking the kjv is the literal word of God. People are going to hell because brainwashed seminary students regurgitate the lies they are told about the critical text. lots of sincere loving mormons out there. he isnt commited to the truth. he is committed to his work , his credentials and reputation. big difference.
Westcott & Hort > Wildsmith & Ward
lol committed to truth? did you hear the part where he admits to being a liar? Who is the father of lies? I’m not kjvo btw but Mark needs to repent.
Mark ward is a fraud.@@KJBChristian
I want to warn you to tell the truth pastor. As one who only uses the KJV you should know you are not using the majority text. Majority text advocates do not affirm the Textus Receptus since it departs from the Majority Text in over 1400 places.
You have readings like 1 John 5:7 that are not in the Byzatine Majority Text.
You have renderings like Revelation 16:5 that doesn't show up in any Greek Text until John Calvin's protege, Theodore Beza, puts it in.
None of these are Majority Text readings. Do not mislead your people. If 5% is too much difference to affirm a different Critical Text, then 2.5% is also different but maybe you think 2.5% is enough to mislead your people into calling your text something it isn't.
The TR texts differ from themselves in over 30,000 places. Research John Mills do did the work in 1705 to show the differences in the Textus Receptus texts. Whole verses missing from various TR texts like like Luke 17:36 which isn't in Stephanus 1550 but it is in Beza.
Mark Ward doesn't talk about textual criticism because he doesn't care if you're a TR advocate, or truly a Majority Text advocates (which you aren't), or a different Critical Text advocate. He wants Christians to be able to read their Bible in their vernacular language, just as Tyndale did, just as Wycliffe did, just as all translators do, including the KJV Translators.
Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for the same kind of traditions they burdened their people with:
Mark 7:13 KJV - Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Instead of binding people's conscience to this tradition, be humble like the KJV translator was about his own on the KJV:
"For first, if no translation may be read in the church but that which is free from all error, then none at all ought to be read, for there is none in which there are not some mistakes, more or less.
The Bible Translated therefore is not the undoubted word of God, but so far only as it agreeth with the Original, which (as I am informed) none of you understand.
You must be able to produce the Scriptures in the Original Languages, for no translation is simply authentical, or the undoubted word of God. In the undoubted word of God there can be no error. But in translations there may be, and are errors.
Neither is there any error at all in it, which concerneth faith or manners; and other slips must be born withall in translations, or else we must read none at all till we have a translation given by divine inspiration, as the originals are." - Daniel Featley.
Or Myles Smith who wrote to the readers of the KJV on behalf of the Translators who wrote the preface to the Reader missing in the majority of KJV Bibles.
Why not allow your congregation to read other TR based translations like the NKJV, and the MEV, or the SKJV along side their KJV?
Your profile logo is a Triquetra. The spirit behind everything always reveals itself, which is reflected in the content of your comment. This is what Mark Ward attracts and why he is difficult to counter, as we are dealing with a spirit and spirits that are not of God. Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (King James Bible).
you drank the koolaid
@@KJBChristian Which koolaid is that? The kind that doesn't believe in conspiracy theories that say all modern translations are corrupted and from Satan? The kind that argues against a 17th century English Bible translation being wholly without error and even "re-inspired" and the only valid English Bible?
@@childofthelight888 Classic. You attack the character and intent of the messenger rather than addressing the substance of the message. There is no basis in reality for KJV-onlyism, and the burden is on you to prove otherwise.
Why not the defined king james, not only does it define the archaic words but it explains the proper usages of the pronouns.
Brother, I don't think Romans 16:17 applies to Mark Ward. He hasn't done anything contrary to the doctrine that we have learned from the Apostles.
Peter believed he had God's Word right then; Jesus believed the Old Testament was still written when tempted by the Devil. Mark Ward doesn't believe God has preserved His Word like this. 2Pe 1:19 We also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
@@RiversideBaptistChurchCT Mark Ward believes in preservation. His doctrine of preservation is different from yours. But the handful of passages that are cited to support preservation fit his doctrine as well as yours. He's also fastidiously avoided discussing textual criticism for the very reason that people find it divisive. You're moving goalpost anyway. The Apostles didn't teach that the KJV was God's perfectly preserved word. You can't accuse Mark of teaching "doctrines" contrary to your church's doctrines. All that does is admit that you've been teaching an idea as actual doctrine that isn't really taught by the Apostles, namely: the KJV is specifically, exclusively and uniquely, The Preserved Word of God.
@@PrimitiveChristian-m3p No, He doesn't believe that there is one Bible including original languages that is God's perfect word. He doesn't believe the Bible is preserved. Instead he has textual "confidence" where he is mostly sure the significant meaning is there. That is different than the apostles. He also basically said in the last debate that it was a sin to give a kid a KJB.
@@RiversideBaptistChurchCT I can't tell if you are misunderstanding 25% of what I wrote above (like you did the KJV passages in the survey) or if you just didn't read what I said. Is this a literacy problem or did you just not carefully read what I wrote?
I don't think you understand what Ward believes and teaches. If all he thought was that there are some challenging passages in the KJV I wouldn't have made this video.
Deceived or embarrassed!!??
Brother, you might want to reshoot this video. You mistakenly said the KJV was based on the majority text. This may lead people to think you are uninformed about this issue. Good work defeating that quiz! You are right it was not very difficult.
Incorrect. Majority Text is equivalent to Traditional Text and Received Text.
@@johnwoolery4699 Not totally sure how to respond to this . . .
I updated the wording in the script. I'll see if I can edit the video.
@@gen_lee_accepted5530
jus state that you were in error in your response to @johnwoolery4699
the Majority Text... IS considered a different name for "the received text:... or "the traditional text".. the Greek word for received text.. is
"Textus Receptus"..
this from the internet...
"Yes, the Textus Receptus is also known as the Majority Text. The Textus Receptus is a Greek text that was based on the Byzantine Text, and is considered the foundation for translating the King James Version (KJV) and the New King James Version (NKJV).
The Majority Text is the Greek text that is considered to be the most accurate textual tradition of the New Testament. It is based on the readings found in the majority of Greek manuscripts. The Textus Receptus agrees with the majority of manuscripts because the modern Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society (NA/UBS) text is highly edited.
The Textus Receptus was adjusted by Erasmus to match readings from the Vulgate and the Church Fathers. As a result, the Textus Receptus differs from the standard form of the Byzantine text in nearly 2,000 readings. "
you might be confusing... the Alexandrian or Sinaiticus text.... with this "Majority Text".. but No...
the Majority Text IS the same as the Received Text... the other text (Alexandrian or Sinaiticus text) was used by Westcott and Hort.. in Their abomination..
Excellent response. Couldn't have said it better. I grew up with critical text. 34 yrs of NIV, NLT, NASB, ESV, etc. After 34 yrs I actually switched OVER to the text received by all, TR. I simply researched it myself, wrote an 18 page paper on it, and repented of the 34 yrs of the new versions. I switched permanently to the King James, and started to relearn things that were hidden from me from the new versions. Scales came off.
Protestantism is heretical
@@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613 Protestants were born out of catholic heresy. That is the whole history of Protestants came to be. Catholics taught that you could not get your sins forgiven unless you pay money to the church. The same reason Jesus turned the tables over at the synagogue. They intentionally kept the Bible in Latin, a dead language, so the people would not know all the heretical things that they were doing. It was not until catholic priest read the Bible and notice all the heresies that the Catholics were doing.
I'm a little confused. How are difficult questions a trick? The point of readability isn't whether you understand the easy stuff its whether you understand the difficult stuff. The words that have different meanings. And as presented, you knew the singular and plural so how many questions skewed plural is not deceptive. If you are saying ton yourself "this one can't be plural because they all are" then you don't understand the foundation of the singular/plural which is what is being tested. (Note that I am saying you but as a general "you" not the you that posted the video as you said you got all of those right). This is an honest question not one pushing an agenda. I am just failing to see how asking tough questions is misleading. Thank you
Ward started with a purpose of persuading people that they should switch from KJV to modern versions. The singular/plural section was designed by his admission to see if people used the rule, not if they understood the passages. Then without any comparative data from any modern versions, he's tried to use the survey to say this shows we need to use modern versions. But I'm saying the whole survey isn't really about readability as advertised and is deceptively set up. It would be like taking a political survey but asking detailed trivia about one candidate and saying, see, you don't know your candidate therefore you should vote for this other one. That wouldn't be a survey. Political surveys are supposed to ask language neutral questions about both candidates to find what people think, not to sway voter opinion. Ward is trying to sway user opinions and call it a survey.
@@RiversideBaptistChurchCT Thank you for the clarity. As a TR person I don't feel he's making an argument to move from the TR as a base but that he wants consideration for an English update to the KJV or adoption of the NKJV or MEV. I have never heard him say he promotes dropping the KJV and adopting a CT based bible. Since one of the arguments is that the KJV English provides singular vs plural distinction that modern English does not those questions were there to determine if people even understand how to get that information. If people do not understand how to determine singular vs plural than it is not a benefit and cannot be used in a defensive argument. I think a better example would be if you backed a political candidate because they had a policy you liked so a survey was provided to see if you understood what the policy actually even was. I really appreciate your time in answering and helping me understand your pov.
@@jfb3415 if you watch any of Mark Ward's RUclips videos, you will understand that he defends modern versions, any modern version, as long as it is not the KJV. He says that each modern version is the best version of Bible, even though, the modern versions do not agree with each other in a number of ways.
The question that might be asked is: How did the King James Bible bring the Received Text to the English speaking world?
The versions issue is a real thing. The King James translators had a different standard for translation that the "translators" did in 1881. A study of that issue (both sides) is a worth while study.
On a less time consuming level, sit down with a modern version and the KJV ... it is a comparative study, easily done by anyone curious or a layman. You do not have to know Hebrew or Greek. All you do is compare each version against the other one, verse by verse.
@@maryseaman312 Hi Mary, You said that Dr. Ward defends "any modern version, as long as it's not the KJV". This is not true.
He has a video criticizing a few significant choices in the NRSVUE, two videos warning against TPT, and two more where he gives helpful categories for what makes a Bible translation bad. In various content I have heard him disagree with the RV's translation in Isaiah 7:14, NWT's translation of John 1:1, and Hebraisms inserted in the TLV.
I studied the NWT beside the KJV and the American Standard Version. The issue of versions was settled when I found the ASB to agree with the NWT against the KJV.
I knew the situation was not going to be improved after that.
A well argued doctrinally sound presentation with which I agree. Even if Mark Ward was on the right side of the issue (he is not), to design a survey purposly to manipulate the answers you want shows a serious lack of character, integrity, and honesty.
If I understand correctly, and I only heard about this a week ago, the survey was to see if people misunderstood various passages. How can you trick someone this way? People either understand plain English or they don't understand it. Seriously? Why did any literate pastor not get 100% correct? It's not much to ask of a pastor.
The sound is poor and hard to hear on this video.
To some of the comments:
o The Authorised Version, often called the King James Version, is among the better translations into English. It is not perfect; no translation is. Nor is it contemporary. BUT it is the translation that actually helped establish the English language as we know it. It has been quoted and referred to in literature during long periods where it was the dominant English translation (as maybe it still is).
o The AV was translated during a period when English was closer in development, size of vocabulary, and broadness of meaning to the original languages than is contemporary English. Today's English has a huge vocabulary, and sometimes achieves precision through choice of words, where historically the precise meaning in some places rested on context alone. This in some places, at least, allowed a more direct correspondence to the original languages; in any case, it is important to today's reader to have at least an awareness of these qualities, and some familarity with this venerable version.
o The AV has warts. It has also been around long enough for them to be noted, commented upon, and well explained. This is so much less true of most contemporary versions.
o We count the Scriptures inspired, verbally and plenary, in the original writings - which original writings we do not have. We DO have an incredible number of written witnesses to the original texts, and can have confidence in God's Word. We do NOT have an "inspired translation", but we do have several that are highly credible and that can be compared. We also have a number of translations that do not live up to that label.
That last point is why I dislike the appellation "modern versions". There are many recently translated versions, but all by different groups with different motives. I like some, and I dislike some, and I despise some.
I put this on my two channels hoping that is ok. I gave you all the credit and linked this video.
That's good, as long as you're not deceptively editing it. Also, if you look in the comments, there is a free pdf download of the text version. It's the Lord's Work!
@@RiversideBaptistChurchCT
I am not editing it at all. I am posting it as is and including the free pdf download in the description. Thanks!!
That's Great. Praise the Lord!
What's your second channel? I liked the video on churchPhone1769
@@RiversideBaptistChurchCT this video was a lot of things. The Lords Work it is not. It’s the very opposite - slanderous, untruthful, divisive, and ignorant
I truly appreciate your testimony, Pastor.
Fact: Westcott & Hort are now Wildsmith and Ward.
The Devil keeps running the same play all these years just with different players now.
@@RiversideBaptistChurchCT mark ward is a “player” of the devil. Terrible rationale, logical incoherence, historical ignorance, ad hominem argumentation and much more - all to argue that a 400 year old translation is something that its creators never intended.
Thank you
Any person, no matter how scholarly or intelligent, who does not understand or believe that the last verses of Mark belong in our Bible deserves no respect and should not be followed. I certainly don't want anything to do with them. The same goes for Acts 8:37. If you can read that passage and you are so spiritually blind that you cannot see that verse 37 is part of the passage and therefore God's words, you have something seriously and fundamentally wrong with your spiritual discernment. Does it change doctrine? You better believe it does! Is it seriously important? If you don't know that you should not be teaching the Bible, period. The critical texts are EXTREMELY corrupt and I will not use any translation that is from them.
Who defines doctrine in Protestantism?
@@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613 First, I'm not now nor ever was a "Protestant". The Bible is my sole authority for all doctrine and practice. Most Protestants claim that but don't really practice it. They might say they're "Sola Scriptura", but in practice, they are not. I do not look to "church fathers", reformation leaders such as Calvin or Luther, confessions, or creeds to define my doctrine. That is not to say that I disagree with all of them, but I don't depend on them for my doctrine. The Bible itself must be the sole source for doctrine or you are going to be in error beyond any question. I can easily prove from the Bible that things such as the perpetual virginity of Mary or the baptizing of infants are wrong. You cannot prove such things as purgatory directly from the Bible or the practice of indulgences because NEITHER of them is found in the Bible or even suggested. They are made-up doctrines with no scriptural support. Ultimately, I must decide what I believe based on the word of God and nothing else.
@@randyd9805 "They might say they're "Sola Scriptura", but in practice, they are not. I do not look to "church fathers", Popes, confessions, or creeds to define my doctrine."
Standard Protestant doctrine, why deny it?
"The Bible itself must be the sole source for doctrine or you are going to be in error beyond any question. I can easily prove from the Bible that things such as the perpetual virginity of Mary or the baptizing of infants are wrong."
1) Why should be the Bible be my only source of doctrine? I don't agree with you or any other Protestants.
2) Where in the Bible does it say Mary was not virgin after the birth of Jesus or that baptizing infants are wrong?
3) Do you accept deuterocanonical section of the Old Testament?
"You cannot prove such things as purgatory directly from the Bible or the practice of indulgences because NEITHER of them is found in the Bible or even suggested."
Your premise I accept sola scriptura but II Maccabees 12:39-46 does show, so you are wrong hear.
"Ultimately, I must decide what I believe based on the word of God and nothing else."
This is spirit of Protestantism, I am the final authority, how is that not Satanism?
@@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613 I do not disagree with every detail that those who actually are Protestants believe. The problem is that like Catholics, they take the interpretations of men like Martin Luther and John Calvin and those become their official doctrines. To be a Protestant YOU MUST have come out of the Catholic Church. Some Baptists are really Protestant in doctrine and may call themselves "reformed Baptists" for example, but the Baptists did NOT come out of the Catholic Church. At no point in history were Baptists a part of the Catholic Church. No, I am not nor never was a Protestant. Yes, I deny I ever was or ever will be.
1. The Bible is the inspired word of God. If you don't believe that you are not a Christian. You have never come to Christ for salvation. It's clear you don't even know very basic Bible doctrine such as the VERBAL INSPIRATION of scripture. I suggest you look that up and study it for yourself.
2. That Mary was a perpetual virgin and never had another child after she bore Jesus by virgin birth is a made-up doctrine. Catholics LIE blatantly about this and refuse to acknowledge the clear scriptural evidence that Mary and Joseph had a normal marital relationship after the birth of their FIRSTBORN SON Jesus. Do you understand what the word "Firstborn" implies? It is very, very clear. Did you know that Mary and Joseph had at a minimum SIX more children AFTER the firstborn Son and that all of the other boys are NAMED in the Bible? Furthermore, two of them wrote part of the New Testament? Both James and Jude are the half-brothers of Jesus and are the sons of Mary and Joseph by natural birth. The 4 half brothers of Jesus are named in the Gospels. You may argue the point, but the Bible is crystal clear that Joseph and Mary had other children AFTER the virgin birth of Christ.
Matthew 13:55, 56 "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren (literal brothers), James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his SISTERS, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?" These are the literal children of Mary and Joseph by natural birth.
Mark 6:3 "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James (the writer of the book of James), and Joses, and of Juda ( Jude, the writer of the epistle of Jude), and Simon? and are not his SISTERS here with us? And they were offended at him." (Mary and Joseph had a MINIMUM of 2 or more daughters whose names are not given.) The total family including Jesus would be at least SEVEN!!!
Matthew 1:24, 25 " Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not TILL she had brought forth her FIRSTBORN son: and he called his name JESUS."
Luke 2:7 "And she brought forth her FIRSTBORN son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn."
You may argue some of my points, but you cannot argue and be truthful that Mary had no other children by natural relations with Joseph. You have to disregard abundant scriptural evidence to say that Mary was a perpetual virgin. She was a lost sinner like anyone else and had to be saved by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ like anyone else.
Lastly, NONE of the Apocrypha including Maccabees is inspired scripture and that is why it is not and should not be included in most Bibles. Most Bible-believing Christians do not regard the apocryphal writings as inspired because God did NOT inspire those books. I read what was done in 2 Maccabees. They took up a sin offering for soldiers who had been slain in battle. That in no way teaches indulgences and even if it did, that is not inspired scripture.
I agree. You can't read what is not there. That's the definition of unreadable.
Things that are different are not the same.
No. Things that conflict are not the same. The issue is not how a Bible is worded, it is if there is a change in meaning.... which is what the modern Bible are full of.
@casey1167 LOL, oy my goodness, what and where and how in the world do you come up with that whackerdoodle conclusion. The up-to-date english translations are 95-98% the same as the kjv. And vice versa. The only difference comes in the mountains of discoveries of information that happened after the kjv was translated in the years leading up to the 1611. Please read the introduction to the reader in the 1611. Those translators wished they had more info to answer where they knew they lacked full knowledge in their efforts. And they also stated that God's word is found in other translations. All doctrines in all modern English language translation are the same. Nothing has changed in that arena. Please, step outside the coterie of your kjvonlist cult. Please use your KJV, it's a very good version. Although dated. But, you are totally and fully incorrect in your uninformed ignorance as to how good the up-to-date english translations are.
@@waynemccuen8213 When the ESV and CSB conflict in a verse, is stating such a "KJVO Cult Idea"? I always find it interesting to hear how all Bible are the same, it is like a person has not actually read multiple Bibles.
@@waynemccuen8213 98%.... are you serious? what percent of the Bible would you need to change to destroy the Trinity and salvation by grace? Maybe .0001%?
@@waynemccuen8213 Your conclusion that "All doctrines in all modern English language translation are the same" is sadly inaccurate. There are a number of modern translations that are clearly bad (and more every few years at that). Sadly still, that just makes the issue harder to defend.
I don't use the KJV for my daily bible reading, I use the ESV or NKJV, but your point about having a control with a modern translation is a good point.
You can't conclude something else is better from this survey when the something else isn't part of the survey.
I highly respect Mark Ward and his diligent work regarding the textual issue.
@huntmanstation20
you may consider Mark Ward a "saint".. all peaches and cream and everything nice.. but I feel kind of like this pastor..
I have had inter actions and conversations with Mark thru several blogs.. and even though he puts up the pretense that he is trying to be helpful with his depiction of what he has labeled as "FALSE FRIENDS".. which are really what he has determined to be passages people misunderstand while reading the King James.. he does this in such a way.. which often times seems divisive or deceptive... at least to me...
I have taken that test....and while I scored 15/20... and got all of the singular/plural questions correct... he does it as this pastor states here.. Not in a true examinational way..
the first answer was singular... and the other 9..( why there were 10 questions.. half of the quiz on the word use of "YOU".. I'll never know)..answers were all plural...in a seemingly singular bible setting...
it seemed as if Mark almost was Hoping the vast majority of people would fail.. which they did... in order just to prove he is right...
I do Not consider a person to be a great Christian or even a true friend.. of one is going to devise "traps".. in order to cause people to stumble about what they think they know from God's word..
I am STILL trying to determine if he REALLY believes in the King James as a great translation.. because if he did.. he would spend MORE time preaching it.. rather than spend time pointing out to people what they do Not understand about it...
that is How King James haters operate...
i dont
The question is does Mark Ward respect you or any of us? Sure, as long as you agree with him perhaps.
Mark Ward is a liar when it comes to the textual issue and a liar and a dishonest person can be very diligent in their dishonesty
I do not respect Mark Ward.
Excellent response, maybe you should have debated Mark. I have mostly stopped watching debates because they never seem to accomplish anything. We are on opposite sides of the mountain and are heading in different directions. I don’t think we should meet in the middle. Just stick with the Book!📖
the Ironic thing regarding Mark Ward's survey.. ..is even at the conclusion if one walks away convinced that the KJV is too archaic to use today... Most modern translations have interpreted these archaic passages inaccurately themselves as well.... leaving us to Not trust the KJV.. AND to trust a translation ....when at best .....gives a doubtful translation of the verse..
hence.. what Mark Ward does.. is draw people out of their blissful ignorance and places them in a state of naive surety... believing Falsely...
I would rather remain blissfully ignorant if that be the case... than to fall into the devil's trap of trusting as misinterpretation of God's word.. even if that interpretation IS understandable..
it does no good to one's soul if it is WRONG...
Very True!
Thank you Pastor for doing the video I really appreciate it
Amen!
I am glad people are speaking out about this man. I only came across him a few months ago, and he grieved me greatly, as the spirit behind him is demonic. Reading the comments on his videos of the people whose faith he has shipwrecked has been a burden. His friend Tim Wildsmith, who I only came across a few days ago, is also on the same bandwagon, and he is an equally disturbing young man taking people back to so-called Mother Rome, as is Mark.
By "this man" you mean Mark Ward, right?
@@gospelfurtheringfellowship7820 Yes
@@childofthelight888hey, just defended your comment on a short that timwildsmith put out, good to see you on here defending God’s word.
@@theobsoleteman7504 God bless. It is good to see that you are also doing exactly the same. We must all contend for the faith. And keep looking up as the way things are going; we might all be talking in person very shortly rather than over the Internet.
@childofthelight888
I totally agree with you regarding Mark Ward...
I have had inter actions and conversations with Mark thru several blogs.. and even though he puts up the pretense that he is trying to be helpful with his depiction of what he has labeled as "FALSE FRIENDS".. which are really what he has determined to be passages people misunderstand while reading the King James.. he does this in such a way.. which often times seems divisive or deceptive... at least to me...
I have taken that test....and while I scored 15/20... and got all of the singular/plural questions correct... he does it as this pastor states here.. Not in a true examinational way..
the first answer was singular... and the other 9..( why there were 10 questions.. half of the quiz on the word use of "YOU".. I'll never know)..answers were all plural...in a seemingly singular bible setting...
it seemed as if Mark almost was Hoping the vast majority of people would fail.. which they did... in order just to prove he is right...
I do Not consider a person to be a great Christian or even a true friend.. of one is going to devise "traps".. in order to cause people to stumble about what they think they know from God's word..
I am STILL trying to determine if he REALLY believes in the King James as a great translation.. because if he did.. he would spend MORE time preaching it.. rather than spend time pointing out to people what they do Not understand about it...
that is How King James haters operate...
This was a fascinating critique of the survey from a design and scales perspective. What then is your opinion on the NKJV and MEV? Both use the TR.
The New King James uses a different old Testament Text and has some unusual translation choices so I don't trust it. I don't know much about the MEV except some of the translators were Catholic or something like that but that has been more recently. In theory I would be open to a translation from the correct texts but there are also practical issues to consider such as, can you get VBS materials and study materials for the version plus it doesn't have a clear way to indicate singular or plural second person pronouns (You as in one person vs. Y'all/yous guys) so I'm just going to only use the King James.
Dr. Ward work on this issue has only been done with true love, restraint, compassion, and respect for all. He deserves the same courtesy, compassion, and respect. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ!
Nope. You can't say you love the KJB then say it is a sin to give someone the KJB. Mark Ward will never answer a question concerning a final written authority. It is a question he will not answer. He does not want to discuss the underlying texts of the modern versions at all. He doesn't want to address the differing texts. Nor does he reveal that all bibles have difficult words.
Mark Ward is paid by Crossway who produces the ESV. He has a vested interest in getting rid of the KJB.
@JoshB882 Hey, did you write the forgotten preface of the KJV?
@@johnword4775 I don't think Dr.Ward ever said it was a sin to give someone a KJV. Where did he say that? Ahhhh, the final written authority? It would be the autographs of the 1st century......all we have are representitives of those translated into English, or whatever the target language is. There were a number of target languages prior to 1611. Today, none of us speaks the english of 413 years ago, hence the reason for up-to-date renderings of the manuscripts that are available now. I honestly dont know why one would want a bible that you needed to learn 413 year old english when you can have one accurately translated into the english we use today. But, if it is what you like, just use it! There's nothing wrong with the KJV. And btw, there is less than 5% difference between the KJV and the up-to-date versions.
@waynemccuen8213 better listen as he indeed did say that.
If Dr. Ward had an alternative to the KJV, then maybe he would seem reasonable, but the "all versions are equal" ideology when they all conflict is problematic.
right the dude's whole argument is "you are too stupid to use a dictionary so read these other bibles that may or may not be correct"
@@KJBChristianI am currently reading through the King James with my adult son who is reading it for the first time. He loves looking up English words in the dictionary while we progress. No problem understanding the wonderful language.
There are translation issues and compromises made in EVERY version. KJV, NKJV, ESV, NIV, whatever. There's no such thing as a perfect English translation. Some are more accurate to the original languages than others in various passages, and maybe less so in other places. Maybe they aren't all "equal" but they are all God's word. The difference is that nobody is dogmatic to the point of cult-like about any of them besides the KJV.
@@stephenwilson0386 Have you ever gone chapter by chapter comparing two version? I understand what you are saying, but have you ever turned to say Exodus and done a verse by verse comparison?
None are perfect, but all God's Word. Okay, so if I asked for a listing of all the verses related to the Trinity, would you say those verses all are perfect? or do they have errors?
@@casey1167 I'm not sure what you're getting at. The measure of an English Bible translation isn't how it compares to the KJV or any other English Bible. The measure of any translation is how it compares to the original languages, as best we're able to determine the best manuscripts and interpretations (since there's no way to translate completely word for word from Hebrew/Greek into English). Maybe you're an expert in ancient Hebrew and Greek, but I'm not. So I defer to people who are experts - and those people say there is no basis for the claims made by KJV only folks.
Funny to see all the poor, hurt cult members chiming in!
What is the difference in the belief of a KJVO person to that of James White and John MacArthur?
The Brethren are struggling enough already without your scorn.
@@casey1167 The difference is mainly that White and MacArthur mislead people about the Nature of God and the work of Christ. KJVO doesn't. It's mistaken, but innocent.
Typical "onlyist" response. Not only did you completely miss the reason for the survey, but you also ignored key points that Mark was making, argued other points out of context, and purposely mischaracterized Mark based on your own bias!
You can disagree with someone without slaughtering their character and intentionally lying about their intentions.
Congratulations... you learned nothing. In fact, you've proven 3 things (if I may use some tactics from your playbook): you have no integrity, you lack knowledge on the subject, and you live by fear not faith.
Ward says what he was trying to do with the pronouns in the following interview so I don't think you understand Ward: ruclips.net/video/9di15WWXcGE/видео.htmlsi=pIDLI20eTRFERXT1
Great video, Pastor Townsley. I have made a rebuttal to Mr. Ward, as well. ruclips.net/video/eHhQfO7RtVc/видео.htmlsi=AWyfnF3dkjr6zZ2B
Protestantism is heretical
I feel like i just wasted 21 minutes. Not a single mention of my Savior, Jesus.
I thought the purpose of the written word was to reveal to us the Living Word, Jesus the Christ.
18:06; 18:16. I don't think you watched the whole video.
So, I guess Paul wasted a lot of time writing...
I'm just amazed at the detractors of Mark Ward...... let him alone......why can't there be legitimate differences of opinion on this issue without a person being a boogey-man Mark is a good man, and I know many good men that have a preference for the KJV......we will all live in eternity together.....just agree to disagree and move on...... I watched the debate he had last night, and I saw some the most vicious attacks against Mark by some who call themselves disciples of Christ...calling him Gay and Illiterate....all because they disagree with Mark.....could Mark be illiterate while knowing several languages and having an earned PHD? While we vilify the likes of Mark Ward......many of the same people wrap themselves around the likes of Donald Trump........ i just don't understand it.
He deceptively called me, used my information from his designed-to-fail survey to make multiple public videos. It is only reasonable to publicly respond and share my experience and thoughts on the issue. Tell him to leave me alone. If someone is just doing their own thing then yes, we can agree to disagree. But Ward has aggressively and deceptively tried to convert many people to his higher criticism doctrine. I've seen him damage pastor father/pastor son relationships and destroy whole churches. At least I could care enough to warn those who are willing to listen. I didn't watch the debate nor comment on it so talk to them about that. If you watch the rest of this video, it describes the Biblical importance of warning and separation.
@@RiversideBaptistChurchCT So spend your time on real threats like Joel Osteen and not Mark..... It's fine to have an opinion..... Speak to it and move on...... I've had many conversations with him and I don't feel he is the boogey man some have made him out to be. Just like Westcott and Hort.... They where not the boogey men they have been made out to be. Yes, Anglicans, and we'd have differences with them but most of the KJV translators were the same kind of Anglicans and we'd not be able to have any of them today in our church.
i dont understand why you listen to an effeminate man that cant tell you where the bible is
To those people who have phds I would tell you to be very careful because when Jesus came along he didn't pick one Apostle out of the school of the prophets or a PhD he didn't pick Galileo he didn't pick anybody that had an education just dirty fishermen and the like
@@Russell-r2z you have not done the work to get a phd?? I think that is just an excuse that people use for not doing study.
I'm not understanding, so because he gave you 1 singular ("th-") and 9 plural ("y-") questions, it's disingenuous? The y- are not "harder" if the rule for thees and thous are so simple like we KJV-Onlyists always say. Dr. Ruckman always taught me how simple they are and easy to remember so it should be cake. So because the context makes it seem singular, Mark Ward is being deceptive? I'm sincerely asking!
@4:40 and that's Ward's fault that KJV readers don't approach the Bible grammatically? He's asking pastors... that's why they're pastors!
@8:05 hatches and bludgeons the King James? What? By showing you what the word really meant in 1611?
@8:30 He can't love both? Dr. Ruckman loved Luthers 1545 German and the King James Bible and we all know Luther's doesn't match the KJV (See Isa. 14:12 in Luther 1545 "Morgenstern" just like the NIV). He's not allowed as a brother to disagree with the TR in places and agree with the CT and love the ESV as well as adore the KJV? This is a logical contradiction?
@9:00 that is not what happens in most KJV-only churches unfortunately, and how are *pastors* going to be preaching God's word *fully* if they don't realize they're misunderstanding many words in their KJV?
@10:10 NKJV AND MEV! NKJV AND MEV! Why are all of yall are controlled by my teacher Dr. Ruckman, while assuring us that you're not?
Proof:
You swear it's the underlying texts that's the issue but then in practice, IT'S NOT AT ALL. For us Ruckmanites, it's not the underlying texts that's the issue and that's why we're consistent (may be wrong, but we're consistent), so we can reject the NKJV and MEV. You swear it's the underlying texts but then in practice the NKJV and MEV are not accurate enough, *how convenient!*
@21:05 he's helped me understand my KJB immensely, I was missing so many of God's riches that the translators put in there until Dr. Ward.
Right on!
The ratio of singular/plural shows that the goal of the "survey" was not readability, it was to see if pastors used the rule. If someone used the rule like I did, the ratio wouldn't matter. But if the true goal was readability then it would matter. On the lone singular question, the pastors averaged a score of 98% while on the plural they averaged 37.5% correct. It is possible someone could love both but Ward's primary goal in his more than 1,500 videos is his anti-KJV only belief so I don't believe that loves the KJB. I havn't read his false friends book but before I realized he was anti-KJB and pro nearly every other English version, I thought, "Perhaps this book might be helpful to understand more challenging passages." But I believe he has done much more harm than good and we'll be reaping his fruits for the next generation.
@ but if the the rule is so easy to remember, why did not pastors remember it? Are they just bad readers? Are they lazy?
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever It's simple to remember if you remember. KJV users definitely should emphasized the rule more and make a bigger deal of it. But again, if it's challenging to get it right with a rule, getting rid of the rule in modern versions is no improvement.
@@RiversideBaptistChurchCT It's simple to remember if you remember... why didn't 100 PASTORS?
I appreciate the brotherly dialogue and push back, sincerely!
I wonder what the KJVonliest cool aid tastes like!
@@waynemccuen8213 not like the poison of the no perfect bible crowd that denies preservation of God's pure words and therefore calls God a liar by their view.
@@johnword4775 No where in the bible will you find a verse stating that the KJV is Gods preserved word. Particularly a version that the translators said in the preface that they wished they had more information to help with. Where they intimated they didn't have enough information to solve difficulties on some words/phrase/etc.
@waynemccuen8213 where is the verse saying the KJB isn't? See the fault with your argument? God delivered his pure words perfectly through imperfect men in the originals. God promised to preserve his pure words. The originals are long gone. There are some 70+ differing editions of Greek texts and several differing editions of Hebrew texts as well. Where SPECIFICALLY do you think all God's pure words are today? If you don't know, are you honest enough to say so?
You have to prove your point, sir. Tell me the verse.....
@waynemccuen8213 I don't have a verse saying the KJB is God's pure words perfectly preserved in English and you don't have one saying the KJB is not God's pure words perfectly preserved in English. Can you answer my question to you? It leaves you open on where specifically you think all God's pure words are today. Do you believe we can have all God's pure words today? Yes or no?
You haven't proven the KJB is not God's pure words perfectly preserved in English.
Thank you for sharing Pastor! I especially appreciated what you said at the end of the video.
Amen! Thank you for your other thoughts in the comment section. The issue is much more than just the KJV with him. He doesn't believe in the doctrine of preservation which comes from the wrong spirit.
Ouch.. Scathing indictment.
Not KJBO and I enjoy some of his work but Mark should be ashamed & seek repentance for his lies and deception. John 8:44 from the NIV so the plow boy can understand it, “You belong to your father…When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”
I appreciate you exposing the error and warning about the spirit behind Ward. You were able to put my thoughts about him into words - arrogant deceptive, a false friend indeed! He doesn’t LOVE the KJB, for if he did he would not attempt to undermine it and the faith of those who trust in it.
Exactly!
@@RiversideBaptistChurchCTI do not know how Mark Ward got into my YT feed, but I have watched enough of him to pick up on that spirit you identified. I can barely stand to listen at all, but sometimes I respond to comments.
Praise the Lord you could test the spirits behind the content on his videos.
Just now came across this video. Thank you pastor for this very thoughtful response and your observations to me are right on point. I’m not one to disparage a man’s character especially from someone I don’t know but after watching numerous videos from Mark Ward, I question his motives and whether there is a hidden agenda at hand. Nevertheless, no man will convince me that the King James Bible is not the perfectly preserved word of God. For those questioning God’s preservation capabilities ask yourself what would be the point to give inspiration to the scriptures only for it to be lost. God is not the author of confusion and the fruit that the KJB has produced in over 400 years is a testament to its authority.
2 Timothy 3:16 KJB
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
I agree that God has preserved His Word! Thank you!
I am surprised to learn Ward is not a pastor. I wonder who is funding him?
He gets some support from his books and RUclips channel. He worked and probably is still working for a Bible software company. For a time they allowed him to use their equipment to make his videos. Then he raised money from supporters to get some recording equipment. There is not a huge financial cost in what he is doing, just a lot of time so I admire his work ethic but not his conclusions. If you want to know more look on his personal website and it tells the story of how he was an assistant pastor at a church near his Alma Mater. When the head pastor resigned to take a teaching position at BJU, instead of him taking the church, the church voted to completely close. Perhaps that wasn't God's will but I found it striking he's trying to influence ministries worldwide without being in the ministry.
@@RiversideBaptistChurchCT I listened to a sermon he preached in the last year at the Church he goes to, so he does preach a bit. I think an issue he has is although a lot of Critical Text pastors will say all modern Bible are the same and non are 100% correct, Dr. Ward has stated this very publicly. I don't know how you would run a Church if all Bible were equal, and they all conflicted in places.
I asked a local critical text pastor a while back if the Greek underlying John 3:16 was 100% the Word of God, as written in the originals. He could not say that it was. Once people realize their faith is based on the hope what is in the Bible they use might be right but might be wrong, I don't know how you maintain a religion.
@@casey1167 It is a strong point you make. I heard someone say something so simple that your initial thought might be that it is not complex or sophisticated enough to have much of substance to it, but it seems pretty on point to me:
Two things that are different are not the same.