I can just imagine Mark being transported in time back to 1611 and starting up a newspaper defending the Authorized Version against the Puritans who refused to use it. Lol. 😂
You talked about how in KJVO circles we create the issue of multiple translation confusion and then turn around and cite confusion as a reason to keep the KJVO view.. that is absolutely correct. I said this to my pastor the other day - We are creating an issue and then blaming it on others. I told him, if our people had a practical and healthy knowledge of transmission and translation, they wouldn't be confused by accepting that multiple translations are okay.
I had Dr. Curtis Vaughn for New Testament Greek and Dr. David Garland for Hebrew while at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. They were in the top 5 final editors for the New King James Version for the New and Old Testament respectively. They revered God's Word.
NKJV hits Proverbs 8:22ff out of the park. Literally no other major translation understands the issues introduced by the LXX "massaging" of the text (one of the cases where it introduced alternatives to avoid accusations of polytheism) and still follow it. NKJV gets it right.
“...my plans are go big or go home plans...” Not fair. I want/need more details!!! Godspeed, Dr. Ward. I can almost see the pitchforks and torches. I’ll be praying for wisdom for you.
Brother, you’re a breathe of fresh air for ex-KJV Onlyists. I just want to let you know I deeply appreciate your work and the Christian way that it is represented.
@markwardonwords, thanks very much for posting your videos about KJV-Onlyism. I do remember being indoctrinated into KJV-Onlyism at the IFB church I attended years ago. I ended up walking away from that church because of the legalism, the reverence of the pastor as a dictator, and other things. After many years of hit and miss church attendance, I'm finally attending a church that uses the NKJV. I still like to read the old KJV, but I would welcome an update to the KJV that you've suggested in this video. Keep telling the truth about God's Word.
When I was a new believer and didn't know anything about the manuscripts except that they were Greek and Hebrew I had an NKJV and used it for years and was happy with it but it was hard for me to pay online I didn't have much money so when the ESV offered for free on ESword I used that but then my IFB side of the family got me to go KJV for a while but by that time I knew of people like Dr. White and enjoyed his program then heard about his book and read it I was shocked and it got me into textual criticism and a layman's level but it helped me out of it now I use ESV as my main but have a NASB and a CSB as well.
Fifty False Friends book is still under contract, and I hope to finish it late this summer. Publication in 2024, Lord willing? KJV update is proceeding on multiple parallel tracks-all of which could come to nothing. =| I have multiple irons in multiple fires on this one. Just not sure what the Lord will permit.
Luther wrote that a congregation should use the same translation, but never stated which one. Once an individual understood that version Luther suggested using other translations. If the person who stood against the obtuseness of the main religious authority suggests using various translations then you should explore the idea. 🕊️
Excellent video showing the common grounds. As I have been reflecting on my KJVO history, I’m finding the pattern that there are some deep, spiritual truths in KJVO teachings, and that’s what would pull me back in. It’s videos like this that help me discern healthy boundaries on having agreements without the lead into “so everything else I say must be true.”
Right! The essence of discernment is the ability to see the goodness and truth in your opponent's position without buying into the sin and error. If there were no goodness or truth in his position, no one would be attracted to it.
In case this is helpful, I’ve ran into several TR only/TR preferring believers in Pentecostal circles who use the NKJV. Many of them feel a strong personal conviction about this but do not emphasize it enough to be widely known for this position. It comes up sporadically. No books are written about it. No brothers or sisters are slandered as heretics. Love to see Cloud on board with your project!
I don't get confused with multiple translations but only chose one to memorize it's the updates that bug me I was all for the permanent text edition of the ESV for now anyways so I finally broke down and bought a nice one and it's my main Bible I memorize verses from it but use others to compare with if there is confusion about a verse so they help me not confuse me more but updates can be confusing trying to memorize a verse then it slightly changes in an update not saying they should never update just not so often.
@Mark Ward l would so love to know what you think our brothers mean when they talk about "approaching the Bible text from a position of faith in divine preservation." On your recommendation l am reading E.F. Hills' book. He makes a similar assertion but so far he just asserts it while failing to spell out what it actually means in practise. Are we supposed to prefer readings that accord with our theology, because we think we have the right theology? The circularity of this is position is obvious. Or are there gnostic signs that enable us to identify the perfectly preserved text? On what basis is that belief asserted? In fairness to Hill, l should and will finish reading his book, but l'm couldn't help noticing the same strange position in the text you're critiquing here.
Have you reviewed the king james 21st century? Also how about the work of Jay p. Green? One of my children used to have the children's kjv issued by reformation heritage. I thought it was pretty good and would appreciate your thoughts.
I have not reviewed that translation, no. And someone sent me Jay P. Green’s work, but I’m afraid I haven’t reviewed it, either. I tend, like most people, to trust institutions rather than individuals to do this work. I like and trust RHB; I’ll bet their kids KJV is well done. I’d like to see that one.
For anyone to believe that the King James is an inspired translation creates a logical contradiction. What would one do if they encounter a difference between the original Greek or Hebrew and the KJV?
@@wardonwords In my line of work I have to rely on accepted objective standards to arbitrate between what is correct and what is not, (2 Pet. 1:19). I do deal with standards that reference other standards, but there always is a statement of precedence that goes something like this. "In the event of a conflict between this standard (derived one) and the reference standard (primary source) the reference standard takes precedence. I was weaned on the KJV and still love it but I'm also aware of how much of it has fallen out of use. Unless a person is ready to keep a concordance at the ready it can be very difficult for many believers. I think it is better to remove as many obstacles as possible when it comes to accessing God's word.
Wonderful video brother! I have watched several of Ruckman’s video’s over the past few weeks. I actually gleaned some things from him. 1) We need to know what is in the Bible... Read it...over and over and over and over and over and over and over 2) We need to “get the Bible right” and make sure the context is correct.... I agree with that (not necessarily his application of it) 3) We need to build confidence in the Bible Translations we have and not tear it down as some do when they say “The Greek or Hebrew Actually says” causing confusion and leading bible believers to mistrust their faithful English translations. (A Strongs concordance training in Greek and Hebrew is not always a good thing) 4) He stood against Original Manuscripts Onlyism- He makes some great points about OMO since it is impossible to really look people, new believers, in the face and say we can only trust the originals. They are dust and way long gone. His points about the Bible testifying about itself that it was scripture are dead on. Example, did Jesus read from the original copy of Isaiah when he read and said that “today this scripture is fulfilled in your midst”. Or when Phillip came to Ethiopian Eunuch and the Bible says he was reading the scriptures, or when Paul told Timothy from from his youth he has know the scriptures. They did not have the originals and yet the Bible calls these copies and translations the scriptures. 5) Using the Bible to prove itself. In debates he would often use the scriptures to prove the divinity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity etc. This is something we need to get back and ties to many of the points above. However, there were many points that I disagree with him on totally. 1) We need textual criticism to restore confidence in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts (which we practically have already done and as I heard Dan Wallace say we are basically adjusting the pictures hanging on the wall). Ruckman believed that the the TR is all we need and all efforts at further Textual criticism needs to stop. Even though he would not readily admit that there are multiple TR’s. 2) He classically used proof texts such as Ecclesiasticus 8:4 to prove points such as the King commissioning the KJV gives it more authority over other translations 3) You have already alluded to many of the character flaws and cursing from the pulpit he would do. Overall, great video and thanks for sending me off on my own bunny trails through your video’s. 😇
It is right of you to find some positives in Ruckman's work! I find it so difficult to listen to him that I haven't had the patience in a long time, I confess. I read a lot of his stuff 20 years ago while writing a report on his views, and I have felt that was enough. I don't think his OMO view is a fair description of anyone I know… But perhaps I'm misunderstanding him. He wasn't a dummy. He was a gifted man. But it's really hard to view his gifts amidst all the bile. =(
@@wardonwords I understand brother Mark, nobody in this world is without sin not even David Cloud either, after all he has the same name as the man after God's own heart king David and I know he committed sins against God many years before David Cloud even came here and he got chastened by God and what happened he repented of the sins he himself had done as proven and shown in the Old Testament of the Scriptures even I have my own faults flaws and weaknesses and temptations as well brother Mark. Lets pray for David Cloud that he may be truly a wise virgin in these last days and not a foolish virgin because I know the foolish virgins that are the false who pretend to be saved and yet are not saved God and I both know perfectly well they are going to hear the terrifying words from Jesus Christ the Son of God Himself I never knew you, depart from me ye that work iniquity. Have a good day by the Grace of God brother Mark.
Thank you for making this video.I have a copy of Pastor David Cloud's article King James Only.There is a statement in another publication which is attributed to Pastor Cloud which allegedly something like if possible if possible the King James Version be "translated" in the absence of translators who don't read or understand Hebrew Masoretic text or Aramaic or Koine Greek or something like this.Whether Pastor Cloud said this or not I forgot to note the source which I got in the internet sometime ago.Do you agree that the KJV should be translated into other language or the Masoretic or original Hebrew and Aramaic in translating the Old testament and Koine Greek in translating the New Testament.This plowboy is hoping to hear your comment on this.Thanks.
@@wardonwords Pardon my wandering thoughts Pastor Mark but while listening to your discussion I was thinking of the article King James Only by Pastor David Cloud which I got from a friend because i can't recall where i place it so that next time I watch this video I can have the article beside me and jot down some important thoughts you have mentioned.I hope you have googled the website of Communication Architects which I sent you through my Facebook account and see for yourself how they update portions of the KJV particularly the archaic words in the New Testament.You mentioned Pastor Cloud's critique of the NKJV thanks for reminding to read it from his website which I hope will not include the so called problem with using the Septuagint in translating an updated KJV and also if the info I got from wikipedia where it is mentioned that 47 American and English scholars from 3 major branches of Christianity:Orthodox,Protestant and Roman Catholic.I for one would be interested in knowing why include RC scholars or maybe because of Erasmus is somehow indirectly involved in the translation of the KJV just a thought.
BTW TR leaning person here...most definitely willing to hand a nkjv or mev to anyone. Though to be fair, im willing equally to hand an esv them too. For one, I'm not educated enough...second, there just aren't enough differences to add up to...well anything.
@@wardonwords I know. I'm an odd duck. My basic uninformed view is this: I reason the Bible was God-breathed, those readings need to have not just endured but be available to the church at large down through time to do their job ("profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,"), that can't always be said of the earliest stuff (in that they were not available for long stretched of history). So I reason if it was not available down through time maybe it's not original. So I'm not really a TR person so much as a Byzantine Text person...while realizing I've massively oversimplified the issue because the BT isn't monolithic. And also realizing that since almost every person who can read Greek and does translation work disagrees with me (people who are serious christians) I'm probably wrong.
I'm not sure that I understand the argument: "A translation can't be the standard because it has marginal notes?" Greek and Hebrew manuscripts have marginal notes and alternate readings. Compiled Greek and Hebrew manuscripts also have marginal notes and alternate readings.
Thank you for calmly addressing comments by David Cloud. We need help in this area and I think you are doing just that…stay calm and please don’t let them get under your skin. I attended services with David Cloud in Kentucky…He should learn how you are addressing issues in the Church calmly and not hatefully. It caused harm.
Bit off topic but I enjoy the kjv and use it as a matter of preference, so I have a question, why do new translations so often have this sorta thing I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- Vs I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: The first verse is, I suppose, you'd say "continous" the second is simple past tense. I see this a lot in new translations and just want a generalists answer or a good article, etc. More particularly are these two options both possible or is one correct and the other wrong? And if so which? BTW look into KJV 2016 edition. I've found that effort at updating to be interesting.
Most of the time this sort of thing happens, both of the options are possible in the Hebrew or Greek. Translators have to pick an option. But in this case, I think you're missing a subtlety in the KJV English. And I think this not mainly because I think I'm a lot better at those subtleties (I'm not sure I am!) but because I can check the Greek, and I know the KJV translators don't make very many "mistakes." The Greek verb is present middle/passive. So I think "you are so soon removed" is not simple past tense at all. I think it's present, even in English. And I think it's probably, in Elizabethan English, ongoing. There I'm not quite so certain. I really don't think there's a difference here between the two translations you quote. (Didn't check the KJV 2016.)
Although I no longer associate myself as an IFB (and disagree profusely with him), I do have respect for him for being more reasonable than the extreme IFB
Song of Solomon 5:7 The watchmen that went about the city found me, they smote me, they wounded me; the keepers of the walls took away my veil from me. Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 2 Peter 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
I grew up up in a church that leaned strongly towards David clouds teachings on just about everything, I left several years ago, but even still there I fell in love with the NKJV secretly haha, and have recently stumbled across your videos, and have found them very balanced and helpful and may branch out into other versions as well, one thing I was always taught was that new versions were based on wescott and hort who were “evil” but I never have really understood who they really were and what they were all about & I’m not sure where to start on researching them . I’ve never been a fan of Cloud my interactions with him when he visited our church years ago left a bad taste he seemed like a real stick in the mud grump, demanded that people refer to him as Dr or Bro Cloud
Thank you so much for your channel and your work! It’s very helpful to thinking carefully through the KJV controversy. Next time I get more books in logos yours is going to be one of them. I deal sometimes with this issue and am going to have to approach it with my own brother very soon and your work is so edifying and helpful on this issue. I have watched a ton of your videos now and I am so great full for you. Who knows maybe we could even talk one day. You sound like such an amazing and loving Christian
@@wardonwords I just want you to know that for me and my situation your work is edifying and helpful and I’m very great full for you. And thank you for replying
@@wardonwords : The real question is, why do these anti-KJVonlyists even care that certain people only read the King James Bible? I think it's about corporate money. The publishers of the other Bible translations lose money when more people only read the KJV. If the scholars and experts want to make the argument that the KJV is flawed, that's fine but you can't say that with 100% certainty since we haven't seen the original manuscripts that bear the fingerprints of the authors. Perhaps the textual criticism of the experts and their methodologies have been wrong all along and the KJV is flawless. God knows. If all the other Bible translations went out of business and the King James Bible was the only one left standing, people would still be reading the same word of God that most people have been reading for hundreds of years. Christianity would still be the same.
@@LindseyDisney I object to KJV-Onlyism because it is a divisive doctrine not taught in Scripture, and because it places needless barriers before contemporary readers. No one should be required to learn the many dead words and false friends in the KJV just to read their Bibles. They certainly may if they wish! I will help them! But they should not bind other Christians' consciences and insist that those Christians read only one Bible translation, an archaic one that is no longer fully intelligible to contemporary English speakers.
Have you read Arthur Farstead’s (sp?) book on his part as an editor on the NKJV, he admits to softening sin in so many words with his “blue word” list of words they wouldn’t use, and in my opinion gives other ammo to KJVOist
@@wardonwords I have it. On pages 86-87 of his "The New King James in the Great Tradition" Farstad mentions that the NKJV committee decided against the group of words that start with "whore" like that, "whoremonger" and "whoredom" and the like. They instead used "harlot" or something similar. This was NOT to softening sin in any way, but describing sin in words that were descriptive without being unduly vulgar, at least, in their minds. Page 87 even specifically mentions that they chose to use the harsh "fornication" and "sodomy" rather than the modern, duller, "gay sex" and "premarital sex." The NKJV translators had no problem calling out sin, but did so with a vocabulary that wasn't offensive itself.
About 40 years ago I had an acquaintance and he had become enamored with Ruckman.... he told me one time that only the English KJV was God's Word.... So I asked him the question if a person did not speak English what would you suggest.... he was not joking he replied, "If a person really desires to know what God's Word states he'll learn English so he can read God's true word".......I almost laughed until I realized he was serious..... SMH.
My unscientific sense-and my prayer-is that more KJV-Only leaders should push back more often against this kind of divisive extremism. It makes a good Protestant’s blood boil to hear the Reformation betrayed in this way.
Thank you for making this video brother. I'm glad you didn't make it to bash brother Cloud. I think what it boils down to is any serious Christian will always ho to the Hebrew or Greek to find a deeper or more concise meaning. A Strong's concordance is all you need. I'm not KJV only but it's what I use. I know Dr. Walter Martin used another translation (not sure which one) but he often compared both together with the Greek or Hebrew to understand the word or verse more clearly.
We have many good tools today for accessing the Hebrew and Greek! You might also try the Bible Word Study in Logos Bible Software. Logos Basic is free! logos.com/basic
I actually believe the Septuagint is a better source text for the Old Testament than the Masoretic Text. It's at least 1000 years older, is closer to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and because the MT came after the time of Christ, the rabbis involved deliberately rewrote Messianic prophecies to take Jesus out. Yes, the Septuagint was in Greek, but it was a translation from Hebrew, and Jesus and the apostles quoted it, demonstrating they gave it the full authority of Scripture. If we ever find Hebrew manuscripts that are that old or older (or at least older than the Masoretic Text) then that would be better yet, but alas, we do not currently have those.
I love the KJV because of the Thees and Thous. If I want a corrected version that also uses the language of the KJV I use American Standard Version 1901 or 1929.
KJVER. Stands for KJV Easy Reader. They take all the thee’s and thou’s out as well as change the endings of words to a more modern day way of saying a word (like -eth would be one). What I really like about the KJVER? They put the words of God-words God speaks in red letters-in the OT! I really like that.
Great video, Mark! Even better to be able to interact with a KJVonlyist (though he sounds to be more 'KJVonly lite') without demeaning comments in the article! I found it interesting that David Cloud would suggest that textual criticism is heresy, and then go on to say that most textual critics are "out-and-out heretics". Perhaps some qualifications should be placed on that, because from here, it seems he's calling textual criticism heresy, and then using that as a claim to call those involved in textual criticism heretics. I'm not sure if I would call people like Wilbur Pickering, Maurice Robinson, Dan Wallace, or James White heretics.
If textual criticism is heresy, then the KJV translators were heretics for-as Scrivener clearly shows (kjvparallelbible.org/which-tr-stephanus-vs-beza/)-doing textual criticism. They were on thin ice, too, to include textual critical notes in the margin of the 1611 KJV. I do not believe textual criticism is heresy.
I’m not exactly sure if I would put Sam Gipp in the same group as Ruckman and Riplinger. Gipp doesn’t think you must read the KJV to be saved and he doesn’t come off as strong as they do. Steven Anderson I’d say is the new Peter Ruckman.
I haven’t seen Gipp be hateful. Just wild-eyed. I don’t know how else to put it. :( I’ve thought the same about Anderson. And, like Rickman, Anderson is a gifted guy.
He says some pretty crazy stuff, but I have it on good authority from a friend of his-a friend I trust to tell the truth here, for sure-that Anderson is a very gifted guy, intellectually speaking.
@@wardonwords I've actually heard James White in a conversation with someone say the same about Anderson (after he spoke with him for a couple of hours one-on-one and you can probably still find that video here on RUclips). Basically James said intellectually, Anderson is a really smart guy. This shouldn't be totally surprising. There are a lot of really smart people who have wrong beliefs. For example, there are many atheists who are actually very intelligent in certain areas, but obviously we Christians would strongly disagree with their ultimate conclusions.
I appreciate your thorough explanation. It makes so much sense, but I never understood the KJV only stance! Another group that is KJV only are the Mormons. My mother in law is Mormon & the explanation for being KJV only is because the general authorities say to use it only. I would love to see a video from you on Mormonism. I do realize you are very busy with the videos you have been making (along with everything else you must do in a day) It’s just a thought, I enjoy how teach and how well you cover the subject. Thank-you for these excellent videos!
Yes, I've heard from a few Mormons, including a few biblical scholars among them. That's a world I don't pretend to understand. Other things being equal, of course, I'd prefer that the eighteen-year-old "elders" who knock on my door carry contemporary translations-because they are more likely to understand them. I remember asking some of them recently to read portions of Romans to me from their LDS-issued KJVs, and they really struggled and stumbled. =( It was so maddening and sad to hear them read extremely precious words about Christ's vicarious atonement without any understanding. I specifically recall that they had no idea what "propitiation" meant. =(
@@jtlbb2 thank-you! I have seen his & they are great! I think I’m looking for a magic answer to help my mother in law out of Mormonism. I’m praying for her & I have to trust God! I care a lot about her and it’s frustrating to see people in a tragically misleading false religion!
@@wardonwords I agree! If they do read anything from the Bible it’s often in a booklet from the Mormon church with an explanation through the lens of Mormonism. I know prayer works to lead people out of Mormonism to Christ. I’m just very concerned for her, as she’s in her seventies & was exposed to Covid twice recently. I pray about it & hand over the control to God & then I keep taking it back. 🤦🏼♀️
Concerning your planned update of the KJV, you may want to consider more of a gentle refreshing than a hard update. The people at rasv.org are doing a very nice refresh of the original 1901 American Standard Version ASV for today's readers: easier to read , yet the wording is closer to the original than the NASB 77, 95, or 2020 updates.
I prefer the king James over other English translations personally. The older language sounds more weighty like the grandeur of how stuff sounds in Latin. Requiem in pacem vs Rest In Peace. As an outsider looking in, I honestly don’t see what the debate is about.
I love the King James, too. I like the weight and grandeur. The question is whether that weight and grandeur were present in the original Hebrew and Greek to the degree in which they are present (because of language change over the centuries) in the KJV for contemporary readers. The other question is whether maintenance of a good tradition such as the KJV ought to be itself a doctrine that churches place in their doctrinal statements, as (tens of?) thousands of churches have done.
@@wardonwords as an orthodox Christian, that’s what I don’t get. Why focus so much on which translation, even prop up a man made translation as something more than it is? I think what truly shocks me about this debate is that Christ isn’t present. If Protestants are so focused on what translation to use, how does that leave room for Christ?
Do you mean "Orthodox Christian"? That is, a member of the Orthodox Church? I suppose Protestants might ask similar questions back to you: why insist on the use of the Septuagint? The use of icons? All the classic things-traditions-to which you know Protestants object? I don't deny that Protestants and Orthodox share precious truth, not at all, nor that our traditions overlap. But the only way we can discern with any sort of finality before the Judgment which traditions are merely human and in which traditions Christ is present is if he tells us-through his Word. Have I misunderstood in any way?
@@wardonwords In my own church going experience, there really is no difference between scripture and tradition. I would ask why don’t Protestant churches sing Christ is risen on Easter, and just as easily ask why don’t orthodox sing amazing grace. But this is in a context of reading scripture. Most of are services are scripture readings. The entire book of psalms is read each week. Marry was eternally a virgin. Show me in the Bible? Easy, Ezekiel 44:2 “And the LORD said to me, “This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the LORD God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut.”
1.) Nowhere within the KJV does it say God would use the KJV to preserve His word. 2.) The KJV is hardly the first authorized English Bible. 3.) It is certainly not the first English Bible from an English king. 4.) The authorized KJV in 1611 authorized the Apocrypha to be within it. 5.) The KJV authorized the Apocrypha to be placed within it because they didn't want people to read it! /sarcasm. 6.) Thankfully, the KJV does in places quote from the Septuagint. 7.) King James didn't like the Geneva Bible, the Bible favored by the English people, the Puritans left England with their Geneva Bibles, fleeing the Church of England and persecution, and came to America.
Please note that calling something a revision does not mean that it is a correct or good revision. I hear a lot of people refer to the KJV as the old KJV just because someone decided to publish something called the new KJV. This is ridiculous. And no, I am not on anyone's KJV only bandwagon.
fundamentalists easily reject evangelical translations like nkjv and mev bec fundamentalists always suspect evangelicals of being tainted with modernism. fundamentalists tend to prefer pre 1900s works like 1828 webster dictionary and 1769 kjv bec modernism started in the late 1800s and early 1900s.
John 10:5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. Personally what you said about the people in quoting David Cloud's quote sounds a lot like what is written here in the Gospel according to John about the sheep who follow the Good Shepherd that is Jesus Christ they will not follow a stranger. With that being said they will not believe the lies of these wicked self righteous prideful racists that operate in these cults that always seek to control peoples lives and do what condemn them to destruction. The King James Version of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures is at the top of my favorite English versions of the Bible the second one I love reading after it is the Amplified Bible. The reasons why is because I was converted by Christ under them both being mentioned in a book I read a long time ago back in a late December night in the year 2018. And I for one believe the Bible that testifies of Jesus Christ, because it is coming to pass before our very eyes in these last days that are prophesied of in the New Testament after the Old Testament.
God only knows where the souls of KJV-Only leaders lie, but I believe Cloud is a true Christian who has been "overtaken in a fault," who thinks he's defending God's truth against Satan's lies. I give him a lot of credit for being able to see more clearly than a lot of our KJV-Only brothers the difference between Ruckmanism and his brand of KJV-Onlyism. I also give him a LOT of credit for feeling for the people who read English as a second language and struggle with the KJV's archaisms.
I hate to say it, but in terms of winning people away from KJV Onlyism, you're wasting your time if you're going to try to do it with yet another modern update of the KJV. Besides the major overhauls, like the NKJV and MEV, there have also been many minor updates, such as the Modern KJV, the American KJV, the 21st Century KJV (also marketed as "The Millennium Bible" when it includes the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books,) and the KJVER (Easy Reader,) etc. All of them have been vociferously rejected by the KJVOnly crowd, and/or have faded into obscurity. Sadly, when push comes to shove, even most so-called "TR Onlyists" have an irrational and emotional attachment to the KJV itself. No modern update, no matter how meticulously executed, is going to please them, and will be reflexively rejected by them for the most pedantic and ignorant of reasons. Nevertheless, I do not wish do discourage you from doing a new TR and/or Majority Text translation. Simply for the fact that those who favor the CT have their pick of the litter in terms of translation philosophies and flavors, while those who prefer the TR or Majority Text are pretty much stuck with a beautiful but antiquated formal translation (the KJV) or modern English translations strictly in the formal methodology (NKJV, MEV, WEB.) It would be a refreshing breath of fresh air to have the TR and/or Majority Text in a style reminiscent of the NIV/CSB, or even also a looser translation in the vein of the NLT or GNB. Giving those who prefer the TR or Majority Text more options, that also compliment the existing formal translations. Just don't get your hopes up too high about winning over KJV Onlyists.
I was about to make a very similar comment. You beat me to the punch. Most KJVO guys I grew up with were outraged over spelling differences between KJVs and miniscule differences in type-settings. My KJV from Bearing Precious Seed was recently called perverted for a single letter being different in a single word. Even the "New Scofield Study Bible" that supposedly flips some archaic words to the margin, and replaces them in the text with modern words, was vehemently preached against even though the original words are still in the margin. Without the support of at least one major KJVO institution (West Coast Baptist College, for example) I feel such a project is doomed to almost immediate obscurity and total rejection. Those that enjoy all translations don't need it, and those that are KJVO will only reject it. Only if an influential group inside the KJVO movement supported it would it have any chance of gaining a foothold.
Gentlemen, you are both absolutely right. And for once in my life, I am way ahead of someone... :) If I can’t get major institutional backing, I will not do this work. But I have a small chance of getting backing from the only outfit that I think can succeed here. Praying for divine wisdom.
David Cloud - Christ's Messages to the Seven Churches 2 of 8 - 35:02 “To test anything you first got to have a solid authority. That's why we need to hold to the King James Bible. As soon as you leave it, even if you go to the New King James, you are launched out into this huge number of versions, contradictory versions. Pick and choose your own favourite versions. And you have then no authority any more. And the only churches that preach the word of God today with real conviction are those that still hold to the old Bible.” I think whatever he says in theory, in practice he is still calling us who don’t want to join the KJVO cult, asses. We have ‘no authority’, and are ‘incapable of preaching the word of God with real conviction’. Basically we’re second class citizens, inferior, not high and right like him and all who agree with him about the KJV.
My KVJ-Only take: "wild eye and hateful people" - All KJV people are in "that" camp, to some extent. I have had many KJV Only conversations where my only point of discussion is I think the TR (yes, I know more than one, but all close) is correct, and I think modern translator's theology (i.e. John Sailhamer's) corrupts new translations and in the end I am basically called a Nazi. I have also found once a person knows you are KJV they know you believe the Bible as is, and are not going to start modifying things based on "cultural considerations of the time." KJV people believe Paul writing are correct and not to be modified by "what the culture was at that time, i.e. woman can not be pastors. Ruckman - I find him to be a distraction, I never read any of his works. The issue is are modern translations changing words to match theology and making changes solely for the purpose of following the law for obtaining a copyright. I really don't even think the CT vs. TR is that big of an issue. NLT Psalms 121:1 - "I look up to the mountains- does my help come from there?" yep, means something different than the NASB, ESV, KJV, Bishops, Mathews, NIV, etc. Copyrightable... check. Ruckman's personal life has zippo to do with the correctness or incorrectness of his Bibliology. That was beneath you Mr. Ward. Divisive talk... Paul was pretty divisive, and quoting him in many "churches" today can be seen as pretty divisive.... And we get to the crux of the matter. Arguments over text and translation methods. And we can have some very rational arguments related to this with the NASB 1977 and NKJV 1984... BUT a person like me looses it when we try to rationalize justification of the changes in just the ESV 2001, 2007, 2011, 2016, ESV-CE, Gideon ESV. When I can pull up a random chapter in the OT and find a verse with 5 different meaning in 5 versions of the Bible, I am not going to accept that is because of expert translators (many of whom work on multiple translations.) The KJV 1769 could be updated, but it would not be copyrightable. You would not be adding any New Authorship. The only way to update it would be an authorized version of the Crown, and I don't see that happening. New KJV.... yep false friend and dead words... so if an update is possible, can you name for me one chapter of one book in any new translation that does not change the meaning of any verse from the KJV? Sure, I am biased, but I have never been able to go through an entire chapter and not seen a change of meaning. For example: Exodus 25:5 KJV - rams' skins dyed red, and badgers' skins ESV - tanned rams’ skins, goatskins NLT - tanned ram skins and fine goatskin leather NASB - rams’ skins dyed red, porpoise skins CSB - “ram skins dyed red and fine leather I mean really, this is nuts. Represented here in the four translations is probably the majority of "OT scholars" alive right now. Are these the same men that are going to update the KJV? I have issues with the NKJV.... and the main one is: When the KJV and NKJV disagree, which one is correct? The second issue is when the NKJV has their revision, what will that look like? It is my belief (I think with some rational support) the KJV translator that revised the Bishop's Bible knew the original languages better than translator today. Thus, I believe when options arose they picked the correct option in translation. The CR issues I think is being glossed over. Just as Cloud has "belief" in the TR, Mark appears to have "belief" in the CR. And we can have a rational argument over the CR... BUT I really don't think the TR v. CR is really the major issue in new translations. I can't support any modern translations of Genesis, and that has zero to do with the TR. CR people like to focus of 1 John 5:7. that is one verse, and not the issue. Why should the use of multiple versions cause confusion? Oh my.... and Mark does not have a "standard" in the Greek, the CR is evolving. I like it how the Hebrew (majority of the Bible) is really never discussed. Are we seriously going to compare Deu 28:22 with what I show on Exodus 25:5 above? Circling back.... so change the archaic words, false friends, and 37 changes due to KJV marginal notes.... you don't have enough to copyright... Psalms 16:6 - So, here is the HUGE issue. The NIV is a better translation for this verse, fine, not going to argue. BUT is it by default being said the NIV (and whatever subsequent revision of the NIV there is) is also superior to the KJV? By pointing out Psalms 16:6 is the rest of the NIV when in variance with the KJV also being validated? When this question is posed the answer usually is "don't worry, the modern Translators are Godly men" and my response would be "tell that to Bathsheba's husband when you talk about how Godly David was." I would note in closing, one issue David Cloud discusses is the required changes for Copyright in order for a Bible version to be accepted for Copyright purposes. This would be making changes solely for financial purposes. Sort of glossed over in this video.
I haven't followed him for a good while. I wasn't aware that he had lost credibility. Seems to me like he's the same guy he was when I used to read his articles as part of my job at a library. He's been consistent in his views over 20 years, as far as I can tell.
I am sympathetic to the antiquarian issue too. I am not against updated language But I do feel proponents have one case to make here - consistency. If we take rhis view, shouldn't we also push to update the language of Shakespeare? That is from the same time period, and we not only read it in that form, we push for it. Academics dont favor any update. What about Chaucer? That's even further removed, but not many academics push for such an update here. It's a strong argument, and one that we need to address if we're serious about it.
A worthy point. A few thoughts… - Shakespeare was written in English; the KJV is already a translation. - If the purpose of reading Shakespeare is to eat your cultural vegetables, then you should choke down his archaic words as best you can. But the point of Scripture surely is not to have an English cultural experience but to understand what God said. - People simply do not understand Shakespeare as well as they say they do. John McWhorter discusses this in Words on the Move. - Chaucer is truly unreadable by today's English speakers. He's already being encountered primarily in translation. How long do we wait with the KJV? Till it's 50% unintelligible? That might as well be 100% unintelligible. Miss even one key word in a sentence, and that sentence goes dark. - We've got Bible to guide us: 1 Cor 14 says that edification requires intelligibility. Hope that helps!
@@wardonwords No you haven't addressed the core issue here. Really the matter is do we raise our intellect up to the Bible, or lower the Bible to our level? You can make a case either way, but lowering anything precious raises a number of questions. It should. I hope you understand and agree. Whether a translation or not matters very little. It's still archaic words that are unfamiliar. I fail to see that you can make a logical distinction. We do understand Shakespeare reasonably well. McWhorter is incorrect here. Simply because he wasnt the only writer of that time. Ben Jonson, Christopher Marlowe, etc. all used the same linguistic style and are heavily commented. It isn't a question of word meaning, context, or usage. The argument will be made here that we hold Literature in higher regard than the Holy Word of God. I know that isnt your intention, but that is indeed the argumwnt proponents will make. Again, you're not helping me here. I don't really disagree with you. I'm hoping to help you see this as it stands with those you are trying to reach.
@@trueedge2097 My friend, do you think KJV English is easier or harder for modern day Americans (and Brits and Kenyans and Aussies and others who speak English) than the Koine Greek was for, say, Timothy? Why the fact that the KJV is a translation and Shakespeare is not matters is that we have a natural reticence to updating the originals. But a translation is already an "update" into the language spoken at a particular place and time. Does that make sense? The parallel would be a Koine-Greek-speaking Christian in, say, the year 500. His son says to him (in the Koine Greek of the time), "Pater, why can we not update the New Testament to speak like we do instead of talking funny the way it does?" And the father, who happens to be a linguist, would say, "My son, these are the words of God. Someday Greek will move far enough away from the Greek spoken at the time of the apostles that a translation will need to be made. But we're going to try to hold on as long as we can."
@@wardonwords Im not sure I'm following your logic, if indeed there is logic here. Shakespeare and KJV are indeed harder for modern day English speakers and those learning. At least, that is the argument you appear to be making here No I don't agree that a translation is an update. And I don't agree that it makes a difference. The problem is a problem for the end reader, not the academic. The academic is the one who facilitates the exchange. Again. My concern is helping you understand the people you are trying to convince. I don't disagree with you too much. I am for an updated KJV. But then people who use and believe the KJV don't have a problem with using the KJV and would need to be convinced. You haven't exactly done that here.
David Cloud (way of life) and chick publications are both more conservative than D. A. Waite (bible for today) and TBS bec David Cloud (way of life) and chick publications solution to archaic words is just a list of archaic words with definitions which was all TBS had until they finally came out with their Westminster reference bible.
Cloud is far from "King James Bible only" when he is praising the Greek and claiming that the Greek is something to be adhered to. In fact, this is the position of "Textus Receptus onlyism". Cloud is right to reject various extreme views like KJB "double inspiration" and so forth, but Cloud's own view is much closer to that of the anti-King James Bible onlyists, in that he does not affirm that the King James Bible alone is perfect. When modernist (with a lower case m) Mark Ward finds so much in common with Cloud, it must be particularly in the area of denying that the Scripture is perfectly adequately in English without any needful recourse to Greek or Hebrew. Thus, the "common ground". To call Cloud a "King James Bible only leader" is entirely misleading. One area where Cloud is good is where he shows how modern versions and modern textual criticism draws from the wells of Infidelity. Some of that water sadly is seeped into the belief known as "Textus Receptus onlyism".
When I began this work I knew there were divisions within KJV-Onlyism; White’s book is clear on this, and of course I’ve seen it with my own eyes for a long time. But what I wasn’t quite as prepared for is the rhetoric coming from the Ruckmanite strain back toward the mainstream KJV-Only strain. A perfect Bible translation requires inspiration, "an extraordinary work of God's Spirit," as the KJV translators put it. This is Ruckmanism. A perfect KJV is Ruckmanism.
You are wrong to characterise KJBO as a whole movement with Ruckmanites and TROs, when many KJBOs have another view; White's book misrepresents KJBO by presenting either TROs or Ruckmanites, but not the vast middle "perfectionist" KJBO view. The Ruckmanites are strong in their rhetoric/name calling, but KJBOs in general, that is, those who reject the "Greek" view/TRO view, certainly are clear that they are against both fringes of the what is called KJBO. A perfect Bible translation is something to be expected as based on Scripture doctrine and to be seen in the divine outworking in history, it does not require special inspiration. It is in the same category as the post-apostolic Church defining Canon or defining doctrines like the Trinity, or Scriptural infallibility, etc. While Ruckmanites may have a perfect KJB view with their explanations about double inspiration, the middle, average KJBO view is one of having a perfect English translation. Indeed, a transcendent and exemplary translation, where the logical conclusion is that it is better to begin pursuing teaching the world English. To lump a high providentialist view (right things culminated in right translation at the right time in the right language) and an ecclesiastical non-cessationist view (the Church is supersuccessionary to the apostles = a perfect translation was inevitable in history) as "Ruckmanism" is very imprecise to the point of being intellectually dishonest. To imply that the TRO view of a small part of "KJBO" are the "mainstream" is also incorrect. TRO might be more palatable and nearer to the views of modern translation supporters, but it is both the minority and least definite of the broad "KJBO" views. I repeat, James White's book incorrectly defines KJBOs as, basically either TROs or else essentially Ruckmanites, skipping the vast majority of KJBOs who do not gravitate to either pole (or "extreme") of the broad KJBO field/definition/category. But James White covered this up by saying that KJBO defies definition.
@@wardonwords You have misquoted the KJB translators. They argued that good Protestant translations before their time should not be rejected just because they might have had some blemishes. Proper KJBO today does not deny the existence of Scripture in Greek or in other translations. It simply points to where the standard is, that the KJB is a proper and perfect translation. The KJB men, in saying " For what ever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?" were not in any way denying or implying that their own work was imperfect. They were in fact saying Scripture itself was perfect. They indicated that their translation work was "good", was "perfected", had "the good hand of the Lord upon them", etc., which indicates that no cavil should easily be made against their work. "Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavor to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us." They didn't claim inspiration. And they didn't say we need to still go back to the Greek because their work was inadequate. "For by this means it cometh to pass, that whatsoever is sound already, ... the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also, if any thing be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place." The KJBO believes that the truth is set in place, just as the translators said.
@@bibleprotector "A perfect Bible translation is something to be expected." No, it's a literal impossibility, especially when going from ancient non-Germanic languages to (Early) Modern English. Even modern Greek Bibles have had to update some of the Koine Greek words in the New Testament to avoid miscommunication to current readers, and that's technically the same language.
@@MAMoreno It is not impossible to have a perfect translation, because the world is not that naturalistic, material, deistic place you appear to assume, but a place where divine providence is outworking under sovereignty. (That's why I also believe in the traditional Protestant historicist interpretation of Bible prophecy.) In the natural, of course perfect fidelity and verity in translation is impossible, going from The Bacchae, or Ovid or Augustine to today's English. But we are dealing with God and the communication of His will, not some human work. Translation, the processes of conveying truth through time, transmission and gathering (textually) are all concepts under the aegis of God as much as the first act of inspiration and writing of any Scripture book was by the original writer. Who confused the tongues? Who gave tongues to the Church at Pentecost? (I am a Pentecostal by the way.) Who rules in the kingdoms of men? And who said, "Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings"? Is not God the Lord of languages, are not all the variations in accents, dialects, divergences, borrowings, etc., not only known of God, but planned by Him? Therefore English itself, and the specific English of the King James Bible must needs be raised up of God for His purposes, who are you to say it is impossible? And if the language can be prepared, why not learning? Isn't that what we should expect, that we should know the truth? Surely God is faithful, and communicates to the world in English just as He was able to communicate in Bible times through the Hebrew scripture. The same message then must be made manifest now, we have to have what the prophets wrote, and properly.
I have recently seen that God has designed the KJV numerically so that there are many numerical patterns that we can witness that are only found in KJV. This shows the supernatural nature of KJV only as these are not found in any other version. God has clearly done this to set appart His Word from mans versions of it. God does not intend for us to be confused by many different versions. God bless and may He give you a humility and Wisdom.
But Mr. Cloud will remove, still today, your comment if you do not worship the KJV Bible. When it comes to Greek, it should be understood the word “cross” comes from Catholicism and Anglicanism and is not located in the original texts. There is a Greek word for cross, but it is not used in Scripture because it is inaccurate. Tree, pole or stake is precise and true to the Greek word-σταυρός staurós, stow-ros'. It was most likely a roughly, hewn, splintery stake of no loveliness. And this word is true to the pole displaying a deadly snake held by Moses to stop the plague of serpents which represents Christ's death for sinners, (Numbers 21) being people had to look upon it to be saved. Now we know people must look to Christ Jesus alone to be saved. Crosses have been presented in paganism since the early history of men and were naturally introduced by the Anglican translators of the KJVB. Anglicans walk hand in hand with Catholics in many instances and this is why you have Mary idols in Westminster Abbey in London, and I can testify to this as I have been in this Abbey on tour. Excellent video expounding the history of pagan crosses: ruclips.net/video/GG6ptqPDgQ4/видео.html The cross worship information reaches back to the Egyptians and Tammuz who we read regarding in Ezekiel chapter 8. In the following 9th chapter, we read about the 144,000 male, virgin Jews and we also read of them in Revelation chapters 7 and 14. KJVB (Also known as the revised Bishop’s Bible of the Anglican Church) was originally printed with the Apocrypha because it was translated by the Anglican Church/Church of England/Episcopal Church. It was removed from protestant Bibles till 1885. I would never say the wicked word “authorized” for the acceptance of a translation by a pagan king. And it is deceptive for church leaders to shout “authorized” without explaining it was authorized by a pagan king who stood with the idolatrous Mary of the Catholic Church; plus, failing to mention it included the Apocrypha when printed. I will say it is the Holy Word of God when words are rightly translated. Many Bible and Baptist colleges and churches treat this version as an idol and these churches appear cultish. Pastors do no tell the truth regarding the history of the KJV Bible and desire to say, “Authorized” which is totally silly. It is all about God not a king’s authorization. Truth is all about equipping the saints for the work of ministry. And it must be added, the KJV translators translated the word “baptist” or “baptize” because Anglicans sprinkle and King James was a member of the Church of England/Anglican Church/Episcopal Church. This is why the word “submerge” was not used in this version. To use words such as "immersion" or "to immerse” would have offended his fellow pagans. He believed he would appease all with the word “baptize” that people could imagine in their minds as they desired. We do know John the submerg-er, who worshipped Christ in his mother’s womb, brought many to repentance that resulted in submerging with a changed lifestyle. I will add, I do not stand on today’s modern versions. I do enjoy NASB unrevised. The revised changed the word long-suffering to tolerant and you and I know God is not tolerant of any sin and Judgment Day is arriving. And I find NKJV Bible quite accurate and the American Standard Version of 1901.
So I'm curious about something: Why is your channel essentially going at, or against, KJV "Onlyists", or "correcting" the KJV of the Bible? There are so many English translations out there you could be "fixing" or going after in some theological way, but you don't. You're focus are KJV criticisms. That Bible has been the product of our English literary history for hundreds of years, and is responsible for thousands and thousands and thousands of men and women, boys and girls being saved, and yet you have this contentious sprit towards it. Admittedly, I have watched some of your videos and although you present yourself as an educated man, there is an arrogance you give off based on your "education" you have received from man's teachings. Don't confuse this with me saying your education means nothing, but I am saying it has made you give off a haughtiness that contradicts your well intentioned path. If you remember, Saul, before he was Paul, was high minded and went against his brethren who were claiming the Lord Jesus as the Son of God. He was a Chief Jew, to put it simply. Because of his high mind of himself, he felt he was in the right because he was the best and knew that he was right in his enforcement of the laws against the Christians. Afterwards, once he was converted by God Himself, for 3 years he trained under the guidance of the Lord Jesus Christ, and he came out Spiritually filled and DENOUNCING the Jewish mind of being above others, as the special people they were so used to feeling. He counted everything before his conversion as dung. Your attempts on bringing a new "perspective" and "correction" to the KJV is thinking higher than you ought defined. There is a reason the KJV is the only non-copyrighted version of the English language. What you're trying to do is dangerous, and I would ask you to reconsider your ambition. I will finish by saying this, I actually use other Bibles. I use the KJV primarily, NASB, ESV, and HCSB. I do not believe the KJV is the only Bible that is able to be used for good. But, I do believe it is the most accurate English version and uncorrupted of all English versions.
Pray for me never to be guilty of arrogance, my friend. There is no room for pride in the Christian life-and most certainly not in mine. If you are gaining benefit from reading multiple translations, then you have already gotten the message of this channel! I do hope-hope!-to expand my series explaining why translations differ. I think you may find some help there if you keep watching. But I talk about the KJV because it has become a doctrine that separates brothers in Christ.
@@wardonwords if you think I got the message of your channel by using multiple translations, you're wrong. I told you that your channel is mostly predicated upon being against the KJV, not edifying it. Just because I use multiple versions, I still, and always will, primarily use the KJV, and I will always believe, and know that is is the most accurate English translation. I urge to please stop making videos correcting, or in anyway dismissing the KJV. I would ask you to edify it, and provide reasons why other translations are good as well in their own ways, and actually going against the ones that are OBVIOUSLY not right.
You err saying "New Testament standards" will judge Ruckman or anyone. Any man 'in-Christ' will have his works judged at the Judgment seat of Christ but still remain saved. Why is it you Calvo's drag works in wherever you can?
These are the verses by which I believe Ruckman ought to be judged: "We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother." (1 John 4:19-21 ESV)
@@wardonwords Pulpit and Pen type Fruit inspectors should rightly divide what is intended for the Body of Christ (a faith alone and strictly Pauline concept) and they'll do fine. It would be just as grave to quote from Hebrews or James and I'd still ask, "from which of the 12 tribes do you come?"
Simple, You are KJV also. You are NKJV believer. Coz it will be ironic if you like KJV and not use it. "Ye" in KJV means plural. Changed by NKJV Translators to "You" which is singular. Big difference.
KJV is highly qualified as a verbatim or word for word translation from Hebrew(Masoretic text) and Greek(Textus Receptus). Why use in your pulpit other translations if you know that the most accurate translation is KJV!? Ironic!
You are just like every other preacher who wants compromise. I am very familiar with David Cloud, but he isn't God. The KJV is the pure word of God and should not be changed or compromised and this is not based on some KJV-Only cult either! Leave God's Holy word alone!! There are enough false versions out there that has watered down the message of God, the deity of Jesus Christ, the message of the gospel and the horrendousness of sin!
I myself am “KJV only”, however, serve in a church that is not, and do not make that an essential issue to salvation and am happy to fellowship with brethren that disagree with me, and only require that we are in one accord on the Gospel and how one receives eternal life, and I used to be in agreement with your impression that the KJV is >not< the only translation(excluding the 6 pre KJV English translations) that is TR only, however, I have come to find in my own research that it is demonstrably false, and I would simply implore you to look into it more closely. The NKJV very clearly deviates from the TR in favor of the TV and critical text readings in many of the same places the ESV or NIV does. I found it completely impossible to conclude that the translators took certain passages from the TR in the NKJV and the NKJV contains many of the same footnotes regarding variant readings and/or the absence of that verse in “earlier manuscripts.” Obviously we are not in agreement on the issue of the KJV, but I hope that my preface made it clear that my reproof is not ill intended. I used to believe there were modern versions that were TR only, but the NKJV is most certainly not one of them. As for the other you mentioned, I own somewhere between 20-30 Bible versions including the cult versions such as the New World Translation and the Inspired Version written(NOT translated) by Joseph Smith, but I do not own the other version that you mentioned and thus have not compared one. So, I need to get one and compare it and do the research on that one before concluding whether it is or is not, and I intend to do so. With all sincerity and brotherly love, please look at the NKJV again. I’m 100% convinced that I was wrong and have since had to change my position, that it is not a TR only translation. I appreciate the video. God bless!
Brother, I really appreciate your tone-it’s noticeable, and I’m grateful. Can you point me to specific passages in which the NKJV deviates from the TR? And which TR are you saying it’s deviating from?
@@wardonwords I appreciate that it was taken in the right spirit! 🙏🏻 It has been a few years since I’ve gone through the NKJV and somewhere, I have a bunch of stuff written down, but do not currently know exactly where those notes are. But these are a few things that I remember. Isaiah 9:3, the NKJV changes the Hebrew text behind the KJV by leaving out the “not” (“לא”) with OT textual criticism, the difference being that joy is increased instead of not being increased. The NKJV has a footnote here explaining that they followed the Qere reading, which obviously is not the same text the OT KJV was translated from. Jude 1:3, the NKJV includes “our” (“ημων”), following the CT. Colossians 3:17, the CT does not include “και,” as does the NKJV. In my opinion it could be argued that the NKJV also used the same texts as the KJV, but do not believe it can be argued that they exclusively used those texts. They don’t claim to use the same texts in their preface and reference another reading the KJV did not in Isaiah 9:3. If I’m not mistaken, the preface does say that they used the 1967/77 BHS, but says where it fails to match the Bomberg text, they went with the Bomberg reading. I do not recall exactly which TR they claim to use. I would need to find my notes and NKJV Bible. I know they’re both in storage somewhere, I would just have to find them.
@@norandavis856 My friend, you're quoting Kent Brandenburg (or someone he was quoting?) without attribution. =| I felt Kent made some fair points. But I have already gone back and forth with him here: byfaithweunderstand.com/2019/08/18/are-there-critical-text-readings-in-the-nkjv-after-all-a-nerdy-and-detailed-response-to-a-set-of-fair-questions/
@@wardonwords That name does not sound familiar, but that doesn’t mean the references didn’t originate from him. I have a habit of saving things in the “notes” app on my phone to check into later. Those were references that I put in there maybe a year or two years ago, and remember looking into it, but I don’t remember where I got them from. I never intended to use it for anything but personal use so obviously I would not have cited it. It’s the only references I had immediately on hand. I will look in storage for my own notes on that specific version this week.
I can just imagine Mark being transported in time back to 1611 and starting up a newspaper defending the Authorized Version against the Puritans who refused to use it. Lol. 😂
Reinforcing my journey out of KJV-Onlyism, and enhancing my love for the Word of God!
You talked about how in KJVO circles we create the issue of multiple translation confusion and then turn around and cite confusion as a reason to keep the KJVO view.. that is absolutely correct.
I said this to my pastor the other day - We are creating an issue and then blaming it on others. I told him, if our people had a practical and healthy knowledge of transmission and translation, they wouldn't be confused by accepting that multiple translations are okay.
Right!
I had Dr. Curtis Vaughn for New Testament Greek and Dr. David Garland for Hebrew while at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. They were in the top 5 final editors for the New King James Version for the New and Old Testament respectively. They revered God's Word.
Right on! The NKJV should be acceptable to our KJV-Only brothers-the ones in the mainstream, anyway, the ones who say, "The text is the issue."
NKJV hits Proverbs 8:22ff out of the park. Literally no other major translation understands the issues introduced by the LXX "massaging" of the text (one of the cases where it introduced alternatives to avoid accusations of polytheism) and still follow it. NKJV gets it right.
“...my plans are go big or go home plans...”
Not fair. I want/need more details!!! Godspeed, Dr. Ward. I can almost see the pitchforks and torches. I’ll be praying for wisdom for you.
Ha! Thank you.
Angel, list your degrees in order since you have so much wisdom and Mark does not.
I think you misread him-he’s not saying anything offensive; quite the opposite! I appreciate the prayers, Angel!
@@wardonwords I may have it seems he is saying you don't have any wisdom only pitchforks....
No, no! Lol. He’s saying he sees them on the horizon. He sees that I’m in for some slings and arrows if I move ahead with a KJV revision.
Brother, you’re a breathe of fresh air for ex-KJV Onlyists. I just want to let you know I deeply appreciate your work and the Christian way that it is represented.
Many thanks. Pray for me!
@markwardonwords, thanks very much for posting your videos about KJV-Onlyism. I do remember being indoctrinated into KJV-Onlyism at the IFB church I attended years ago. I ended up walking away from that church because of the legalism, the reverence of the pastor as a dictator, and other things. After many years of hit and miss church attendance, I'm finally attending a church that uses the NKJV. I still like to read the old KJV, but I would welcome an update to the KJV that you've suggested in this video.
Keep telling the truth about God's Word.
When I was a new believer and didn't know anything about the manuscripts except that they were Greek and Hebrew I had an NKJV and used it for years and was happy with it but it was hard for me to pay online I didn't have much money so when the ESV offered for free on ESword I used that but then my IFB side of the family got me to go KJV for a while but by that time I knew of people like Dr. White and enjoyed his program then heard about his book and read it I was shocked and it got me into textual criticism and a layman's level but it helped me out of it now I use ESV as my main but have a NASB and a CSB as well.
Excellent choices!
Update on 50 false friends book? Update on KJV update?
Fifty False Friends book is still under contract, and I hope to finish it late this summer. Publication in 2024, Lord willing?
KJV update is proceeding on multiple parallel tracks-all of which could come to nothing. =| I have multiple irons in multiple fires on this one. Just not sure what the Lord will permit.
Luther wrote that a congregation should use the same translation, but never stated which one.
Once an individual understood that version Luther suggested using other translations.
If the person who stood against the obtuseness of the main religious authority suggests using various translations then you should explore the idea.
🕊️
Excellent video showing the common grounds. As I have been reflecting on my KJVO history, I’m finding the pattern that there are some deep, spiritual truths in KJVO teachings, and that’s what would pull me back in. It’s videos like this that help me discern healthy boundaries on having agreements without the lead into “so everything else I say must be true.”
Right! The essence of discernment is the ability to see the goodness and truth in your opponent's position without buying into the sin and error. If there were no goodness or truth in his position, no one would be attracted to it.
In case this is helpful, I’ve ran into several TR only/TR preferring believers in Pentecostal circles who use the NKJV. Many of them feel a strong personal conviction about this but do not emphasize it enough to be widely known for this position. It comes up sporadically. No books are written about it. No brothers or sisters are slandered as heretics. Love to see Cloud on board with your project!
Very interesting! Thank you for sharing this!
Mark, could you do a video on how to use and interpret the center margin? Some of it makes sense, but I'm completely lost in other areas.
Hmm. Like in what Bible edition? Care to send me a photo?
@@wardonwords I would love to but I don’t have Facebook... info@kjvparallelbible.org?
@@328am, yes, that would be fine!
I don't get confused with multiple translations but only chose one to memorize it's the updates that bug me I was all for the permanent text edition of the ESV for now anyways so I finally broke down and bought a nice one and it's my main Bible I memorize verses from it but use others to compare with if there is confusion about a verse so they help me not confuse me more but updates can be confusing trying to memorize a verse then it slightly changes in an update not saying they should never update just not so often.
Yeah-maybe every thirty years I think.
@Mark Ward l would so love to know what you think our brothers mean when they talk about "approaching the Bible text from a position of faith in divine preservation." On your recommendation l am reading E.F. Hills' book. He makes a similar assertion but so far he just asserts it while failing to spell out what it actually means in practise. Are we supposed to prefer readings that accord with our theology, because we think we have the right theology? The circularity of this is position is obvious. Or are there gnostic signs that enable us to identify the perfectly preserved text? On what basis is that belief asserted? In fairness to Hill, l should and will finish reading his book, but l'm couldn't help noticing the same strange position in the text you're critiquing here.
I'm totally with you. *Faith in what*? Where does God tell us which Bible is the perfect one?
Have you reviewed the king james 21st century? Also how about the work of Jay p. Green? One of my children used to have the children's kjv issued by reformation heritage. I thought it was pretty good and would appreciate your thoughts.
I have not reviewed that translation, no. And someone sent me Jay P. Green’s work, but I’m afraid I haven’t reviewed it, either. I tend, like most people, to trust institutions rather than individuals to do this work. I like and trust RHB; I’ll bet their kids KJV is well done. I’d like to see that one.
For anyone to believe that the King James is an inspired translation creates a logical contradiction. What would one do if they encounter a difference between the original Greek or Hebrew and the KJV?
That’s the dividing line between doctrinal fidelity and doctrinal error.
@@wardonwords In my line of work I have to rely on accepted objective standards to arbitrate between what is correct and what is not, (2 Pet. 1:19). I do deal with standards that reference other standards, but there always is a statement of precedence that goes something like this. "In the event of a conflict between this standard (derived one) and the reference standard (primary source) the reference standard takes precedence. I was weaned on the KJV and still love it but I'm also aware of how much of it has fallen out of use. Unless a person is ready to keep a concordance at the ready it can be very difficult for many believers. I think it is better to remove as many obstacles as possible when it comes to accessing God's word.
Wonderful video brother!
I have watched several of Ruckman’s video’s over the past few weeks. I actually gleaned some things from him.
1) We need to know what is in the Bible... Read it...over and over and over and over and over and over and over
2) We need to “get the Bible right” and make sure the context is correct.... I agree with that (not necessarily his application of it)
3) We need to build confidence in the Bible Translations we have and not tear it down as some do when they say “The Greek or Hebrew Actually says” causing confusion and leading bible believers to mistrust their faithful English translations. (A Strongs concordance training in Greek and Hebrew is not always a good thing)
4) He stood against Original Manuscripts Onlyism- He makes some great points about OMO since it is impossible to really look people, new believers, in the face and say we can only trust the originals. They are dust and way long gone. His points about the Bible testifying about itself that it was scripture are dead on. Example, did Jesus read from the original copy of Isaiah when he read and said that “today this scripture is fulfilled in your midst”. Or when Phillip came to Ethiopian Eunuch and the Bible says he was reading the scriptures, or when Paul told Timothy from from his youth he has know the scriptures. They did not have the originals and yet the Bible calls these copies and translations the scriptures.
5) Using the Bible to prove itself. In debates he would often use the scriptures to prove the divinity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity etc. This is something we need to get back and ties to many of the points above.
However, there were many points that I disagree with him on totally.
1) We need textual criticism to restore confidence in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts (which we practically have already done and as I heard Dan Wallace say we are basically adjusting the pictures hanging on the wall). Ruckman believed that the the TR is all we need and all efforts at further Textual criticism needs to stop. Even though he would not readily admit that there are multiple TR’s.
2) He classically used proof texts such as Ecclesiasticus 8:4 to prove points such as the King commissioning the KJV gives it more authority over other translations
3) You have already alluded to many of the character flaws and cursing from the pulpit he would do.
Overall, great video and thanks for sending me off on my own bunny trails through your video’s. 😇
It is right of you to find some positives in Ruckman's work! I find it so difficult to listen to him that I haven't had the patience in a long time, I confess. I read a lot of his stuff 20 years ago while writing a report on his views, and I have felt that was enough. I don't think his OMO view is a fair description of anyone I know… But perhaps I'm misunderstanding him. He wasn't a dummy. He was a gifted man. But it's really hard to view his gifts amidst all the bile. =(
2 Peter 2:17
These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.
I really don't think I'd be that harsh on David Cloud. I think he's a believer, just misguided and mistaken.
@@wardonwords I understand brother Mark, nobody in this world is without sin not even David Cloud either, after all he has the same name as the man after God's own heart king David and I know he committed sins against God many years before David Cloud even came here and he got chastened by God and what happened he repented of the sins he himself had done as proven and shown in the Old Testament of the Scriptures even I have my own faults flaws and weaknesses and temptations as well brother Mark. Lets pray for David Cloud that he may be truly a wise virgin in these last days and not a foolish virgin because I know the foolish virgins that are the false who pretend to be saved and yet are not saved God and I both know perfectly well they are going to hear the terrifying words from Jesus Christ the Son of God Himself I never knew you, depart from me ye that work iniquity. Have a good day by the Grace of God brother Mark.
Thank you for making this video.I have a copy of Pastor David Cloud's article King James Only.There is a statement in another publication which is attributed to Pastor Cloud which allegedly something like if possible if possible the King James Version be "translated" in the absence of translators who don't read or understand Hebrew Masoretic text or Aramaic or Koine Greek or something like this.Whether Pastor Cloud said this or not I forgot to note the source which I got in the internet sometime ago.Do you agree that the KJV should be translated into other language or the Masoretic or original Hebrew and Aramaic in translating the Old testament and Koine Greek in translating the New Testament.This plowboy is hoping to hear your comment on this.Thanks.
I agree with Cloud, as I said in the video, that no one should ever translate out of the KJV.
@@wardonwords Pardon my wandering thoughts Pastor Mark but while listening to your discussion I was thinking of the article King James Only by Pastor David Cloud which I got from a friend because i can't recall where i place it so that next time I watch this video I can have the article beside me and jot down some important thoughts you have mentioned.I hope you have googled the website of Communication Architects which I sent you through my Facebook account and see for yourself how they update portions of the KJV particularly the archaic words in the New Testament.You mentioned Pastor Cloud's critique of the NKJV thanks for reminding to read it from his website which I hope will not include the so called problem with using the Septuagint in translating an updated KJV and also if the info I got from wikipedia where it is mentioned that 47 American and English scholars from 3 major branches of Christianity:Orthodox,Protestant and Roman Catholic.I for one would be interested in knowing why include RC scholars or maybe because of Erasmus is somehow indirectly involved in the translation of the KJV just a thought.
BTW TR leaning person here...most definitely willing to hand a nkjv or mev to anyone. Though to be fair, im willing equally to hand an esv them too. For one, I'm not educated enough...second, there just aren't enough differences to add up to...well anything.
Wow-may your tribe increase! Well, may more TR-leaners be a reasonable as you on both points you've just made!
@@wardonwords I know. I'm an odd duck. My basic uninformed view is this: I reason the Bible was God-breathed, those readings need to have not just endured but be available to the church at large down through time to do their job ("profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,"), that can't always be said of the earliest stuff (in that they were not available for long stretched of history). So I reason if it was not available down through time maybe it's not original. So I'm not really a TR person so much as a Byzantine Text person...while realizing I've massively oversimplified the issue because the BT isn't monolithic. And also realizing that since almost every person who can read Greek and does translation work disagrees with me (people who are serious christians) I'm probably wrong.
I'm not sure that I understand the argument: "A translation can't be the standard because it has marginal notes?" Greek and Hebrew manuscripts have marginal notes and alternate readings. Compiled Greek and Hebrew manuscripts also have marginal notes and alternate readings.
Yes, I think it’s a rather weak argument. The KJV had marginal notes about textual matters.
Thank you for calmly addressing comments by David Cloud. We need help in this area and I think you are doing just that…stay calm and please don’t let them get under your skin.
I attended services with David Cloud in Kentucky…He should learn how you are addressing issues in the Church calmly and not hatefully. It caused harm.
I appreciate this. Thank you for the kind word.
Bit off topic but I enjoy the kjv and use it as a matter of preference, so I have a question, why do new translations so often have this sorta thing
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-
Vs
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
The first verse is, I suppose, you'd say "continous" the second is simple past tense.
I see this a lot in new translations and just want a generalists answer or a good article, etc.
More particularly are these two options both possible or is one correct and the other wrong? And if so which?
BTW look into KJV 2016 edition. I've found that effort at updating to be interesting.
Most of the time this sort of thing happens, both of the options are possible in the Hebrew or Greek. Translators have to pick an option. But in this case, I think you're missing a subtlety in the KJV English. And I think this not mainly because I think I'm a lot better at those subtleties (I'm not sure I am!) but because I can check the Greek, and I know the KJV translators don't make very many "mistakes." The Greek verb is present middle/passive. So I think "you are so soon removed" is not simple past tense at all. I think it's present, even in English. And I think it's probably, in Elizabethan English, ongoing. There I'm not quite so certain.
I really don't think there's a difference here between the two translations you quote. (Didn't check the KJV 2016.)
@@wardonwords thanks. That helps
Although I no longer associate myself as an IFB (and disagree profusely with him), I do have respect for him for being more reasonable than the extreme IFB
Me too.
Song of Solomon 5:7
The watchmen that went about the city found me, they smote me, they wounded me; the keepers of the walls took away my veil from me.
Matthew 7:14
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
2 Peter 3:18
But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
Not sure I follow!
I grew up up in a church that leaned strongly towards David clouds teachings on just about everything, I left several years ago, but even still there I fell in love with the NKJV secretly haha, and have recently stumbled across your videos, and have found them very balanced and helpful and may branch out into other versions as well, one thing I was always taught was that new versions were based on wescott and hort who were “evil” but I never have really understood who they really were and what they were all about & I’m not sure where to start on researching them . I’ve never been a fan of Cloud my interactions with him when he visited our church years ago left a bad taste he seemed like a real stick in the mud grump, demanded that people refer to him as Dr or Bro Cloud
I was pretty much a “David Cloud” Baptist when I was IFB and KJVO. He was always more rational than a lot of the Hyles and Ruckman camps
Agreed.
Thank you so much for your channel and your work! It’s very helpful to thinking carefully through the KJV controversy. Next time I get more books in logos yours is going to be one of them. I deal sometimes with this issue and am going to have to approach it with my own brother very soon and your work is so edifying and helpful on this issue. I have watched a ton of your videos now and I am so great full for you. Who knows maybe we could even talk one day. You sound like such an amazing and loving Christian
Happy to meet you someday if the Lord allows. I am at best an unprofitable servant, doing that which it is my duty to do.
@@wardonwords I just want you to know that for me and my situation your work is edifying and helpful and I’m very great full for you. And thank you for replying
Thank you so much for these kind words!
@@wardonwords : The real question is, why do these anti-KJVonlyists even care that certain people only read the King James Bible? I think it's about corporate money. The publishers of the other Bible translations lose money when more people only read the KJV. If the scholars and experts want to make the argument that the KJV is flawed, that's fine but you can't say that with 100% certainty since we haven't seen the original manuscripts that bear the fingerprints of the authors. Perhaps the textual criticism of the experts and their methodologies have been wrong all along and the KJV is flawless. God knows. If all the other Bible translations went out of business and the King James Bible was the only one left standing, people would still be reading the same word of God that most people have been reading for hundreds of years. Christianity would still be the same.
@@LindseyDisney I object to KJV-Onlyism because it is a divisive doctrine not taught in Scripture, and because it places needless barriers before contemporary readers. No one should be required to learn the many dead words and false friends in the KJV just to read their Bibles. They certainly may if they wish! I will help them! But they should not bind other Christians' consciences and insist that those Christians read only one Bible translation, an archaic one that is no longer fully intelligible to contemporary English speakers.
Have you read Arthur Farstead’s (sp?) book on his part as an editor on the NKJV, he admits to softening sin in so many words with his “blue word” list of words they wouldn’t use, and in my opinion gives other ammo to KJVOist
I have. I don’t recall reading that portion… Do you have it? Can you direct me to it? I’m traveling at the moment and do not have access to the book.
@@wardonwords I’m sorry but right now I’m in the middle of a move myself and my library is in storage
@@wardonwords I have it. On pages 86-87 of his "The New King James in the Great Tradition" Farstad mentions that the NKJV committee decided against the group of words that start with "whore" like that, "whoremonger" and "whoredom" and the like. They instead used "harlot" or something similar. This was NOT to softening sin in any way, but describing sin in words that were descriptive without being unduly vulgar, at least, in their minds. Page 87 even specifically mentions that they chose to use the harsh "fornication" and "sodomy" rather than the modern, duller, "gay sex" and "premarital sex." The NKJV translators had no problem calling out sin, but did so with a vocabulary that wasn't offensive itself.
Excellent. I dig into the word “whore” a bit in an earlier video. I totally get that.
I have always looked at the king James version as a trunk of a tree. The several translations I look at as the branches, pieces of the whole.
Some validity to this.
“And Ruckman, although he was married three times, was not known for his love.”
When I tell you I SPAT in laughter 😂
;)
Comedians should offer to pour you a second cup of coffee. Some might remember Ricky Ricardo on the I Love Lucy show.
About 40 years ago I had an acquaintance and he had become enamored with Ruckman.... he told me one time that only the English KJV was God's Word.... So I asked him the question if a person did not speak English what would you suggest.... he was not joking he replied, "If a person really desires to know what God's Word states he'll learn English so he can read God's true word".......I almost laughed until I realized he was serious..... SMH.
My unscientific sense-and my prayer-is that more KJV-Only leaders should push back more often against this kind of divisive extremism. It makes a good Protestant’s blood boil to hear the Reformation betrayed in this way.
@@wardonwords I have dealt with some that just have a preference for the KJV and that is fine..... Extremism on the subject is nonsense....
If more KJV preachers were expository preachers, I suspect many of the issues could be mitigated.
Agreed.
Thank you for making this video brother. I'm glad you didn't make it to bash brother Cloud. I think what it boils down to is any serious Christian will always ho to the Hebrew or Greek to find a deeper or more concise meaning. A Strong's concordance is all you need. I'm not KJV only but it's what I use. I know Dr. Walter Martin used another translation (not sure which one) but he often compared both together with the Greek or Hebrew to understand the word or verse more clearly.
We have many good tools today for accessing the Hebrew and Greek! You might also try the Bible Word Study in Logos Bible Software. Logos Basic is free! logos.com/basic
I actually believe the Septuagint is a better source text for the Old Testament than the Masoretic Text. It's at least 1000 years older, is closer to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and because the MT came after the time of Christ, the rabbis involved deliberately rewrote Messianic prophecies to take Jesus out. Yes, the Septuagint was in Greek, but it was a translation from Hebrew, and Jesus and the apostles quoted it, demonstrating they gave it the full authority of Scripture. If we ever find Hebrew manuscripts that are that old or older (or at least older than the Masoretic Text) then that would be better yet, but alas, we do not currently have those.
I love the KJV because of the Thees and Thous. If I want a corrected version that also uses the language of the KJV I use American Standard Version 1901 or 1929.
A good choice.
KJVER. Stands for KJV Easy Reader. They take all the thee’s and thou’s out as well as change the endings of words to a more modern day way of saying a word (like -eth would be one). What I really like about the KJVER? They put the words of God-words God speaks in red letters-in the OT! I really like that.
Your final 'one liner' is a pearl of 'good' price 😉
Thank you much!
I'm still tr-only but now willing to learn and compare from modern texts. Learned a lot from you.
Thank you so much!
Great video, Mark! Even better to be able to interact with a KJVonlyist (though he sounds to be more 'KJVonly lite') without demeaning comments in the article!
I found it interesting that David Cloud would suggest that textual criticism is heresy, and then go on to say that most textual critics are "out-and-out heretics". Perhaps some qualifications should be placed on that, because from here, it seems he's calling textual criticism heresy, and then using that as a claim to call those involved in textual criticism heretics.
I'm not sure if I would call people like Wilbur Pickering, Maurice Robinson, Dan Wallace, or James White heretics.
If textual criticism is heresy, then the KJV translators were heretics for-as Scrivener clearly shows (kjvparallelbible.org/which-tr-stephanus-vs-beza/)-doing textual criticism. They were on thin ice, too, to include textual critical notes in the margin of the 1611 KJV. I do not believe textual criticism is heresy.
@@wardonwords Yup, marginal notes in the KJV are ignored by many!
Where I disagree w Cloud: "modern textual criticism is heresy"
Right. He just implicated 98% (my estimate) of evangelical scholars who can read Greek. The majority isn’t always right, but neither is the minority.
I’m not exactly sure if I would put Sam Gipp in the same group as Ruckman and Riplinger. Gipp doesn’t think you must read the KJV to be saved and he doesn’t come off as strong as they do. Steven Anderson I’d say is the new Peter Ruckman.
I haven’t seen Gipp be hateful. Just wild-eyed. I don’t know how else to put it. :( I’ve thought the same about Anderson. And, like Rickman, Anderson is a gifted guy.
@@wardonwords if by gifted you mean certifiably insane, then yes! Very gifted 🤪
He says some pretty crazy stuff, but I have it on good authority from a friend of his-a friend I trust to tell the truth here, for sure-that Anderson is a very gifted guy, intellectually speaking.
@@wardonwords I've actually heard James White in a conversation with someone say the same about Anderson (after he spoke with him for a couple of hours one-on-one and you can probably still find that video here on RUclips). Basically James said intellectually, Anderson is a really smart guy. This shouldn't be totally surprising. There are a lot of really smart people who have wrong beliefs. For example, there are many atheists who are actually very intelligent in certain areas, but obviously we Christians would strongly disagree with their ultimate conclusions.
I appreciate your thorough explanation. It makes so much sense, but I never understood the KJV only stance! Another group that is KJV only are the Mormons. My mother in law is Mormon & the explanation for being KJV only is because the general authorities say to use it only. I would love to see a video from you on Mormonism. I do realize you are very busy with the videos you have been making (along with everything else you must do in a day) It’s just a thought, I enjoy how teach and how well you cover the subject. Thank-you for these excellent videos!
Yes, I've heard from a few Mormons, including a few biblical scholars among them. That's a world I don't pretend to understand. Other things being equal, of course, I'd prefer that the eighteen-year-old "elders" who knock on my door carry contemporary translations-because they are more likely to understand them. I remember asking some of them recently to read portions of Romans to me from their LDS-issued KJVs, and they really struggled and stumbled. =( It was so maddening and sad to hear them read extremely precious words about Christ's vicarious atonement without any understanding. I specifically recall that they had no idea what "propitiation" meant. =(
Gina: check out Jeff Durbin here on RUclips reaching out to Mormons. I think you’ll find his videos very helpful.
@@jtlbb2 thank-you! I have seen his & they are great! I think I’m looking for a magic answer to help my mother in law out of Mormonism. I’m praying for her & I have to trust God! I care a lot about her and it’s frustrating to see people in a tragically misleading false religion!
@@wardonwords I agree! If they do read anything from the Bible it’s often in a booklet from the Mormon church with an explanation through the lens of Mormonism. I know prayer works to lead people out of Mormonism to Christ. I’m just very concerned for her, as she’s in her seventies & was exposed to Covid twice recently. I pray about it & hand over the control to God & then I keep taking it back. 🤦🏼♀️
Concerning your planned update of the KJV, you may want to consider more of a gentle refreshing than a hard update. The people at rasv.org are doing a very nice refresh of the original 1901 American Standard Version ASV for today's readers: easier to read , yet the wording is closer to the original than the NASB 77, 95, or 2020 updates.
Interesting-thanks for the tip! I hadn't seen this. Nice website.
What would be their greek text source then Wescott and Hort?
Excellent!
Many thanks!
I prefer the king James over other English translations personally. The older language sounds more weighty like the grandeur of how stuff sounds in Latin. Requiem in pacem vs Rest In Peace. As an outsider looking in, I honestly don’t see what the debate is about.
I love the King James, too. I like the weight and grandeur. The question is whether that weight and grandeur were present in the original Hebrew and Greek to the degree in which they are present (because of language change over the centuries) in the KJV for contemporary readers.
The other question is whether maintenance of a good tradition such as the KJV ought to be itself a doctrine that churches place in their doctrinal statements, as (tens of?) thousands of churches have done.
@@wardonwords as an orthodox Christian, that’s what I don’t get. Why focus so much on which translation, even prop up a man made translation as something more than it is? I think what truly shocks me about this debate is that Christ isn’t present. If Protestants are so focused on what translation to use, how does that leave room for Christ?
Do you mean "Orthodox Christian"? That is, a member of the Orthodox Church? I suppose Protestants might ask similar questions back to you: why insist on the use of the Septuagint? The use of icons? All the classic things-traditions-to which you know Protestants object? I don't deny that Protestants and Orthodox share precious truth, not at all, nor that our traditions overlap. But the only way we can discern with any sort of finality before the Judgment which traditions are merely human and in which traditions Christ is present is if he tells us-through his Word.
Have I misunderstood in any way?
@@wardonwords In my own church going experience, there really is no difference between scripture and tradition. I would ask why don’t Protestant churches sing Christ is risen on Easter, and just as easily ask why don’t orthodox sing amazing grace. But this is in a context of reading scripture. Most of are services are scripture readings. The entire book of psalms is read each week.
Marry was eternally a virgin. Show me in the Bible? Easy, Ezekiel 44:2 “And the LORD said to me, “This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the LORD God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut.”
1.) Nowhere within the KJV does it say God would use the KJV to preserve His word.
2.) The KJV is hardly the first authorized English Bible.
3.) It is certainly not the first English Bible from an English king.
4.) The authorized KJV in 1611 authorized the Apocrypha to be within it.
5.) The KJV authorized the Apocrypha to be placed within it because they didn't want people to read it! /sarcasm.
6.) Thankfully, the KJV does in places quote from the Septuagint.
7.) King James didn't like the Geneva Bible, the Bible favored by the English people, the Puritans left England with their Geneva Bibles, fleeing the Church of England and persecution, and came to America.
I'd like to know more about how many Bibles were on the Mayflower… Hmm.
Isn't the NKJV basically a KJV revision? I think so
Yes. It is.
Please note that calling something a revision does not mean that it is a correct or good revision. I hear a lot of people refer to the KJV as the old KJV just because someone decided to publish something called the new KJV. This is ridiculous. And no, I am not on anyone's KJV only bandwagon.
fundamentalists easily reject evangelical translations like nkjv and mev bec fundamentalists always suspect evangelicals of being tainted with modernism. fundamentalists tend to prefer pre 1900s works like 1828 webster dictionary and 1769 kjv bec modernism started in the late 1800s and early 1900s.
John 10:5
And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
Personally what you said about the people in quoting David Cloud's quote sounds a lot like what is written here in the Gospel according to John about the sheep who follow the Good Shepherd that is Jesus Christ they will not follow a stranger. With that being said they will not believe the lies of these wicked self righteous prideful racists that operate in these cults that always seek to control peoples lives and do what condemn them to destruction. The King James Version of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures is at the top of my favorite English versions of the Bible the second one I love reading after it is the Amplified Bible. The reasons why is because I was converted by Christ under them both being mentioned in a book I read a long time ago back in a late December night in the year 2018. And I for one believe the Bible that testifies of Jesus Christ, because it is coming to pass before our very eyes in these last days that are prophesied of in the New Testament after the Old Testament.
God only knows where the souls of KJV-Only leaders lie, but I believe Cloud is a true Christian who has been "overtaken in a fault," who thinks he's defending God's truth against Satan's lies. I give him a lot of credit for being able to see more clearly than a lot of our KJV-Only brothers the difference between Ruckmanism and his brand of KJV-Onlyism. I also give him a LOT of credit for feeling for the people who read English as a second language and struggle with the KJV's archaisms.
I hate to say it, but in terms of winning people away from KJV Onlyism, you're wasting your time if you're going to try to do it with yet another modern update of the KJV. Besides the major overhauls, like the NKJV and MEV, there have also been many minor updates, such as the Modern KJV, the American KJV, the 21st Century KJV (also marketed as "The Millennium Bible" when it includes the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books,) and the KJVER (Easy Reader,) etc. All of them have been vociferously rejected by the KJVOnly crowd, and/or have faded into obscurity. Sadly, when push comes to shove, even most so-called "TR Onlyists" have an irrational and emotional attachment to the KJV itself. No modern update, no matter how meticulously executed, is going to please them, and will be reflexively rejected by them for the most pedantic and ignorant of reasons.
Nevertheless, I do not wish do discourage you from doing a new TR and/or Majority Text translation. Simply for the fact that those who favor the CT have their pick of the litter in terms of translation philosophies and flavors, while those who prefer the TR or Majority Text are pretty much stuck with a beautiful but antiquated formal translation (the KJV) or modern English translations strictly in the formal methodology (NKJV, MEV, WEB.) It would be a refreshing breath of fresh air to have the TR and/or Majority Text in a style reminiscent of the NIV/CSB, or even also a looser translation in the vein of the NLT or GNB. Giving those who prefer the TR or Majority Text more options, that also compliment the existing formal translations.
Just don't get your hopes up too high about winning over KJV Onlyists.
I was about to make a very similar comment. You beat me to the punch.
Most KJVO guys I grew up with were outraged over spelling differences between KJVs and miniscule differences in type-settings. My KJV from Bearing Precious Seed was recently called perverted for a single letter being different in a single word. Even the "New Scofield Study Bible" that supposedly flips some archaic words to the margin, and replaces them in the text with modern words, was vehemently preached against even though the original words are still in the margin.
Without the support of at least one major KJVO institution (West Coast Baptist College, for example) I feel such a project is doomed to almost immediate obscurity and total rejection. Those that enjoy all translations don't need it, and those that are KJVO will only reject it. Only if an influential group inside the KJVO movement supported it would it have any chance of gaining a foothold.
Gentlemen, you are both absolutely right. And for once in my life, I am way ahead of someone... :) If I can’t get major institutional backing, I will not do this work. But I have a small chance of getting backing from the only outfit that I think can succeed here. Praying for divine wisdom.
Great video!
Many thanks!
David Cloud - Christ's Messages to the Seven Churches 2 of 8 - 35:02
“To test anything you first got to have a solid authority. That's why we need to hold to the King James Bible. As soon as you leave it, even if you go to the New King James, you are launched out into this huge number of versions, contradictory versions. Pick and choose your own favourite versions. And you have then no authority any more. And the only churches that preach the word of God today with real conviction are those that still hold to the old Bible.”
I think whatever he says in theory, in practice he is still calling us who don’t want to join the KJVO cult, asses.
We have ‘no authority’, and are ‘incapable of preaching the word of God with real conviction’. Basically we’re second class citizens, inferior, not high and right like him and all who agree with him about the KJV.
DA Waite position is about the same. DA Waite is a fine man who has faithfully served the Lord. Now in his 90's
Wow. I didn’t know he was in his 90s!
My KVJ-Only take:
"wild eye and hateful people" - All KJV people are in "that" camp, to some extent. I have had many KJV Only conversations where my only point of discussion is I think the TR (yes, I know more than one, but all close) is correct, and I think modern translator's theology (i.e. John Sailhamer's) corrupts new translations and in the end I am basically called a Nazi. I have also found once a person knows you are KJV they know you believe the Bible as is, and are not going to start modifying things based on "cultural considerations of the time." KJV people believe Paul writing are correct and not to be modified by "what the culture was at that time, i.e. woman can not be pastors.
Ruckman - I find him to be a distraction, I never read any of his works. The issue is are modern translations changing words to match theology and making changes solely for the purpose of following the law for obtaining a copyright. I really don't even think the CT vs. TR is that big of an issue.
NLT Psalms 121:1 - "I look up to the mountains- does my help come from there?" yep, means something different than the NASB, ESV, KJV, Bishops, Mathews, NIV, etc. Copyrightable... check.
Ruckman's personal life has zippo to do with the correctness or incorrectness of his Bibliology. That was beneath you Mr. Ward.
Divisive talk... Paul was pretty divisive, and quoting him in many "churches" today can be seen as pretty divisive....
And we get to the crux of the matter. Arguments over text and translation methods. And we can have some very rational arguments related to this with the NASB 1977 and NKJV 1984... BUT a person like me looses it when we try to rationalize justification of the changes in just the ESV 2001, 2007, 2011, 2016, ESV-CE, Gideon ESV. When I can pull up a random chapter in the OT and find a verse with 5 different meaning in 5 versions of the Bible, I am not going to accept that is because of expert translators (many of whom work on multiple translations.)
The KJV 1769 could be updated, but it would not be copyrightable. You would not be adding any New Authorship. The only way to update it would be an authorized version of the Crown, and I don't see that happening.
New KJV.... yep false friend and dead words... so if an update is possible, can you name for me one chapter of one book in any new translation that does not change the meaning of any verse from the KJV? Sure, I am biased, but I have never been able to go through an entire chapter and not seen a change of meaning. For example:
Exodus 25:5
KJV - rams' skins dyed red, and badgers' skins
ESV - tanned rams’ skins, goatskins
NLT - tanned ram skins and fine goatskin leather
NASB - rams’ skins dyed red, porpoise skins
CSB - “ram skins dyed red and fine leather
I mean really, this is nuts. Represented here in the four translations is probably the majority of "OT scholars" alive right now. Are these the same men that are going to update the KJV?
I have issues with the NKJV.... and the main one is: When the KJV and NKJV disagree, which one is correct? The second issue is when the NKJV has their revision, what will that look like?
It is my belief (I think with some rational support) the KJV translator that revised the Bishop's Bible knew the original languages better than translator today. Thus, I believe when options arose they picked the correct option in translation.
The CR issues I think is being glossed over. Just as Cloud has "belief" in the TR, Mark appears to have "belief" in the CR. And we can have a rational argument over the CR... BUT I really don't think the TR v. CR is really the major issue in new translations. I can't support any modern translations of Genesis, and that has zero to do with the TR. CR people like to focus of 1 John 5:7. that is one verse, and not the issue.
Why should the use of multiple versions cause confusion? Oh my.... and Mark does not have a "standard" in the Greek, the CR is evolving. I like it how the Hebrew (majority of the Bible) is really never discussed.
Are we seriously going to compare Deu 28:22 with what I show on Exodus 25:5 above?
Circling back.... so change the archaic words, false friends, and 37 changes due to KJV marginal notes.... you don't have enough to copyright...
Psalms 16:6 - So, here is the HUGE issue. The NIV is a better translation for this verse, fine, not going to argue. BUT is it by default being said the NIV (and whatever subsequent revision of the NIV there is) is also superior to the KJV? By pointing out Psalms 16:6 is the rest of the NIV when in variance with the KJV also being validated? When this question is posed the answer usually is "don't worry, the modern Translators are Godly men" and my response would be "tell that to Bathsheba's husband when you talk about how Godly David was."
I would note in closing, one issue David Cloud discusses is the required changes for Copyright in order for a Bible version to be accepted for Copyright purposes. This would be making changes solely for financial purposes. Sort of glossed over in this video.
Cloud lost credibility years ago!
I haven't followed him for a good while. I wasn't aware that he had lost credibility. Seems to me like he's the same guy he was when I used to read his articles as part of my job at a library. He's been consistent in his views over 20 years, as far as I can tell.
and why ?
I am sympathetic to the antiquarian issue too. I am not against updated language
But I do feel proponents have one case to make here - consistency. If we take rhis view, shouldn't we also push to update the language of Shakespeare? That is from the same time period, and we not only read it in that form, we push for it. Academics dont favor any update.
What about Chaucer? That's even further removed, but not many academics push for such an update here.
It's a strong argument, and one that we need to address if we're serious about it.
A worthy point. A few thoughts…
- Shakespeare was written in English; the KJV is already a translation.
- If the purpose of reading Shakespeare is to eat your cultural vegetables, then you should choke down his archaic words as best you can. But the point of Scripture surely is not to have an English cultural experience but to understand what God said.
- People simply do not understand Shakespeare as well as they say they do. John McWhorter discusses this in Words on the Move.
- Chaucer is truly unreadable by today's English speakers. He's already being encountered primarily in translation. How long do we wait with the KJV? Till it's 50% unintelligible? That might as well be 100% unintelligible. Miss even one key word in a sentence, and that sentence goes dark.
- We've got Bible to guide us: 1 Cor 14 says that edification requires intelligibility.
Hope that helps!
@@wardonwords No you haven't addressed the core issue here. Really the matter is do we raise our intellect up to the Bible, or lower the Bible to our level? You can make a case either way, but lowering anything precious raises a number of questions. It should. I hope you understand and agree.
Whether a translation or not matters very little. It's still archaic words that are unfamiliar. I fail to see that you can make a logical distinction.
We do understand Shakespeare reasonably well. McWhorter is incorrect here. Simply because he wasnt the only writer of that time. Ben Jonson, Christopher Marlowe, etc. all used the same linguistic style and are heavily commented. It isn't a question of word meaning, context, or usage.
The argument will be made here that we hold Literature in higher regard than the Holy Word of God. I know that isnt your intention, but that is indeed the argumwnt proponents will make.
Again, you're not helping me here. I don't really disagree with you. I'm hoping to help you see this as it stands with those you are trying to reach.
@@trueedge2097 My friend, do you think KJV English is easier or harder for modern day Americans (and Brits and Kenyans and Aussies and others who speak English) than the Koine Greek was for, say, Timothy?
Why the fact that the KJV is a translation and Shakespeare is not matters is that we have a natural reticence to updating the originals. But a translation is already an "update" into the language spoken at a particular place and time. Does that make sense? The parallel would be a Koine-Greek-speaking Christian in, say, the year 500. His son says to him (in the Koine Greek of the time), "Pater, why can we not update the New Testament to speak like we do instead of talking funny the way it does?" And the father, who happens to be a linguist, would say, "My son, these are the words of God. Someday Greek will move far enough away from the Greek spoken at the time of the apostles that a translation will need to be made. But we're going to try to hold on as long as we can."
@@wardonwords Im not sure I'm following your logic, if indeed there is logic here.
Shakespeare and KJV are indeed harder for modern day English speakers and those learning. At least, that is the argument you appear to be making here
No I don't agree that a translation is an update. And I don't agree that it makes a difference. The problem is a problem for the end reader, not the academic. The academic is the one who facilitates the exchange.
Again. My concern is helping you understand the people you are trying to convince. I don't disagree with you too much. I am for an updated KJV.
But then people who use and believe the KJV don't have a problem with using the KJV and would need to be convinced. You haven't exactly done that here.
David Cloud (way of life) and chick publications are both more conservative than D. A. Waite (bible for today) and TBS bec David Cloud (way of life) and chick publications solution to archaic words is just a list of archaic words with definitions which was all TBS had until they finally came out with their Westminster reference bible.
Cloud is far from "King James Bible only" when he is praising the Greek and claiming that the Greek is something to be adhered to. In fact, this is the position of "Textus Receptus onlyism".
Cloud is right to reject various extreme views like KJB "double inspiration" and so forth, but Cloud's own view is much closer to that of the anti-King James Bible onlyists, in that he does not affirm that the King James Bible alone is perfect.
When modernist (with a lower case m) Mark Ward finds so much in common with Cloud, it must be particularly in the area of denying that the Scripture is perfectly adequately in English without any needful recourse to Greek or Hebrew. Thus, the "common ground".
To call Cloud a "King James Bible only leader" is entirely misleading.
One area where Cloud is good is where he shows how modern versions and modern textual criticism draws from the wells of Infidelity. Some of that water sadly is seeped into the belief known as "Textus Receptus onlyism".
When I began this work I knew there were divisions within KJV-Onlyism; White’s book is clear on this, and of course I’ve seen it with my own eyes for a long time. But what I wasn’t quite as prepared for is the rhetoric coming from the Ruckmanite strain back toward the mainstream KJV-Only strain.
A perfect Bible translation requires inspiration, "an extraordinary work of God's Spirit," as the KJV translators put it. This is Ruckmanism. A perfect KJV is Ruckmanism.
You are wrong to characterise KJBO as a whole movement with Ruckmanites and TROs, when many KJBOs have another view; White's book misrepresents KJBO by presenting either TROs or Ruckmanites, but not the vast middle "perfectionist" KJBO view. The Ruckmanites are strong in their rhetoric/name calling, but KJBOs in general, that is, those who reject the "Greek" view/TRO view, certainly are clear that they are against both fringes of the what is called KJBO.
A perfect Bible translation is something to be expected as based on Scripture doctrine and to be seen in the divine outworking in history, it does not require special inspiration. It is in the same category as the post-apostolic Church defining Canon or defining doctrines like the Trinity, or Scriptural infallibility, etc.
While Ruckmanites may have a perfect KJB view with their explanations about double inspiration, the middle, average KJBO view is one of having a perfect English translation. Indeed, a transcendent and exemplary translation, where the logical conclusion is that it is better to begin pursuing teaching the world English. To lump a high providentialist view (right things culminated in right translation at the right time in the right language) and an ecclesiastical non-cessationist view (the Church is supersuccessionary to the apostles = a perfect translation was inevitable in history) as "Ruckmanism" is very imprecise to the point of being intellectually dishonest.
To imply that the TRO view of a small part of "KJBO" are the "mainstream" is also incorrect. TRO might be more palatable and nearer to the views of modern translation supporters, but it is both the minority and least definite of the broad "KJBO" views.
I repeat, James White's book incorrectly defines KJBOs as, basically either TROs or else essentially Ruckmanites, skipping the vast majority of KJBOs who do not gravitate to either pole (or "extreme") of the broad KJBO field/definition/category. But James White covered this up by saying that KJBO defies definition.
@@wardonwords You have misquoted the KJB translators. They argued that good Protestant translations before their time should not be rejected just because they might have had some blemishes.
Proper KJBO today does not deny the existence of Scripture in Greek or in other translations. It simply points to where the standard is, that the KJB is a proper and perfect translation.
The KJB men, in saying " For what ever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?" were not in any way denying or implying that their own work was imperfect. They were in fact saying Scripture itself was perfect. They indicated that their translation work was "good", was "perfected", had "the good hand of the Lord upon them", etc., which indicates that no cavil should easily be made against their work. "Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavor to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us." They didn't claim inspiration. And they didn't say we need to still go back to the Greek because their work was inadequate.
"For by this means it cometh to pass, that whatsoever is sound already, ... the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also, if any thing be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place." The KJBO believes that the truth is set in place, just as the translators said.
@@bibleprotector "A perfect Bible translation is something to be expected."
No, it's a literal impossibility, especially when going from ancient non-Germanic languages to (Early) Modern English. Even modern Greek Bibles have had to update some of the Koine Greek words in the New Testament to avoid miscommunication to current readers, and that's technically the same language.
@@MAMoreno It is not impossible to have a perfect translation, because the world is not that naturalistic, material, deistic place you appear to assume, but a place where divine providence is outworking under sovereignty. (That's why I also believe in the traditional Protestant historicist interpretation of Bible prophecy.)
In the natural, of course perfect fidelity and verity in translation is impossible, going from The Bacchae, or Ovid or Augustine to today's English. But we are dealing with God and the communication of His will, not some human work. Translation, the processes of conveying truth through time, transmission and gathering (textually) are all concepts under the aegis of God as much as the first act of inspiration and writing of any Scripture book was by the original writer.
Who confused the tongues? Who gave tongues to the Church at Pentecost? (I am a Pentecostal by the way.)
Who rules in the kingdoms of men? And who said, "Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings"? Is not God the Lord of languages, are not all the variations in accents, dialects, divergences, borrowings, etc., not only known of God, but planned by Him? Therefore English itself, and the specific English of the King James Bible must needs be raised up of God for His purposes, who are you to say it is impossible?
And if the language can be prepared, why not learning? Isn't that what we should expect, that we should know the truth? Surely God is faithful, and communicates to the world in English just as He was able to communicate in Bible times through the Hebrew scripture. The same message then must be made manifest now, we have to have what the prophets wrote, and properly.
I have recently seen that God has designed the KJV numerically so that there are many numerical patterns that we can witness that are only found in KJV. This shows the supernatural nature of KJV only as these are not found in any other version. God has clearly done this to set appart His Word from mans versions of it. God does not intend for us to be confused by many different versions. God bless and may He give you a humility and Wisdom.
But Mr. Cloud will remove, still today, your comment if you do not worship the KJV Bible. When it comes to Greek, it should be understood the word “cross” comes from Catholicism and Anglicanism and is not located in the original texts. There is a Greek word for cross, but it is not used in Scripture because it is inaccurate. Tree, pole or stake is precise and true to the Greek word-σταυρός staurós, stow-ros'. It was most likely a roughly, hewn, splintery stake of no loveliness. And this word is true to the pole displaying a deadly snake held by Moses to stop the plague of serpents which represents Christ's death for sinners, (Numbers 21) being people had to look upon it to be saved. Now we know people must look to Christ Jesus alone to be saved.
Crosses have been presented in paganism since the early history of men and were naturally introduced by the Anglican translators of the KJVB. Anglicans walk hand in hand with Catholics in many instances and this is why you have Mary idols in Westminster Abbey in London, and I can testify to this as I have been in this Abbey on tour.
Excellent video expounding the history of pagan crosses: ruclips.net/video/GG6ptqPDgQ4/видео.html
The cross worship information reaches back to the Egyptians and Tammuz who we read regarding in Ezekiel chapter 8. In the following 9th chapter, we read about the 144,000 male, virgin Jews and we also read of them in Revelation chapters 7 and 14.
KJVB (Also known as the revised Bishop’s Bible of the Anglican Church) was originally printed with the Apocrypha because it was translated by the Anglican Church/Church of England/Episcopal Church. It was removed from protestant Bibles till 1885.
I would never say the wicked word “authorized” for the acceptance of a translation by a pagan king. And it is deceptive for church leaders to shout “authorized” without explaining it was authorized by a pagan king who stood with the idolatrous Mary of the Catholic Church; plus, failing to mention it included the Apocrypha when printed.
I will say it is the Holy Word of God when words are rightly translated. Many Bible and Baptist colleges and churches treat this version as an idol and these churches appear cultish. Pastors do no tell the truth regarding the history of the KJV Bible and desire to say, “Authorized” which is totally silly. It is all about God not a king’s authorization.
Truth is all about equipping the saints for the work of ministry.
And it must be added, the KJV translators translated the word “baptist” or “baptize” because Anglicans sprinkle and King James was a member of the Church of England/Anglican Church/Episcopal Church. This is why the word “submerge” was not used in this version. To use words such as "immersion" or "to immerse” would have offended his fellow pagans. He believed he would appease all with the word “baptize” that people could imagine in their minds as they desired. We do know John the submerg-er, who worshipped Christ in his mother’s womb, brought many to repentance that resulted in submerging with a changed lifestyle.
I will add, I do not stand on today’s modern versions. I do enjoy NASB unrevised. The revised changed the word long-suffering to tolerant and you and I know God is not tolerant of any sin and Judgment Day is arriving. And I find NKJV Bible quite accurate and the American Standard Version of 1901.
The NKJV and the ASV are both excellent. Enjoy!
So I'm curious about something: Why is your channel essentially going at, or against, KJV "Onlyists", or "correcting" the KJV of the Bible? There are so many English translations out there you could be "fixing" or going after in some theological way, but you don't. You're focus are KJV criticisms. That Bible has been the product of our English literary history for hundreds of years, and is responsible for thousands and thousands and thousands of men and women, boys and girls being saved, and yet you have this contentious sprit towards it.
Admittedly, I have watched some of your videos and although you present yourself as an educated man, there is an arrogance you give off based on your "education" you have received from man's teachings. Don't confuse this with me saying your education means nothing, but I am saying it has made you give off a haughtiness that contradicts your well intentioned path. If you remember, Saul, before he was Paul, was high minded and went against his brethren who were claiming the Lord Jesus as the Son of God. He was a Chief Jew, to put it simply. Because of his high mind of himself, he felt he was in the right because he was the best and knew that he was right in his enforcement of the laws against the Christians. Afterwards, once he was converted by God Himself, for 3 years he trained under the guidance of the Lord Jesus Christ, and he came out Spiritually filled and DENOUNCING the Jewish mind of being above others, as the special people they were so used to feeling. He counted everything before his conversion as dung.
Your attempts on bringing a new "perspective" and "correction" to the KJV is thinking higher than you ought defined. There is a reason the KJV is the only non-copyrighted version of the English language. What you're trying to do is dangerous, and I would ask you to reconsider your ambition.
I will finish by saying this, I actually use other Bibles. I use the KJV primarily, NASB, ESV, and HCSB. I do not believe the KJV is the only Bible that is able to be used for good. But, I do believe it is the most accurate English version and uncorrupted of all English versions.
Pray for me never to be guilty of arrogance, my friend. There is no room for pride in the Christian life-and most certainly not in mine. If you are gaining benefit from reading multiple translations, then you have already gotten the message of this channel! I do hope-hope!-to expand my series explaining why translations differ. I think you may find some help there if you keep watching. But I talk about the KJV because it has become a doctrine that separates brothers in Christ.
@@wardonwords if you think I got the message of your channel by using multiple translations, you're wrong. I told you that your channel is mostly predicated upon being against the KJV, not edifying it. Just because I use multiple versions, I still, and always will, primarily use the KJV, and I will always believe, and know that is is the most accurate English translation.
I urge to please stop making videos correcting, or in anyway dismissing the KJV. I would ask you to edify it, and provide reasons why other translations are good as well in their own ways, and actually going against the ones that are OBVIOUSLY not right.
@@johnnieboy66 I agree with both of your comments. I've noticed the same.
You err saying "New Testament standards" will judge Ruckman or anyone. Any man 'in-Christ' will have his works judged at the Judgment seat of Christ but still remain saved. Why is it you Calvo's drag works in wherever you can?
These are the verses by which I believe Ruckman ought to be judged:
"We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother."
(1 John 4:19-21 ESV)
@@wardonwords Pulpit and Pen type Fruit inspectors should rightly divide what is intended for the Body of Christ (a faith alone and strictly Pauline concept) and they'll do fine. It would be just as grave to quote from Hebrews or James and I'd still ask, "from which of the 12 tribes do you come?"
Simple, You are KJV also. You are NKJV believer. Coz it will be ironic if you like KJV and not use it. "Ye" in KJV means plural. Changed by NKJV Translators to "You" which is singular. Big difference.
Not sure I follow!
KJV is highly qualified as a verbatim or word for word translation from Hebrew(Masoretic text) and Greek(Textus Receptus). Why use in your pulpit other translations if you know that the most accurate translation is KJV!? Ironic!
You are just like every other preacher who wants compromise. I am very familiar with David Cloud, but he isn't God. The KJV is the pure word of God and should not be changed or compromised and this is not based on some KJV-Only cult either! Leave God's Holy word alone!! There are enough false versions out there that has watered down the message of God, the deity of Jesus Christ, the message of the gospel and the horrendousness of sin!
Please interact with the arguments made in the video.
Hey Do you Know David W Daniels in Chicktracts youtube Channel? He is the Wise KJVO You Need to Defend the Other Translation Cause this Man Is Wise
I am aware of Daniels.
I myself am “KJV only”, however, serve in a church that is not, and do not make that an essential issue to salvation and am happy to fellowship with brethren that disagree with me, and only require that we are in one accord on the Gospel and how one receives eternal life, and I used to be in agreement with your impression that the KJV is >not< the only translation(excluding the 6 pre KJV English translations) that is TR only, however, I have come to find in my own research that it is demonstrably false, and I would simply implore you to look into it more closely. The NKJV very clearly deviates from the TR in favor of the TV and critical text readings in many of the same places the ESV or NIV does. I found it completely impossible to conclude that the translators took certain passages from the TR in the NKJV and the NKJV contains many of the same footnotes regarding variant readings and/or the absence of that verse in “earlier manuscripts.” Obviously we are not in agreement on the issue of the KJV, but I hope that my preface made it clear that my reproof is not ill intended. I used to believe there were modern versions that were TR only, but the NKJV is most certainly not one of them. As for the other you mentioned, I own somewhere between 20-30 Bible versions including the cult versions such as the New World Translation and the Inspired Version written(NOT translated) by Joseph Smith, but I do not own the other version that you mentioned and thus have not compared one. So, I need to get one and compare it and do the research on that one before concluding whether it is or is not, and I intend to do so. With all sincerity and brotherly love, please look at the NKJV again. I’m 100% convinced that I was wrong and have since had to change my position, that it is not a TR only translation. I appreciate the video. God bless!
Brother, I really appreciate your tone-it’s noticeable, and I’m grateful. Can you point me to specific passages in which the NKJV deviates from the TR? And which TR are you saying it’s deviating from?
@@wardonwords I appreciate that it was taken in the right spirit! 🙏🏻 It has been a few years since I’ve gone through the NKJV and somewhere, I have a bunch of stuff written down, but do not currently know exactly where those notes are. But these are a few things that I remember.
Isaiah 9:3, the NKJV changes the Hebrew text behind the KJV by leaving out the “not” (“לא”) with OT textual criticism, the difference being that joy is increased instead of not being increased. The NKJV has a footnote here explaining that they followed the Qere reading, which obviously is not the same text the OT KJV was translated from.
Jude 1:3, the NKJV includes “our” (“ημων”), following the CT.
Colossians 3:17, the CT does not include “και,” as does the NKJV.
In my opinion it could be argued that the NKJV also used the same texts as the KJV, but do not believe it can be argued that they exclusively used those texts. They don’t claim to use the same texts in their preface and reference another reading the KJV did not in Isaiah 9:3. If I’m not mistaken, the preface does say that they used the 1967/77 BHS, but says where it fails to match the Bomberg text, they went with the Bomberg reading. I do not recall exactly which TR they claim to use. I would need to find my notes and NKJV Bible. I know they’re both in storage somewhere, I would just have to find them.
@@norandavis856 My friend, you're quoting Kent Brandenburg (or someone he was quoting?) without attribution. =| I felt Kent made some fair points. But I have already gone back and forth with him here: byfaithweunderstand.com/2019/08/18/are-there-critical-text-readings-in-the-nkjv-after-all-a-nerdy-and-detailed-response-to-a-set-of-fair-questions/
@@wardonwords That name does not sound familiar, but that doesn’t mean the references didn’t originate from him. I have a habit of saving things in the “notes” app on my phone to check into later. Those were references that I put in there maybe a year or two years ago, and remember looking into it, but I don’t remember where I got them from. I never intended to use it for anything but personal use so obviously I would not have cited it. It’s the only references I had immediately on hand. I will look in storage for my own notes on that specific version this week.
@@norandavis856 I totally accept your explanation! I absolutely know how that is.
Excellent!
Many thanks!