@@markwardonwords I think you prey on malleable, weak-minded individuals who aren't grounded in faith enough to see the misguidedness of your positions. The KJV elevates the reader rather than debase the text that is the foundation of Christianity in the English speaking World and the book that unified and shaped our nation. You're "readability" position and argument is adolescent and immature and in a broader context a distraction from the Great Commission because you're focused on minutiae instead of mission.
"It takes a preacher to explain the meaning." Isn't that kinda the whole reason Tyndale started translating the Bible into English in the first place? So the plowboy didn't have to rely on the clergy? Mark, you did a great job, but the arguments from the other side really just defeated themselves tonight.
That's what I was gathering from the opening statement, too: it doesn't matter if any of us laypeople can understand the Bible ourselves, because we'll always have our priests and clergy to rightly explain it to us. What a reassuring message to receive from someone who understands the original biblical languages! Who needs any English translation of the Bible as long as we have preachers? 🙄
@@classicchristianliterature in large part, yes, because aside from illiteracy they didn't have a Bible of their own to read and discover Christ. Bibles were not mass produced or confined to church buildings and people were dependent on a priest or pastor to tell them about God rather than having their own relationship with God.
@@WiscoMike Christ has been building His church for 2000 years. On the day of Pentecost, 3000 were added to the church. Not one of them had a KJV. Tertullian, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bullinger… all of these Christians who God used, no King James. The printing press was a great help to the church, as was Martin Luther’s German translation, the Geneva Bible…etc. Church history didn’t start in 1611.
I was frustrated by the opening statement, where he said little about readability except "it's okay if common people can't understand it all", and couldn't help but take potshots at underlying text. Regardless, I was thrilled that the discussion was characterized by grace! An answer to many prayers, I am certain! Now if only the comment section could follow suit... 😬
It’s also crazy at the hour and 39 minute mark he said don’t take a preacher’s or dictionaries word on what something means. So basically, he’s saying we cannot be certain about God’s word.
Dan's rebuttal to Dr. Ward's opening statement is spot on and absolutely proves the need for contemporary English Bible translations. He mentioned that Dr. Ward helped the audience to understand the King James Bible, which was true. The reason they now understand the KJV is because of those modern translations. Its a good thing they exist. All of these trusted Bibles help us to take the WORD and put it in our hearts and meditate on the WORD. Let's not throw away the KJV, but let's not also reject contemporary translations so that we miss out on the WORD being fully understood the best we can.
@@tugbankert6581 your statement is illogical if you are saying that they only understand the KJV because of other translations availability. If they are KJV only they wouldn't be referring to lesser translations to find clarity. The KJV is clear on its face without a handicap ramp to rightly divide the words of truth.
@WiscoMike I'm glad you knew what I was saying. Even KJV only Christians admit that modern versions help to clear up words they didn't know they didn't know. Dan conceded to that point.
I so enjoyed the debate. Both of you were kind and respectful of each other. However, you certainly had the better argument. I love your heart, Brother!
I went to watch this same debate over on the King James Bible research council youtube channel and was very disheartened by the comments. King James Onlyism breaks my heart as a Christian. It’s crazy how Satan can use people’s stubbornness and preferred translations to confuse and divide us.
After seeing this post, I went to have a brief read through on the comments on the Bible research council RUclips page and I've concluded that KJV only folks can't be reasoned with.
@@femiwilliams7906The Very Online KJVOs frequently/usually cannot be. But individual KJV-Only brothers spoke to me courteously in person after the debate.
@@markwardonwords Glad to hear you were warmly received after the debate. In general, it seems people online tend to be more unkind than are in person... Sadly, I've recently decided to move on from a KJV only-ish church after attending for over a year. It has been really hard to stay committed there because of other issues, but the KJV only-ism issue was a major stumbling block.
@@markwardonwords if you love your wife like you claimed to love the King James Bible, are you equally critical and fault finding of her? When you stated that you grew up with and love the King James Bible, you seemed to me to lack credibility. If you loved the King James Bible and it's role in historical Reformation and present Christianity you wouldn't be making the declarations that you do. I felt you were being dishonest and trying to ingratiate yourself to the audience. Deceitful might be a good descriptor. John 1:1 claims Christ is the Word of God, if so, is the Word that we have perfect and a reflection of Christ? When the balance of Heaven is weighed, do you think your positions hold weight in souls saved for eternity or is this just an exercise in self-aggrandizement?
Brother Mark, my wife and I prayed for you prior to and throughout your debate. What a fantastic job you did with the Spirit's help! This was a rare opportunity to limit the scope of the discussion away from the TC debate. God bless you for hard work and years!
Mark, your heart was abundantly clear in this debate. I think there are more than a few people who walked away from hearing this debate not a little more edified about the KJV and the blessings of modern English translations. You have my utmost respect by your clarity, careful use of words, and your desire to maintain Christ-like peace.
@@arturoecheverria9865 you're kidding right? He made pointed and directed attacks on the debate floor claiming that the KJVRC do more research. Mark was completely condescending. The other side was too polite. What would be more entertaining, and I true debate fashion, would be for each side to argue their other's position.
Many are making comments about who won the debate but I think this misses the point. If you’ve ever known someone who is stuck in KJV jail the fear of touching a more understandable Bible can be overwhelming not to mention the guilt if you did try one. If you’re married to a staunch KJVonlyist and you’re not allowed to read another Bible for yourself or to your children the unnecessary control is damaging for you and your kids. Please, commenters, try to see this as something beyond an academic debate. To the men out there, please try to see this from a woman’s perspective. The goal is an understandable Bible and freedom from jail. This goes beyond the academics. Thank you and God bless. Well done Mark. Thank you.
My goodness, while this was a calm and well-mannered debate, Haifley kept moving the goalposts (or adding new ones) by mentioning the "missing verses". Textual criticism wasn't part of this debate, but he just simply couldn't let it go.
I enjoyed this so much, and it spoke my heart. For years, so many things, at times, I have never understood in the KJV Bible, but growing up on it, I feel like I am sinning when I go to another Bible. I really do. This has made me laugh. I am thankful to know it is ok, to look at other versions after hearing Pastor Mark Ward. But the Debate itself, was so informative. Both Pastors were wonderful. I am thankful for the opportunity to have seen this. Thank you
Very cordial and informative debate. I will say, thanks to Mark’s work I became more interested in the KJV, and just finished my first full read-through of it a few weeks ago. I was using a bible that had many of the archaic words and false friends marked in the footnotes, but I’m sure I missed many others. There were sections where I really struggled, and others where I felt like the meaning was jumping out to me more than it had before. Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the KJV. I don’t plan on using it as my main translation, but will continue to use it for comparisons to other translations and daily devotional.
God be thanked for this debate, both of you did will. It helps us navigate through all the complexities of word of God. Thank you bothin my eye you both won.
This was quite an eye-opening experience. I now see how reading a version of the Bible that clarifies the Word of God in my language is important vs. relying on a preacher that may or may not clarify the archaic words of the KJV translation to provide me with understanding of God's Word. Thank you for your work and insight.
I met for a while with international students doing bible studies, it was difficult enough at times explaining words in an easier to read traslation like the NLV, it would've been almost Impossible to do so with the KJV, thank you for your work in helping others be confident they can read the bible in modern english and that it has been properly translated
Aaaaw, "Shout to the Lord" at the end! Glad I could finally search it out. I remembered the tune but not the words. Sheesh, I must be getting old. We sang it a million times at my old church!
I've heard other preachers say that the whole Bible was not meant to be understood. I find that to be a horrifying thought. It's like God is messing with our minds. The Bible communicates God's word to us, and we must listen and learn.
It just about blew my mind in the very first opening statement when the pastor Dan H conflated Jesus' concealing truth from the lost with Christians, who have the Holy Spirit, not understanding the Bible. I don't think he even realized what it sounded like he was saying, there. He did make clarifying statements later about the Spirit growing Christians' understanding as they mature, but still... the initial comments were jarring.
Great job Mark and Dan….great discussion. I appreciate the venue, college, moderator…. And the spirit in which this discussion was had. Very fruitful in my opinion.
You did a great job Mark - very clear information and a loving heart for God’s Word. It was nice to see a debate where people treat each other with respect.
Mark, great job. I'm still listening...but gasped at 48:00 ish mark, when he applauded how clear you were in explaining a few false friends, and then declared, "see, now you know your King James Bible....it takes a preacher to know the sense......because there are words that there is no easy way to communicate....." Very concerning.
Great debate! You obviously won hands down. I loved how kind you both were but honestly, you stuck to the topic at hand and made sensible points while your opponent has to fill his time with jokes or other topics. Even when he did speak to the topic, his arguments fail at the slightest examination. I am shocked that he used the argument that Jesus spoke in parables so therefore the Bible today should be in a confusing language?! Jesus concealed his identity so he could go to the cross to pay for our sins at Passover, and not be forcibly made king on one hand nor be killed prematurely on the other. Jesus said when he was lifted up on the cross, then he could draw all men, and no longer hide his identity. He told his apostles after his resurrection and Pentecost to preach the gospel everywhere and even gave then supernatural power to speak the various languages of the peoples so they could understand (not so they could be confused). I was surprised that he tried to use Philip and the eunich as an argument that preachers need to also be on the spot Bible translators. Philip explained the Scripture to the eunich; he was not translating it from even more ancient to contemporary language for him. I thought it was a tangent when he said the plow boy couldnt read. What's his point? That lay people should not read the Bible for themselves but should only listen to expert preachers at church? He says people need to be educated but then insinuates the plow boy doesn't need the Bible in his language becuase he cant read anyway (and I guess he never will?) Once the plow boy could read, then he needed a Bible in his language not just the Vulgate. Most English speaking teens and adults today can read. Our language. Our dialect. He says we should just trust preachers, but go study the Bible for ourselves. Yet he contradicts himself as he wants to deny people the tools to study for themselves, namely a translation into their own language. I understand the temptation for a KJVO to keep attacking the underlying text of most modern versions which are shorter especially by a couple large sections. I understand your desire to set that aside entirely. But on the other hand, to the passage you quoted, the Bible itself says it's better to speak 5 intelligible words than a thousand in an unknown tongue. The modern versions are the "5 words"- shorter but intelligible- while the KJV is the "thousand words in an unknown tongue.
It's also not just a question of whether the plow boy might learn to read, but also of if he hears the Bible read in the evening by his sister who can read, will he be able to understand the words? For Protestants in particular, it's an important tenet that the Word of the Lord be comprehensible to everybody, because the Gospel is capable of being understood by even the simplest if it is only put into words they can grasp. (I see that as an argument in favor of even colloquial versions designed for reading out loud, so long as they are used for their proper purpose and not treated as deep study tools.)
I wish the debate format would have allowed for more interaction, but I still think Mark was able to counter the few points made by the other side. BTW, it is not just vocabulary that makes the KJV difficult, it is the very awkward sentence structure that you find throughout the text. Difficult phraseology, obsolete words, and false friends all make for a very intimidating and difficult reading experience that largely makes the plowboy dependent on the preacher to understand their Bible. The congregation will remain simple in their understanding of God's word and very few will be true Bereans. Part of my goal as a teacher is to help those who listen to me learn how to study the Bible for themselves. The way I work through a passage or a topic is something I hope my listeners will be able to do on their own for whatever topic or passage they are interested in. The first step in all that, is understanding the words and thoughts of the text.
Brother Ward - thank you for your effort and care in this endeavor. Are you open to another future debate on this topic? I would be interested in seeing someone who is more organized and articulate meet your points head on, versus what happened here. Granted, I would be much more interested in both sides working together to prepare a KJV update than I would be with continued debate. The recent X/Twitter exchange of Pastor Shakour's was a bit disheartening, since Joe is perhaps the most reasonable and charitable contemporary proponent of the KJV position. Yes, there is much Gospel sharing work to be done, but can we walk and chew gum at the same time? If we are going to continue insisting on the exclusive use of the choices made by the King James translators-Joe's emphasis on the choices-then we must insist on preparing an update that brings those choices into the language we currently speak.
Dr. Ward, congrats on a well-spoken, well-reasoned, respectful, and professional debate! I don't know what the response from the other side of the aisle will be, but to me it seemed clear that God aided you to communicate well through any nervousness, hit your main points right on target, and avoid red herrings. I know there were many prayers going up for this debate, and I hope you can relax briefly now. 😊
This was an outstanding debate, kind and courteous. Congratulations. I think you won this pretty handily. Dr. Haifley seemed completely unprepared, but it may be the weakness of the position. I think some of the points are defensible, but he didn't succeed. He seems like the KJVOs I've met in the past (outside the internet). They were all kind and considerate. It doesn't make the position stronger, but it makes him quite likable.
I would like to thank both debate participants. The purpose of a debate is to flesh out ideas and flaws in the positions of each participant with the intent to both inform and persuade those who are listening to come over, to some degree, their position. May I also say that none of us, regardless of whether we hold a KJV only position or a multiple translation position, should ever view a debate as a sporting event with a winner and loser. What we should do is listen intently, with sincerity, to the positions of each participant, and LEARN whatever we can from both of them, so long as what we learn is for the glory of Christ. That is the chief end of man: to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. When we listen to a debate, we should be praying that the Lord would teach us something from both Christian brothers engaging in a debate like this one. Brother Mark and Haifley! Thank you for modeling brotherly love for one another on a topic that is so contentious within Conservative Christianity. I refuse to crown either of you "the winner". Instead, I would like to exalt the Lord Jesus Christ, whom I believe was honored and glorified through your debate with one another. You both have set an example that all other Christians, no matter which side of the debate with which they agree, should seek to emulate. If one's first response is to slander another brother as a heretic, unbeliever, etc. in contradiction to what the very translators of the KJV would have done, then you are in the flesh and need to repent. If one believes that those who defend the KJV are also uneducated buffoons from the backwoods and treats them as something less than a true brother and sister in Christ, then you are in the flesh and need to repent. There have been great controversies among genuine brothers and sisters in Christ for hundreds of years about a wide variety of issues within orthodox Christianity. I would advise one thing. The scripture states explicitly that we are to judge with just and equal measures, we are to judge without respect of persons (and without respect to our own "crowd"), that we are to love one another and our neighbor (a command), and to not level an accusation against an elder (a teaching authority within the church) except it be by 2-3 witnesses, and it had better be backed up with a scriptural foundation (direct statements in scripture, not inferences or allusions from scripture which are subjective by nature). "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one toward another." Regardless of which side of this issue you take, can you say that you are doing that to your brother who holds the opposite position from you? If not, you need to repent and be reconciled to your brother. To partake of the Lord's Supper(table) without repenting and being reconciled to your brother is to partake of it unworthily, which the apostle Paul gave a dire warning against in 1 Corinthians. Let us remember that even in a debate and issue as contentious as this one, our God has explicitly commanded us "Be ye holy, for I the Lord am Holy". We will give an account to him of every idle word spoken. Let us be slow to speak and bear the fruit of the Spirit toward those brothers who disagree with us. When you engage with a brother who disagrees with you are you bearing "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance" when dealing with them? If not, you are not abiding in Christ. Stop allowing your flesh to divide the body of Christ. You will stand before Him to give an account of how you persecuted the very brothers who were on your side. Do not forget that. Let us all fall on our faces before our Creator and plead with him to give us the mind of Christ that we may act toward one another in such a way that unbelievers will see our love toward one another and glorify our Father who is in heaven. If you treat a true brother in Christ like unbelievers treat them, what does that say about you and your spiritual maturity? Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand.
Thank you Mark, Jim and Jim's dad were and are very close friends. While I severed in the Chicago area with Child Evangelism Fellowship, I was the treasurer for the IFCA International which Quentin Rd was a member. My wife and I were members at Cicero Bible Church were I was an elder. We used the NKJV while Dr Scudder used the KJV I liked the KJV. I used a Thomson Chain Reference, which was nice because on the chains it would give a word help in the margin that would explain some of the "false friends", but I know use the NKJV with "Olive Tree Bible App." What is nice about that is just by tapping a word I brings up the concordance definition. I do follow your channel on RUclips but also follow the King James Research Council also. I do use other translation and am not a KJV Onlyist, but I did tend to lean heavy towards the KJV but because to you now use many translations. I do not care for the Critical Text versions so recently purchased a NKJV single column wide margin. Again thank you for this debate, have a blessed day.
This was great and the Body of Christ would be all the better if we had more of this. I would LOVE to hear a debate on how Bibliology affects and influences each viewpoint. You can’t argue with God.
It grieves me that in 2024 -- with all the burgeoning societal issues challenging the Church in the West -- that folks like Mark are still having to contend with topics like this. Anxiety and suicide are on the rise. The identity crisis has never been more apparent. And we have an entire generation which is trading off meaning and purpose for technological convenience. Lord, help us get past our pride so we can deal with weightier matters together.
I will never understand why people feel like they can only read one translation of the bible. There are so many good ones out there and readily available for free online and on bible apps like you version. Pick two or three and enjoy comparing them.
Mark, it looks like God answered your petitions! The debate was kind and enlightening, and many people heard you. Thank you for all your hard work! I have a response to one of your questions. You asked Dan how someone can know to look up a word they don't know they don't know. He sort of said that they will be guided by the Holy Spirit (notably, he didn't say the Holy Ghost). He should have been more firm on that point. That is a powerful truth that I firmly believe. "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering." Your response to that clearly shows the practical problems with that approach. Many faithful Christians misunderstand Bible passages. And your original question remains. Whether we ask God or a dictionary, how can we know that we lack wisdom if we think we understand? As you pointed out, a Christian shouldn't need to look up every word just in case. Here is my answer that I wish Dan had said: Christians who believe that the KJV is the best (or even authoritative) translation should simply read another translation along side to help them identify the words they don't realize they misunderstand. They can then check their readings with the OED or the original languages, and they can always have the security of returning to their trusted text. If KJVO churches simply became KJV Preferred, I think this civil war would solve itself. We could have our beloved Bible translation and understand it too.
I just finished watching the debate. I don't believe that my observations are particularly important, yet I have a few thoughts nonetheless: 1. This was a very cordial debate, notably so when compared to some of those conducted by other Christians on this subject in the past. 2. The RUclips chat could have been better and more charitable on both sides, which was disappointing. 3. Dr. Haifley used a lot of anecdotal evidence and pathos-centric argumentation, which can have a great effect when speaking to the average Joe but is less effective when debating formally. 4. While Dr. Ward's debate survey had clear validity issues, as noted by Dr. Haifley, it was more effective in the debate at establishing a base of mutual understanding of the problem. 5. Dr. Ward used a more precise and logical flow of argumentation, which helped get his point across. 6. Dr. Ward stayed on topic more often than Dr. Haifley. 7. Dr. Haifley did bring up a good point of internal consistency and linguistic continuity within scripture. Dr. Ward did not have adequate time to address this point, although I suspect he has a rebuttal. 8. Dr. Haifley admitting to giving a KJV to a new believer is shocking. He later turned it around on Dr. Ward to search for a careful retraction of his previous remarks, which was disappointing. It showed a need for more awareness on Dr. Haifley's part, and I was pleased to see Dr. Ward stand his ground. Although this comment is long, I want to acknowledge the lovingkindness both men took into the debate. This was a fantastic example of two brothers in Christ cleanly disagreeing and presenting their side. Although I am partial, Dr. Ward won the debate, if not by the salience of his argument, then by its delivery. Dr. Haifley did a great job, too! I pray he continues his diligent ministry and work at the KJB Research Council to bring God's word and the Gospel to those in need.
#7. Are you saying it's wrong to give a KJV to a new believer? Also I assume you're talking about the question for Mark about him saying it's a sin to give a KJV to a child. What's your thoughts on it being a sin?
@@validcore I am saying that giving the KJV to a new believer is wrong, especially if they're a child. I was in that boat; I wanted to know God's word but had no familial support. A KJV-o family friend gave me a Bible, and it was utterly incomprehensible as a 12 y/o new to the faith. It drove me away for years because I didn't know other options existed. Once I started reading a modern translation (the ESV) and attending a church (Lutheran) as a teenager, I was finally opened to the faith. I don't know if it's a sin in the strictest sense, but at the very least, giving new believers the KJV as their only translation option is irresponsible. That's my two cents anyway. Although I must say, as an adult, I love the KJV! It's just not appropriate for children and those new to the faith.
I’m so impressed with how you did in this debate, Mark. The hundreds of hours of preparation are obvious. One thing that strikes me is that for the KJV-onlyist, it’s well-nigh impossible to have a conversation *just* about intelligibility without dipping into textual criticism. For my wife, it was an emotional experience. She had to get over her reticence to even consider a modern translation, because even considering it is sin to many. Thanks for holding the line and freeing consciences from extra-biblical, pharisaical, and (to be frank) idolatrous standards.
Amen, brother. Yes, I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that he could not limit himself to translation only. But he did far better than any KJVO I've ever known!
I loved the debate, both brothers we're charitable and respectful.. something we should all emulate when we dialog with brothers and sisters. I really wanted pizza after I heard that timer.
Þe Wyclyffe Bible ys þe fyrst trewe Englysch Byble. Alle moderne translaciouns (Kyng James, Newe Internascionale Versyon, Geneve, etc.) ben corrupcyouns of þe one trewe Byble. Þey speken Englysch yn þe þyrtene hundreth yere, and so don we. As þe Byble seith yn 2 Tymothe 15 "Bisili kepe to yyue thi silf a preued preisable werkman to God, with oute schame, riytli tretinge the word of treuthe." Þus schulde we ben dylygent yn usynge þe one pure and perfyte Byble, nat dymmynge Goddes Word, but heyzende oureself to ben worthy of hit. #WyOrDie #WycliffeOnly #Sarcasm Þanke þe, Mark, and God be wyth alle þe bretheren! 🕊
@@johnlopez-qq4eh A trewe disciple! Nat afeard of þe hyest forme of langage so fer aboue þe moderne tonge of Kyng James. Þe symple Oxforde Englysch Dyctyonarye ys alle þe symple-myndyd nede to vnderstonde whanne þey ben withoute a prechour.
@@MAMoreno Hayle and greetinge, my dere broþer and felowe pylgrym on þe weye to Caunterbury! Þe grete Chaucer verilye ys my owne namesake, settinge to shame þe fabled Shak-spere -- a man forged of þe deuyll!
Love it, Mark! Great job. I’ve spent many hours listening to theological and cross denominational debates and I must say, you debate well. I’ll provide a minor correction. James 4:17 is not to be used with what anyone may interpret as “good” aside from what was provided in the context of James. Otherwise, we run into the dangers of misusing the verse and condemn anyone who does not do what one may interpret as “good”, as being sinful. For example. Man 1: “If you don’t doorknock every neighborhood in the city to win souls to Christ for 8-12 hours a day, you’re disobedient to God” Man 2: “How so? We’re commanded to evangelize, but why such an extreme mandate” Man 1: “Because it’s a good thing to evangelize 8 hours a day. James 4:17.” End of illustration. Or, one can organize the passage in Titus of when someone seeks the office of a bishop, it’s called “A Good thing”. If we apply James 4:17 to anything we interpret as “Good”, you’re sinful if you don’t seek to pastor. Just a minor correction. I’ve debated that verse with several brothers and it’s just a little irk I get when it’s used outside of its intended meaning indicated within its context. Great stuff Mark! You represented well!
49:47...this is a worn-out argument. Yes, there are SPIRITUAL TRUTHS that require the Holy Spirit. There are SPIRITUAL TRUTHS that Paul preached that were "hard to understand." But that has nothing to do with the premise of this debate. Peter wasn't sayng that Paul used vernacular that was too high for him. John wasn't declaring that the Spriit would act as an interpreter of tongues for the believer. Rather, we should remove any vernacular barriers of an aging language, as faithfully and carefully as we can. UDPATE at 54:00...Mark, you addressed this very well.....still listening
He got the date wrong but he's correct in the point he's making. (I'm fairly certain you already knew the actual date and revision he was referring to. Just being cheeky.) @catpocalypsenow is clearly referring to the 1769 Blayney revision. Since this is Mark Ward's channel, I'll quickly point out that he also handles the topic in his book, 'Authorized' (Kindle loc. 1245). Btw -- Great job, Mark. 🫡
@@bibleprotector With respect, "bibleprotector", may I recommend a book titled, "Taming The Fingers" by Jeff Johnson? It might help you "protect" your _Christian witness_ on social media.
I just want to hear Mark debate more. The eloquence and wit were beautifully paired. I think there was a more clear winner, but honestly, I just hope and pray that the body of Christ is the real winner and that this gets us one step closer towards unity.
If you go to other channels with clips from this debate, you'll find very different opinions. I highly encourage you to seek conversation with both sides.
Of course you will get different opinions. But when it is stated that they arnt going to talk about textual differences and Dan brings it up a couple of times and he doesn't really prove the positive for the KJV being readable, only that he doesn't like other translations, in a debat setting, that isn't a win.
Dr. Ward you did an amazing job in this debate the only issue is that your opponent was not prepared, and so it was like there was no good rebuttal. However, could you do a video reply to Thomas Ross’s overstated assertion that “there are hundreds of lines in the NA UBS text that have no manuscript support at all.”? He is still beating away at that drum, and doesn’t engage with any further discussion. He once again started on that with his debate preview video. Thank you for shining the light of Christ.
Respectful, however I disagree with the KJV position presented, he seems to consistently imply we’re just supposed to accept the KJV regardless of how hard it is to read. I appreciate you bringing up words we don’t know we don’t know.
"Some things are right for you that aren't right for somebody else." This is exactly why we have authoritative references on definitions, because there is a correct meaning for words in context. Otherwise language is just a jumble of sounds and letters and by extension the bible has no true meaning or message, nor any book for that matter. I think it folly to "debate" a KJV-onlyist and an exercise in futility. KJV-onlism is irrational from the outset. If other translations are widely available and like a paraphrase, can help to clarify meaning, then they should be consulted. Moreover, if one refers to any other book for clarification such as a concordance or dictionary, then it is already proving the fact that the KJV is insufficient on its own to convey God's word in a clear and concise manner to the average contemporary reader.
Both sides represented their positions well, though Pastor Dan had me scratching my head more than once. I think Mark may have found his calling, he did an excellent job.
Great debate, of course. I had a thought about one of Dan's arguments that was a very common KJVO talking point. He appeals to Genesis 3 ("Did God really say...?"), but he also rightly lauds the Bereans in Acts 17. They also essentially questioned whether God really said something (namely what Paul was preaching), but the difference was their posture and motive for asking. They were coming from a place of ignorance looking to learn and genuinely wanting to make sure that what they were believing was correct rather than knowing something to be true and intentionally casting doubt on it. Appeals to Genesis 3 poison the well and imply if not outright state that even faithful conservative Evangelical scholars know that the KJVOs are correct and are intentionally misleading people away from the truth. Really hard to have good faith discussions when that's one of the first line arguments you get right out of the gate. Less fundamentally but no less odd was the concern over new translations ruining "first mention" topics. I've always thought that principle was a wax nose at best, and if all it takes is a translator using a different word to destroy it, then that methodology is just as weak as I think it is. The KJV translators themselves intentionally used different words for little more reason than the sake of variety and it was their prerogative to do so, so one ought to criticize them as well for jeopardizing "first mention" nuggets on the altar of good prose. But even if we grant that "first mention" is a legitimate hermeneutical principle, wouldn't that be more of a "deeper" kind of analysis that isn't such a concern for an initial reading where a modern English equivalent would be significantly more effective? It sounds like more of a concern for preacher than lay people, and they ought to be able to have the discernment to weigh out that sort of thing if it's a real issue.
I’m perplexed at the inconsistency of KJVO advocates. Why don’t we hear them speaking KJVO English in the pulpits, in the pews and in debates. I suspect Dr. Ward himself could give a debate answer or state a position using KJV English, perplexing the opponent and the audience.
Brother Mark, thank you for your work. I wondered if there is a legitimate window to follow up on you plea to the KJVRC to do a revision with your help? You mentioned needing other buy in from KJV only groups. If the KJVRC offered would that be enough for you? I understand some of the trust issues that brother Dan mentioned, and i thought his mention of that was something that could be accepted as a starting point to build that bridge to make something like this happen.
I need multiple KJVO leaders and institutions to sign on. I don’t want to set an impossible bar, but I have to believe that PCC and West Coast, at least, need to be on board.
I have a few KJV bibles that have footnotes for the archaic words and false friends. Nelson KJV paragraph-style large print, another Nelson KJV center-column reference bible with apocrypha, and a Westminster KJV reference bible. The Nelson bibles seem to have more notes on these words than the Westminster. My perfect KJV bible would be one that has all the original translator's footnotes and references, explanations of archaic words and phrases, and notes on textual criticism like in the NKJV. Also, including the apocrypha. Dr. Mark Ward, if you are reading this, I'd love to hear a response from you on this idea.
Haifley's opening statement is toe-curlingly off-target. Arguing that 'these things are spiritually discerned' can be applied to archaic words, and using that Tyndale quote to prove the opposite of what it does... I'm watching through my fingers.
Your impassioned ending was fantastic. It’s obvious to all who have seen your work that you would be incredibly diligent in helping make a modern English translation that meets their high high standards. But I fear even that would not be enough to prompt change. I was almost surprised they didn’t say “we don’t need an update to the English, we can just use our lists, dictionaries and Mark’s books and now the problem of readability is gone” Just ‘study’ more. All these hoops to try to understand Gods word using the KJV when you could just read it in modern English.
I appreciate the spirit and tone of the debate. It reminded me much of the famous John MacArthur and RC Sproul debate on baptism. In my mind, Mark you came across far more prepared than did Dr. Haifley. He seemed to constantly fumble with his notes only to trot out the same tired and worn out talking points. As well, Dr. Haifley seems to talk out of "both sides of his mouth"; he says "Yes, if there were agreed upon terms, we could allow for an update of the KJV." However, it was also very frustrating, when pressed he basically said "but I don't trust anyone who agrees on those terms to do it." Dr. Haifley, which is it sir? Mark challeged the KJBRC to do the job then graciously offered his help. If you don't want his help, fine, do it on your own then. You seem to want to play lip service to a potential update while also "hedging your bet" that it could be done properly. This comes across as an "uncertain trumpet" and "clanging cymbal." "How long halt ye between two opinions?
Thanks, dear brother Mark. The problem is going to be when the Christian is reading the Bible for him/herself and no help is readily available. That's when he/she needs one of the good modern translations.
I am glad that Daniel said it's dangerous to give your kid a Bible. It seems so lost on many evangelicals that young ones need to be mentored and guided through Scripture.
Two questions: First, that fact that it has to be referred to (as both did in the debate) as “King James English” be a indicator that it is almost a separate category of English or vocab? Second, when Brother Haifley deviated from the questions being asked in the cross examination shouldn’t his opponent or moderator bring that to attention. That may of not been the spirit of this debate, but I am asking maybe more as a generalized question about debates. The spirit was great and loved the kindness on both sides.
Dr Ward won the debate in his opening statement because he thoroughly addressed the topic at hand. His opponent actually helped Mark win because he basically argued the KJV is difficult to understand.
Contradictions: "Maybe God doesn't want everyone to understand." "Well God does want us to understand but we have to have a pastor explain it to us." "No, we shouldn't have to rely on pastors; people should read the Bible for themselves." "New translations today making the Bible easier to read are dumbing down the Bible." "Actually the KJV is already easier to read than the NKJV but that's not dumbing down the Bible." 😆
I think these discussions are good as long as we remember we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. This topic can touch up deeply so I would expect strong arguments. But only Satan is helped by needless anger and division. This topic is personal to me also. I am a good English student, and I know my Bible better than most. But to be honest, I often struggle to understand the words in the KJV. A problem I do not have in other translations. And this is my first point. If I struggle, how much more will people who have poor English skills or only a casual understanding of the Bible? Let me give you an illustration. I am currently studying Romans 11:1-3. The ESV is easy for me to understand. It is written in reasonable English with only the word “foreknew” being a little difficult. The NKJV is a little harder. A reader will need to know what is meant by “cast away”. “seed” and “foreknew” but that is not too bad. Alas though the KJV is much harder. A reader will need to know what is meant by “hath”, “cast away”, “foreknew”, “seed”, “saith”, “Elias”, “maketh”, “intercession” and “digged down”. An experienced KJV reader will probably understand these verses without any effort. Although I wonder how many would know what the unusual “digged down” means. But, this is not so with me. I need to make my own translation in my head to understand what this means. And this is even before I start to work out what Paul is trying to communicate to me. This is a relatively simple section of text. There are plenty of other important passages that are far harder to read. And this is my second point. If the only way I can understand a text is to retranslate it, then I would prefer it to be written from the start in a translation that I do understand. Why should we use words and sentences that are unnecessarily difficult? Why should make barriers that obscure the message of the Bible? The Bible is challenging enough to understand without these issues. I understand the reluctance to change from the KJV. It is a wonderful version that has served us well. I do not wish to let it go. But alas I do think it is time to start moving to versions that are more understandable to more people.
Dr. Ward, I need to tell you why you lost the "debate"! I respectfully submit that it was your premise of proper exegesis and unflawed logic. Both of those tactics blind the KJVonlyests. When challenged thusly they revert back to their circuitous and whackerdoodle thought processes. Thank you for the godly and gentlemanly way in which you presented your position.
DEBATE: Is the King James Readable? 1. As I listened to Rev. Dan's opening statement, I imagined I was experiencing the presence of a hay flea and began to itch. 2. Dr. Ward at 1:29:15-26: "What is more precious, what is worth more than the things that our Creator says to us? The things that He instructs us? The commands that He gives us? The promises He gives us?" Response: The only thing I can think of is Jesus Christ Himself: A. Gospel of John 6:53-56 (1526 Tyndale Bible): 53Then Iesus sayde vnto them: "Verely verely I saye vnto you except ye eate ye flesshe of ye Sonne of Man and drinke His bloude ye shall not have lyfe in you. 54Whosoever eateth My flesshe and drinketh My bloude hath eternall lyfe: and I will rayse him vp at the last daye. 55For My flesshe is meate in dede: and My bloude is drynke in dede. 56He that eateth My flesshe and drynketh M bloude dwelleth in Me and I in him." B. 1 Corinthians 11:27 (1526 Tyndale Bible): Wherfore whosoevere shall eate of this bred OR drynke of the cup vnworthely shalbe giltie of the body AND bloud of the Lorde. 3. And if the 1526 Tyndale Bible was good enough for St. John and St. Paul ...
At 1:16:00 DrDan responds to DrWard’s question in total Kamala Harris style. He answered it by not answering it but about talking about his upbringing.
Dr. Dan's opening argument is all over the place. Assuming that he has little debate experience, I suggest he have someone look over his notes or to run through his argument with a mock audience first. I am open to KJV onlyism even if only to understand it's appeal. However, every argument for it that I've encountered is filled with ad hominems, intimidation tactics, and irrelevant sentimentalism. Dr. Dan, to my recollection, presented one point towards the debate topic (that knowing the Gospel from the KJV is sufficient to fulfill the criteria of intelligibility) and immediately moved on without supporting that claim.
![Chino Pacas - Modo Capone (with Drake & Fuerza Regida) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zjv8TQ0gBkg/mqdefault.jpg)
![Lord of Spirits - The Book of Jubilees [Ep. 92]](/img/1.gif)
You did outstanding Mark. You're a true pro. May eyes be opened.
Laughable.
Thank you, brother.
@@WiscoMike Don’t laugh at yourself, friend. It’s sad.
@@RevDavidReyes you think you're creative, but actually you're pathetic.
@@markwardonwords I think you prey on malleable, weak-minded individuals who aren't grounded in faith enough to see the misguidedness of your positions. The KJV elevates the reader rather than debase the text that is the foundation of Christianity in the English speaking World and the book that unified and shaped our nation. You're "readability" position and argument is adolescent and immature and in a broader context a distraction from the Great Commission because you're focused on minutiae instead of mission.
Dr. Ward, you did an outstanding job. Very well done.
Thank you kindly!
That was the most polite debate, I have ever seen. Setting a good example for the rest of us.
"It takes a preacher to explain the meaning."
Isn't that kinda the whole reason Tyndale started translating the Bible into English in the first place? So the plowboy didn't have to rely on the clergy?
Mark, you did a great job, but the arguments from the other side really just defeated themselves tonight.
That's what I was gathering from the opening statement, too: it doesn't matter if any of us laypeople can understand the Bible ourselves, because we'll always have our priests and clergy to rightly explain it to us. What a reassuring message to receive from someone who understands the original biblical languages! Who needs any English translation of the Bible as long as we have preachers? 🙄
I agree. This is what prompted my opening question to Dr. Haifley
@@tjmaverick1765 I had higher expectations of Haifley than what he delivered. He seemed unprepared and was too accommodating until the end.
Loved this! Until I left KJVOism I hadn't realized how many times I misunderstood God's Word because of the language of the KJV.
If God had not preserved His Word but here and there and everywhere and not completely, we would be without hope.
@@jonathanmelton9801people were without hope completely before 1611?
@@classicchristianliterature in large part, yes, because aside from illiteracy they didn't have a Bible of their own to read and discover Christ. Bibles were not mass produced or confined to church buildings and people were dependent on a priest or pastor to tell them about God rather than having their own relationship with God.
@@WiscoMike Christ has been building His church for 2000 years. On the day of Pentecost, 3000 were added to the church. Not one of them had a KJV. Tertullian, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bullinger… all of these Christians who God used, no King James. The printing press was a great help to the church, as was Martin Luther’s German translation, the Geneva Bible…etc. Church history didn’t start in 1611.
Great job brothers. Thank you both for handling this matter with grace.
I was frustrated by the opening statement, where he said little about readability except "it's okay if common people can't understand it all", and couldn't help but take potshots at underlying text.
Regardless, I was thrilled that the discussion was characterized by grace! An answer to many prayers, I am certain!
Now if only the comment section could follow suit... 😬
I must agree about the surprise.
It’s also crazy at the hour and 39 minute mark he said don’t take a preacher’s or dictionaries word on what something means. So basically, he’s saying we cannot be certain about God’s word.
@@markwardonwordsat the risk of sounding uncharitable, I’m not the least bit surprised coming from someone who is KJVO.
Dan's rebuttal to Dr. Ward's opening statement is spot on and absolutely proves the need for contemporary English Bible translations. He mentioned that Dr. Ward helped the audience to understand the King James Bible, which was true. The reason they now understand the KJV is because of those modern translations. Its a good thing they exist. All of these trusted Bibles help us to take the WORD and put it in our hearts and meditate on the WORD. Let's not throw away the KJV, but let's not also reject contemporary translations so that we miss out on the WORD being fully understood the best we can.
@@tugbankert6581 your statement is illogical if you are saying that they only understand the KJV because of other translations availability. If they are KJV only they wouldn't be referring to lesser translations to find clarity. The KJV is clear on its face without a handicap ramp to rightly divide the words of truth.
@WiscoMike I'm glad you knew what I was saying. Even KJV only Christians admit that modern versions help to clear up words they didn't know they didn't know. Dan conceded to that point.
I so enjoyed the debate. Both of you were kind and respectful of each other. However, you certainly had the better argument. I love your heart, Brother!
Well done, Mark! Clear and God glorifying.
Thank you kindly!
I went to watch this same debate over on the King James Bible research council youtube channel and was very disheartened by the comments. King James Onlyism breaks my heart as a Christian. It’s crazy how Satan can use people’s stubbornness and preferred translations to confuse and divide us.
My wife said the same.
After seeing this post, I went to have a brief read through on the comments on the Bible research council RUclips page and I've concluded that KJV only folks can't be reasoned with.
@@femiwilliams7906The Very Online KJVOs frequently/usually cannot be. But individual KJV-Only brothers spoke to me courteously in person after the debate.
@@markwardonwords Glad to hear you were warmly received after the debate. In general, it seems people online tend to be more unkind than are in person... Sadly, I've recently decided to move on from a KJV only-ish church after attending for over a year. It has been really hard to stay committed there because of other issues, but the KJV only-ism issue was a major stumbling block.
@@markwardonwords if you love your wife like you claimed to love the King James Bible, are you equally critical and fault finding of her? When you stated that you grew up with and love the King James Bible, you seemed to me to lack credibility. If you loved the King James Bible and it's role in historical Reformation and present Christianity you wouldn't be making the declarations that you do. I felt you were being dishonest and trying to ingratiate yourself to the audience. Deceitful might be a good descriptor. John 1:1 claims Christ is the Word of God, if so, is the Word that we have perfect and a reflection of Christ? When the balance of Heaven is weighed, do you think your positions hold weight in souls saved for eternity or is this just an exercise in self-aggrandizement?
This was an exemplary debate. This is the way debates should be done by Christians. Well done.
Many thanks!
I'm very excited to watch this! Thank you so much for participating in this debate Dr. Ward.
Brother Mark, my wife and I prayed for you prior to and throughout your debate. What a fantastic job you did with the Spirit's help!
This was a rare opportunity to limit the scope of the discussion away from the TC debate.
God bless you for hard work and years!
Mark, your heart was abundantly clear in this debate. I think there are more than a few people who walked away from hearing this debate not a little more edified about the KJV and the blessings of modern English translations. You have my utmost respect by your clarity, careful use of words, and your desire to maintain Christ-like peace.
@@arturoecheverria9865 you're kidding right? He made pointed and directed attacks on the debate floor claiming that the KJVRC do more research. Mark was completely condescending. The other side was too polite. What would be more entertaining, and I true debate fashion, would be for each side to argue their other's position.
What a beautiful debate! This was so refreshing! Neither of you got angry, mean, frustrated or nasty. All debates should be like this.
That was one of my specific prayer requests. Dan was a genuine and sincere gentleman, and I pray I was the same!
Many are making comments about who won the debate but I think this misses the point. If you’ve ever known someone who is stuck in KJV jail the fear of touching a more understandable Bible can be overwhelming not to mention the guilt if you did try one. If you’re married to a staunch KJVonlyist and you’re not allowed to read another Bible for yourself or to your children the unnecessary control is damaging for you and your kids. Please, commenters, try to see this as something beyond an academic debate. To the men out there, please try to see this from a woman’s perspective. The goal is an understandable Bible and freedom from jail. This goes beyond the academics. Thank you and God bless.
Well done Mark. Thank you.
The quiz was a mic drop for this debate.
Great job, Mark! Your work helped guide me out of KJV Onlyism, and I was finally able to connect deeper with God's Word!
My goodness, while this was a calm and well-mannered debate, Haifley kept moving the goalposts (or adding new ones) by mentioning the "missing verses". Textual criticism wasn't part of this debate, but he just simply couldn't let it go.
I enjoyed this so much, and it spoke my heart. For years, so many things, at times, I have never understood in the KJV Bible, but growing up on it, I feel like I am sinning when I go to another Bible. I really do. This has made me laugh. I am thankful to know it is ok, to look at other versions after hearing Pastor Mark Ward. But the Debate itself, was so informative. Both Pastors were wonderful. I am thankful for the opportunity to have seen this. Thank you
Thanks for sharing!
Very cordial and informative debate.
I will say, thanks to Mark’s work I became more interested in the KJV, and just finished my first full read-through of it a few weeks ago.
I was using a bible that had many of the archaic words and false friends marked in the footnotes, but I’m sure I missed many others. There were sections where I really struggled, and others where I felt like the meaning was jumping out to me more than it had before. Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the KJV. I don’t plan on using it as my main translation, but will continue to use it for comparisons to other translations and daily devotional.
This was the first time I have heard a polite discussion from the KJV-only camp.
Mark, your passion and love was clear throughout the whole time.
Well done, Mark. You did an excellent job in this debate. I pray that eyes will be opened and that God will continue to bless you. 🙏🙏
God be thanked for this debate, both of you did will. It helps us navigate through all the complexities of word of God. Thank you bothin my eye you both won.
This was quite an eye-opening experience. I now see how reading a version of the Bible that clarifies the Word of God in my language is important vs. relying on a preacher that may or may not clarify the archaic words of the KJV translation to provide me with understanding of God's Word. Thank you for your work and insight.
I met for a while with international students doing bible studies, it was difficult enough at times explaining words in an easier to read traslation like the NLV, it would've been almost Impossible to do so with the KJV, thank you for your work in helping others be confident they can read the bible in modern english and that it has been properly translated
Thanks for sharing!
Aaaaw, "Shout to the Lord" at the end! Glad I could finally search it out. I remembered the tune but not the words. Sheesh, I must be getting old. We sang it a million times at my old church!
I've heard other preachers say that the whole Bible was not meant to be understood. I find that to be a horrifying thought. It's like God is messing with our minds. The Bible communicates God's word to us, and we must listen and learn.
It just about blew my mind in the very first opening statement when the pastor Dan H conflated Jesus' concealing truth from the lost with Christians, who have the Holy Spirit, not understanding the Bible. I don't think he even realized what it sounded like he was saying, there. He did make clarifying statements later about the Spirit growing Christians' understanding as they mature, but still... the initial comments were jarring.
Great job Mark and Dan….great discussion. I appreciate the venue, college, moderator…. And the spirit in which this discussion was had. Very fruitful in my opinion.
Beautiful debate, loved it. Thank yall both. :)
You did a great job Mark - very clear information and a loving heart for God’s Word. It was nice to see a debate where people treat each other with respect.
Mark, great job. I'm still listening...but gasped at 48:00 ish mark, when he applauded how clear you were in explaining a few false friends, and then declared, "see, now you know your King James Bible....it takes a preacher to know the sense......because there are words that there is no easy way to communicate....." Very concerning.
Great debate! You obviously won hands down. I loved how kind you both were but honestly, you stuck to the topic at hand and made sensible points while your opponent has to fill his time with jokes or other topics. Even when he did speak to the topic, his arguments fail at the slightest examination.
I am shocked that he used the argument that Jesus spoke in parables so therefore the Bible today should be in a confusing language?! Jesus concealed his identity so he could go to the cross to pay for our sins at Passover, and not be forcibly made king on one hand nor be killed prematurely on the other. Jesus said when he was lifted up on the cross, then he could draw all men, and no longer hide his identity. He told his apostles after his resurrection and Pentecost to preach the gospel everywhere and even gave then supernatural power to speak the various languages of the peoples so they could understand (not so they could be confused).
I was surprised that he tried to use Philip and the eunich as an argument that preachers need to also be on the spot Bible translators. Philip explained the Scripture to the eunich; he was not translating it from even more ancient to contemporary language for him.
I thought it was a tangent when he said the plow boy couldnt read. What's his point? That lay people should not read the Bible for themselves but should only listen to expert preachers at church? He says people need to be educated but then insinuates the plow boy doesn't need the Bible in his language becuase he cant read anyway (and I guess he never will?) Once the plow boy could read, then he needed a Bible in his language not just the Vulgate. Most English speaking teens and adults today can read. Our language. Our dialect.
He says we should just trust preachers, but go study the Bible for ourselves. Yet he contradicts himself as he wants to deny people the tools to study for themselves, namely a translation into their own language.
I understand the temptation for a KJVO to keep attacking the underlying text of most modern versions which are shorter especially by a couple large sections. I understand your desire to set that aside entirely. But on the other hand, to the passage you quoted, the Bible itself says it's better to speak 5 intelligible words than a thousand in an unknown tongue. The modern versions are the "5 words"- shorter but intelligible- while the KJV is the "thousand words in an unknown tongue.
It's also not just a question of whether the plow boy might learn to read, but also of if he hears the Bible read in the evening by his sister who can read, will he be able to understand the words? For Protestants in particular, it's an important tenet that the Word of the Lord be comprehensible to everybody, because the Gospel is capable of being understood by even the simplest if it is only put into words they can grasp. (I see that as an argument in favor of even colloquial versions designed for reading out loud, so long as they are used for their proper purpose and not treated as deep study tools.)
I wish the debate format would have allowed for more interaction, but I still think Mark was able to counter the few points made by the other side. BTW, it is not just vocabulary that makes the KJV difficult, it is the very awkward sentence structure that you find throughout the text. Difficult phraseology, obsolete words, and false friends all make for a very intimidating and difficult reading experience that largely makes the plowboy dependent on the preacher to understand their Bible. The congregation will remain simple in their understanding of God's word and very few will be true Bereans. Part of my goal as a teacher is to help those who listen to me learn how to study the Bible for themselves. The way I work through a passage or a topic is something I hope my listeners will be able to do on their own for whatever topic or passage they are interested in. The first step in all that, is understanding the words and thoughts of the text.
Nicely done!
Thank you! Cheers!
Thanks Mark!
My pleasure!
That was an amazing discussion and a good summary of both sides. Something I will refer people to when having a similar discussions. Thanks Mark!
Finished listening. Good demeanor of both. I appreciated the interaction. I would have enjoyed more cross examination time. Well done, Brother Mark!
Thanks for listening!
Brother Ward - thank you for your effort and care in this endeavor. Are you open to another future debate on this topic? I would be interested in seeing someone who is more organized and articulate meet your points head on, versus what happened here.
Granted, I would be much more interested in both sides working together to prepare a KJV update than I would be with continued debate. The recent X/Twitter exchange of Pastor Shakour's was a bit disheartening, since Joe is perhaps the most reasonable and charitable contemporary proponent of the KJV position. Yes, there is much Gospel sharing work to be done, but can we walk and chew gum at the same time? If we are going to continue insisting on the exclusive use of the choices made by the King James translators-Joe's emphasis on the choices-then we must insist on preparing an update that brings those choices into the language we currently speak.
I fully agree. Joe is tops. And I’m open to more debate.
Man, you’re a humble genius.
This was great Mark! You are a blessing sir! Keep up the good work
When he went to country music I was like, “I got false friends in low places. . .” 😏
Fun fact, if you listen to the lyrics in modern English the beer chases away depression but in Elizabethan it’s used as wound disinfectant.
Dr. Ward, congrats on a well-spoken, well-reasoned, respectful, and professional debate! I don't know what the response from the other side of the aisle will be, but to me it seemed clear that God aided you to communicate well through any nervousness, hit your main points right on target, and avoid red herrings. I know there were many prayers going up for this debate, and I hope you can relax briefly now. 😊
This was an outstanding debate, kind and courteous. Congratulations.
I think you won this pretty handily. Dr. Haifley seemed completely unprepared, but it may be the weakness of the position. I think some of the points are defensible, but he didn't succeed. He seems like the KJVOs I've met in the past (outside the internet). They were all kind and considerate. It doesn't make the position stronger, but it makes him quite likable.
I agree. I came away liking him more. We had kind fellowship at a wonderful dinner (he paid for!) before the debate.
I would like to thank both debate participants. The purpose of a debate is to flesh out ideas and flaws in the positions of each participant with the intent to both inform and persuade those who are listening to come over, to some degree, their position. May I also say that none of us, regardless of whether we hold a KJV only position or a multiple translation position, should ever view a debate as a sporting event with a winner and loser. What we should do is listen intently, with sincerity, to the positions of each participant, and LEARN whatever we can from both of them, so long as what we learn is for the glory of Christ. That is the chief end of man: to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. When we listen to a debate, we should be praying that the Lord would teach us something from both Christian brothers engaging in a debate like this one.
Brother Mark and Haifley! Thank you for modeling brotherly love for one another on a topic that is so contentious within Conservative Christianity. I refuse to crown either of you "the winner". Instead, I would like to exalt the Lord Jesus Christ, whom I believe was honored and glorified through your debate with one another. You both have set an example that all other Christians, no matter which side of the debate with which they agree, should seek to emulate. If one's first response is to slander another brother as a heretic, unbeliever, etc. in contradiction to what the very translators of the KJV would have done, then you are in the flesh and need to repent. If one believes that those who defend the KJV are also uneducated buffoons from the backwoods and treats them as something less than a true brother and sister in Christ, then you are in the flesh and need to repent. There have been great controversies among genuine brothers and sisters in Christ for hundreds of years about a wide variety of issues within orthodox Christianity.
I would advise one thing. The scripture states explicitly that we are to judge with just and equal measures, we are to judge without respect of persons (and without respect to our own "crowd"), that we are to love one another and our neighbor (a command), and to not level an accusation against an elder (a teaching authority within the church) except it be by 2-3 witnesses, and it had better be backed up with a scriptural foundation (direct statements in scripture, not inferences or allusions from scripture which are subjective by nature).
"By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one toward another." Regardless of which side of this issue you take, can you say that you are doing that to your brother who holds the opposite position from you? If not, you need to repent and be reconciled to your brother. To partake of the Lord's Supper(table) without repenting and being reconciled to your brother is to partake of it unworthily, which the apostle Paul gave a dire warning against in 1 Corinthians. Let us remember that even in a debate and issue as contentious as this one, our God has explicitly commanded us "Be ye holy, for I the Lord am Holy". We will give an account to him of every idle word spoken. Let us be slow to speak and bear the fruit of the Spirit toward those brothers who disagree with us. When you engage with a brother who disagrees with you are you bearing "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance" when dealing with them? If not, you are not abiding in Christ. Stop allowing your flesh to divide the body of Christ. You will stand before Him to give an account of how you persecuted the very brothers who were on your side. Do not forget that. Let us all fall on our faces before our Creator and plead with him to give us the mind of Christ that we may act toward one another in such a way that unbelievers will see our love toward one another and glorify our Father who is in heaven. If you treat a true brother in Christ like unbelievers treat them, what does that say about you and your spiritual maturity? Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand.
Amen. I believe my brother Dan has paid a price for being kind to me. But I also believe he will reap a reward.
Good stuff, brother. I’m very thankful for your pastoral heart in this debate.
Great debate. It went as i expected. Well done, Mark.
Great job Mark..You're absolutely right.
What a blessing to see the grace given both ways in this debate. Truly iron sharpening iron.
Thank you Mark, Jim and Jim's dad were and are very close friends. While I severed in the Chicago area with Child Evangelism Fellowship, I was the treasurer for the IFCA International which Quentin Rd was a member. My wife and I were members at Cicero Bible Church were I was an elder. We used the NKJV while Dr Scudder used the KJV I liked the KJV. I used a Thomson Chain Reference, which was nice because on the chains it would give a word help in the margin that would explain some of the "false friends", but I know use the NKJV with "Olive Tree Bible App." What is nice about that is just by tapping a word I brings up the concordance definition. I do follow your channel on RUclips but also follow the King James Research Council also. I do use other translation and am not a KJV Onlyist, but I did tend to lean heavy towards the KJV but because to you now use many translations. I do not care for the Critical Text versions so recently purchased a NKJV single column wide margin. Again thank you for this debate, have a blessed day.
This was great and the Body of Christ would be all the better if we had more of this.
I would LOVE to hear a debate on how Bibliology affects and influences each viewpoint. You can’t argue with God.
Fantastic job brother Mark
Thanks for listening!
It grieves me that in 2024 -- with all the burgeoning societal issues challenging the Church in the West -- that folks like Mark are still having to contend with topics like this.
Anxiety and suicide are on the rise. The identity crisis has never been more apparent. And we have an entire generation which is trading off meaning and purpose for technological convenience.
Lord, help us get past our pride so we can deal with weightier matters together.
I will never understand why people feel like they can only read one translation of the bible. There are so many good ones out there and readily available for free online and on bible apps like you version. Pick two or three and enjoy comparing them.
Mark, it looks like God answered your petitions! The debate was kind and enlightening, and many people heard you. Thank you for all your hard work!
I have a response to one of your questions. You asked Dan how someone can know to look up a word they don't know they don't know. He sort of said that they will be guided by the Holy Spirit (notably, he didn't say the Holy Ghost). He should have been more firm on that point. That is a powerful truth that I firmly believe. "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering."
Your response to that clearly shows the practical problems with that approach. Many faithful Christians misunderstand Bible passages. And your original question remains. Whether we ask God or a dictionary, how can we know that we lack wisdom if we think we understand? As you pointed out, a Christian shouldn't need to look up every word just in case.
Here is my answer that I wish Dan had said: Christians who believe that the KJV is the best (or even authoritative) translation should simply read another translation along side to help them identify the words they don't realize they misunderstand. They can then check their readings with the OED or the original languages, and they can always have the security of returning to their trusted text.
If KJVO churches simply became KJV Preferred, I think this civil war would solve itself. We could have our beloved Bible translation and understand it too.
Great performance Mark!
Many thanks, Samuel Johnson!
I just finished watching the debate. I don't believe that my observations are particularly important, yet I have a few thoughts nonetheless:
1. This was a very cordial debate, notably so when compared to some of those conducted by other Christians on this subject in the past.
2. The RUclips chat could have been better and more charitable on both sides, which was disappointing.
3. Dr. Haifley used a lot of anecdotal evidence and pathos-centric argumentation, which can have a great effect when speaking to the average Joe but is less effective when debating formally.
4. While Dr. Ward's debate survey had clear validity issues, as noted by Dr. Haifley, it was more effective in the debate at establishing a base of mutual understanding of the problem.
5. Dr. Ward used a more precise and logical flow of argumentation, which helped get his point across.
6. Dr. Ward stayed on topic more often than Dr. Haifley.
7. Dr. Haifley did bring up a good point of internal consistency and linguistic continuity within scripture. Dr. Ward did not have adequate time to address this point, although I suspect he has a rebuttal.
8. Dr. Haifley admitting to giving a KJV to a new believer is shocking. He later turned it around on Dr. Ward to search for a careful retraction of his previous remarks, which was disappointing. It showed a need for more awareness on Dr. Haifley's part, and I was pleased to see Dr. Ward stand his ground.
Although this comment is long, I want to acknowledge the lovingkindness both men took into the debate. This was a fantastic example of two brothers in Christ cleanly disagreeing and presenting their side. Although I am partial, Dr. Ward won the debate, if not by the salience of his argument, then by its delivery. Dr. Haifley did a great job, too! I pray he continues his diligent ministry and work at the KJB Research Council to bring God's word and the Gospel to those in need.
#7. Are you saying it's wrong to give a KJV to a new believer? Also I assume you're talking about the question for Mark about him saying it's a sin to give a KJV to a child. What's your thoughts on it being a sin?
@@validcore I am saying that giving the KJV to a new believer is wrong, especially if they're a child. I was in that boat; I wanted to know God's word but had no familial support. A KJV-o family friend gave me a Bible, and it was utterly incomprehensible as a 12 y/o new to the faith. It drove me away for years because I didn't know other options existed. Once I started reading a modern translation (the ESV) and attending a church (Lutheran) as a teenager, I was finally opened to the faith. I don't know if it's a sin in the strictest sense, but at the very least, giving new believers the KJV as their only translation option is irresponsible. That's my two cents anyway. Although I must say, as an adult, I love the KJV! It's just not appropriate for children and those new to the faith.
Excellent work, Mark. Well done.
Many thanks!
Thank you for this. I was blessed and edified by this debate. Blessings!
I'm so glad!
OK, Dr. Ward...I want a gospel album (38:01). That's an impressive baritone!
I’m so impressed with how you did in this debate, Mark. The hundreds of hours of preparation are obvious. One thing that strikes me is that for the KJV-onlyist, it’s well-nigh impossible to have a conversation *just* about intelligibility without dipping into textual criticism.
For my wife, it was an emotional experience. She had to get over her reticence to even consider a modern translation, because even considering it is sin to many.
Thanks for holding the line and freeing consciences from extra-biblical, pharisaical, and (to be frank) idolatrous standards.
Amen, brother. Yes, I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that he could not limit himself to translation only. But he did far better than any KJVO I've ever known!
Great job!
Thank you! Cheers!
Mark, you exceeded my expectations in your arguments and responses. You are having an impact.
An answer to many prayers, and not just my own.
I loved the debate, both brothers we're charitable and respectful.. something we should all emulate when we dialog with brothers and sisters. I really wanted pizza after I heard that timer.
Mark! That was amazing!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Þe Wyclyffe Bible ys þe fyrst trewe Englysch Byble. Alle moderne translaciouns (Kyng James, Newe Internascionale Versyon, Geneve, etc.) ben corrupcyouns of þe one trewe Byble. Þey speken Englysch yn þe þyrtene hundreth yere, and so don we.
As þe Byble seith yn 2 Tymothe 15 "Bisili kepe to yyue thi silf a preued preisable werkman to God, with oute schame, riytli tretinge the word of treuthe."
Þus schulde we ben dylygent yn usynge þe one pure and perfyte Byble, nat dymmynge Goddes Word, but heyzende oureself to ben worthy of hit.
#WyOrDie #WycliffeOnly #Sarcasm
Þanke þe, Mark, and God be wyth alle þe bretheren! 🕊
The 'thorn' which looks like the letter 'p' is pronounced "th". Now you can read it. Case closed.
@@johnlopez-qq4eh A trewe disciple! Nat afeard of þe hyest forme of langage so fer aboue þe moderne tonge of Kyng James. Þe symple Oxforde Englysch Dyctyonarye ys alle þe symple-myndyd nede to vnderstonde whanne þey ben withoute a prechour.
I do enjoy reading a little Middle English.
@@MAMoreno Hayle and greetinge, my dere broþer and felowe pylgrym on þe weye to Caunterbury! Þe grete Chaucer verilye ys my owne namesake, settinge to shame þe fabled Shak-spere -- a man forged of þe deuyll!
Well put!!
Love it, Mark! Great job.
I’ve spent many hours listening to theological and cross denominational debates and I must say, you debate well.
I’ll provide a minor correction.
James 4:17 is not to be used with what anyone may interpret as “good” aside from what was provided in the context of James.
Otherwise, we run into the dangers of misusing the verse and condemn anyone who does not do what one may interpret as “good”, as being sinful.
For example.
Man 1: “If you don’t doorknock every neighborhood in the city to win souls to Christ for 8-12 hours a day, you’re disobedient to God”
Man 2: “How so? We’re commanded to evangelize, but why such an extreme mandate”
Man 1: “Because it’s a good thing to evangelize 8 hours a day. James 4:17.”
End of illustration.
Or, one can organize the passage in Titus of when someone seeks the office of a bishop, it’s called “A Good thing”. If we apply James 4:17 to anything we interpret as “Good”, you’re sinful if you don’t seek to pastor.
Just a minor correction. I’ve debated that verse with several brothers and it’s just a little irk I get when it’s used outside of its intended meaning indicated within its context.
Great stuff Mark! You represented well!
49:47...this is a worn-out argument. Yes, there are SPIRITUAL TRUTHS that require the Holy Spirit. There are SPIRITUAL TRUTHS that Paul preached that were "hard to understand." But that has nothing to do with the premise of this debate. Peter wasn't sayng that Paul used vernacular that was too high for him. John wasn't declaring that the Spriit would act as an interpreter of tongues for the believer. Rather, we should remove any vernacular barriers of an aging language, as faithfully and carefully as we can. UDPATE at 54:00...Mark, you addressed this very well.....still listening
Great respectful debate between two brothers in Christ.
Most people read the 1789 revised KJV and not the 1611 original version, so even the KJV onlyists don't read the original KJV.
There is no "1789" revised KJV.
He got the date wrong but he's correct in the point he's making. (I'm fairly certain you already knew the actual date and revision he was referring to. Just being cheeky.)
@catpocalypsenow is clearly referring to the 1769 Blayney revision. Since this is Mark Ward's channel, I'll quickly point out that he also handles the topic in his book, 'Authorized' (Kindle loc. 1245).
Btw -- Great job, Mark. 🫡
@@bibleprotector With respect, "bibleprotector", may I recommend a book titled, "Taming The Fingers" by Jeff Johnson? It might help you "protect" your _Christian witness_ on social media.
I just want to hear Mark debate more. The eloquence and wit were beautifully paired. I think there was a more clear winner, but honestly, I just hope and pray that the body of Christ is the real winner and that this gets us one step closer towards unity.
If you go to other channels with clips from this debate, you'll find very different opinions. I highly encourage you to seek conversation with both sides.
Of course you will get different opinions. But when it is stated that they arnt going to talk about textual differences and Dan brings it up a couple of times and he doesn't really prove the positive for the KJV being readable, only that he doesn't like other translations, in a debat setting, that isn't a win.
Dr. Ward you did an amazing job in this debate the only issue is that your opponent was not prepared, and so it was like there was no good rebuttal. However, could you do a video reply to Thomas Ross’s overstated assertion that “there are hundreds of lines in the NA UBS text that have no manuscript support at all.”? He is still beating away at that drum, and doesn’t engage with any further discussion. He once again started on that with his debate preview video. Thank you for shining the light of Christ.
Respectful, however I disagree with the KJV position presented, he seems to consistently imply we’re just supposed to accept the KJV regardless of how hard it is to read. I appreciate you bringing up words we don’t know we don’t know.
"Some things are right for you that aren't right for somebody else." This is exactly why we have authoritative references on definitions, because there is a correct meaning for words in context. Otherwise language is just a jumble of sounds and letters and by extension the bible has no true meaning or message, nor any book for that matter. I think it folly to "debate" a KJV-onlyist and an exercise in futility. KJV-onlism is irrational from the outset. If other translations are widely available and like a paraphrase, can help to clarify meaning, then they should be consulted. Moreover, if one refers to any other book for clarification such as a concordance or dictionary, then it is already proving the fact that the KJV is insufficient on its own to convey God's word in a clear and concise manner to the average contemporary reader.
Both sides represented their positions well, though Pastor Dan had me scratching my head more than once.
I think Mark may have found his calling, he did an excellent job.
Thank you, my friend.
Good job, Mark.
Great debate, of course. I had a thought about one of Dan's arguments that was a very common KJVO talking point. He appeals to Genesis 3 ("Did God really say...?"), but he also rightly lauds the Bereans in Acts 17. They also essentially questioned whether God really said something (namely what Paul was preaching), but the difference was their posture and motive for asking. They were coming from a place of ignorance looking to learn and genuinely wanting to make sure that what they were believing was correct rather than knowing something to be true and intentionally casting doubt on it. Appeals to Genesis 3 poison the well and imply if not outright state that even faithful conservative Evangelical scholars know that the KJVOs are correct and are intentionally misleading people away from the truth. Really hard to have good faith discussions when that's one of the first line arguments you get right out of the gate.
Less fundamentally but no less odd was the concern over new translations ruining "first mention" topics. I've always thought that principle was a wax nose at best, and if all it takes is a translator using a different word to destroy it, then that methodology is just as weak as I think it is. The KJV translators themselves intentionally used different words for little more reason than the sake of variety and it was their prerogative to do so, so one ought to criticize them as well for jeopardizing "first mention" nuggets on the altar of good prose. But even if we grant that "first mention" is a legitimate hermeneutical principle, wouldn't that be more of a "deeper" kind of analysis that isn't such a concern for an initial reading where a modern English equivalent would be significantly more effective? It sounds like more of a concern for preacher than lay people, and they ought to be able to have the discernment to weigh out that sort of thing if it's a real issue.
Great points. That first one I really can use.
I’m perplexed at the inconsistency of KJVO advocates. Why don’t we hear them speaking KJVO English in the pulpits, in the pews and in debates. I suspect Dr. Ward himself could give a debate answer or state a position using KJV English, perplexing the opponent and the audience.
Brother Mark, thank you for your work. I wondered if there is a legitimate window to follow up on you plea to the KJVRC to do a revision with your help? You mentioned needing other buy in from KJV only groups. If the KJVRC offered would that be enough for you? I understand some of the trust issues that brother Dan mentioned, and i thought his mention of that was something that could be accepted as a starting point to build that bridge to make something like this happen.
I need multiple KJVO leaders and institutions to sign on. I don’t want to set an impossible bar, but I have to believe that PCC and West Coast, at least, need to be on board.
Dr Mark, What KJV Bible are you reading from? Looks like a premium but wondering which one. You did an amazing job!
An Allan Longprimer! Not my favorite, honestly! I have a top 5 KJV editions video you can look for!
I have a few KJV bibles that have footnotes for the archaic words and false friends. Nelson KJV paragraph-style large print, another Nelson KJV center-column reference bible with apocrypha, and a Westminster KJV reference bible. The Nelson bibles seem to have more notes on these words than the Westminster. My perfect KJV bible would be one that has all the original translator's footnotes and references, explanations of archaic words and phrases, and notes on textual criticism like in the NKJV. Also, including the apocrypha. Dr. Mark Ward, if you are reading this, I'd love to hear a response from you on this idea.
Haifley's opening statement is toe-curlingly off-target. Arguing that 'these things are spiritually discerned' can be applied to archaic words, and using that Tyndale quote to prove the opposite of what it does... I'm watching through my fingers.
Your impassioned ending was fantastic. It’s obvious to all who have seen your work that you would be incredibly diligent in helping make a modern English translation that meets their high high standards. But I fear even that would not be enough to prompt change.
I was almost surprised they didn’t say “we don’t need an update to the English, we can just use our lists, dictionaries and Mark’s books and now the problem of readability is gone” Just ‘study’ more.
All these hoops to try to understand Gods word using the KJV when you could just read it in modern English.
RIGHT.
Really civilised debate
I appreciate the spirit and tone of the debate. It reminded me much of the famous John MacArthur and RC Sproul debate on baptism. In my mind, Mark you came across far more prepared than did Dr. Haifley. He seemed to constantly fumble with his notes only to trot out the same tired and worn out talking points. As well, Dr. Haifley seems to talk out of "both sides of his mouth"; he says "Yes, if there were agreed upon terms, we could allow for an update of the KJV." However, it was also very frustrating, when pressed he basically said "but I don't trust anyone who agrees on those terms to do it." Dr. Haifley, which is it sir? Mark challeged the KJBRC to do the job then graciously offered his help. If you don't want his help, fine, do it on your own then. You seem to want to play lip service to a potential update while also "hedging your bet" that it could be done properly. This comes across as an "uncertain trumpet" and "clanging cymbal." "How long halt ye between two opinions?
Thanks, dear brother Mark. The problem is going to be when the Christian is reading the Bible for him/herself and no help is readily available. That's when he/she needs one of the good modern translations.
Just to add: for how long will the KJV be a viable option as English develops further and further away from its 400 year-old counterpart?
I am glad that Daniel said it's dangerous to give your kid a Bible. It seems so lost on many evangelicals that young ones need to be mentored and guided through Scripture.
🤣 Paul was for our 2nd amendment rights, Amen? Well played, Sir.
The audience’s laugh showed that they followed my reasoning and were willing to listen sympathetically. That was a key moment for me.
Culturally America is not the only country. KJV is not the standard here in South Africa.
Starts at 17:50
Two questions: First, that fact that it has to be referred to (as both did in the debate) as “King James English” be a indicator that it is almost a separate category of English or vocab? Second, when Brother Haifley deviated from the questions being asked in the cross examination shouldn’t his opponent or moderator bring that to attention. That may of not been the spirit of this debate, but I am asking maybe more as a generalized question about debates. The spirit was great and loved the kindness on both sides.
Note: I did notice the “missing verses” issue was asked to be set aside twice.
Dr Ward won the debate in his opening statement because he thoroughly addressed the topic at hand. His opponent actually helped Mark win because he basically argued the KJV is difficult to understand.
Yes. I couldn’t believe my ears.
Contradictions:
"Maybe God doesn't want everyone to understand."
"Well God does want us to understand but we have to have a pastor explain it to us."
"No, we shouldn't have to rely on pastors; people should read the Bible for themselves."
"New translations today making the Bible easier to read are dumbing down the Bible."
"Actually the KJV is already easier to read than the NKJV but that's not dumbing down the Bible."
😆
I think these discussions are good as long as we remember we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. This topic can touch up deeply so I would expect strong arguments. But only Satan is helped by needless anger and division.
This topic is personal to me also. I am a good English student, and I know my Bible better than most. But to be honest, I often struggle to understand the words in the KJV. A problem I do not have in other translations.
And this is my first point. If I struggle, how much more will people who have poor English skills or only a casual understanding of the Bible?
Let me give you an illustration. I am currently studying Romans 11:1-3.
The ESV is easy for me to understand. It is written in reasonable English with only the word “foreknew” being a little difficult.
The NKJV is a little harder. A reader will need to know what is meant by “cast away”. “seed” and “foreknew” but that is not too bad.
Alas though the KJV is much harder. A reader will need to know what is meant by “hath”, “cast away”, “foreknew”, “seed”, “saith”, “Elias”, “maketh”, “intercession” and “digged down”.
An experienced KJV reader will probably understand these verses without any effort. Although I wonder how many would know what the unusual “digged down” means.
But, this is not so with me. I need to make my own translation in my head to understand what this means. And this is even before I start to work out what Paul is trying to communicate to me. This is a relatively simple section of text. There are plenty of other important passages that are far harder to read.
And this is my second point. If the only way I can understand a text is to retranslate it, then I would prefer it to be written from the start in a translation that I do understand. Why should we use words and sentences that are unnecessarily difficult? Why should make barriers that obscure the message of the Bible? The Bible is challenging enough to understand without these issues.
I understand the reluctance to change from the KJV. It is a wonderful version that has served us well. I do not wish to let it go. But alas I do think it is time to start moving to versions that are more understandable to more people.
Excellent comment in all respects.
@@markwardonwords Thanks Mark. I hope you have a good trip.
Thank you!
Dr. Ward, I need to tell you why you lost the "debate"! I respectfully submit that it was your premise of proper exegesis and unflawed logic. Both of those tactics blind the KJVonlyests. When challenged thusly they revert back to their circuitous and whackerdoodle thought processes. Thank you for the godly and gentlemanly way in which you presented your position.
Pray for them! I honestly believe they're coming along!
Is this debate posted on another channel?
Two others.
DEBATE: Is the King James Readable?
1. As I listened to Rev. Dan's opening statement, I imagined I was experiencing the presence of a hay flea and began to itch.
2. Dr. Ward at 1:29:15-26: "What is more precious, what is worth more than the things that our Creator says to us? The things that He instructs us? The commands that He gives us? The promises He gives us?"
Response: The only thing I can think of is Jesus Christ Himself:
A. Gospel of John 6:53-56 (1526 Tyndale Bible):
53Then Iesus sayde vnto them: "Verely verely I saye vnto you except ye eate ye flesshe of ye Sonne of Man and drinke His bloude ye shall not have lyfe in you. 54Whosoever eateth My flesshe and drinketh My bloude hath eternall lyfe: and I will rayse him vp at the last daye. 55For My flesshe is meate in dede: and My bloude is drynke in dede. 56He that eateth My flesshe and drynketh M bloude dwelleth in Me and I in him."
B. 1 Corinthians 11:27 (1526 Tyndale Bible):
Wherfore whosoevere shall eate of this bred OR drynke of the cup vnworthely shalbe giltie of the body AND bloud of the Lorde.
3. And if the 1526 Tyndale Bible was good enough for St. John and St. Paul ...
At 1:16:00 DrDan responds to DrWard’s question in total Kamala Harris style.
He answered it by not answering it but about talking about his upbringing.
Dr. Dan's opening argument is all over the place. Assuming that he has little debate experience, I suggest he have someone look over his notes or to run through his argument with a mock audience first.
I am open to KJV onlyism even if only to understand it's appeal. However, every argument for it that I've encountered is filled with ad hominems, intimidation tactics, and irrelevant sentimentalism. Dr. Dan, to my recollection, presented one point towards the debate topic (that knowing the Gospel from the KJV is sufficient to fulfill the criteria of intelligibility) and immediately moved on without supporting that claim.
Yes. Well stated.