A KJV False Friend in a Famously Misused Verse
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 окт 2022
- Poor Philippians 4:13 gets abused *again*-in a way that never occurred to me!
🎁 Help me end Bible translation tribalism, one plow boy at a time:
✅ / mlward
✅ buymeacoffee.com/mlward
📖 Check out my book, Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible:
amzn.to/2r27Boz
🎥 Watch my Fifty False Friends in the KJV series:
• 50 False Friends in th...
👏 Many, many thanks to the Patreon supporters who make my work possible!
Name, James Duly, Robert Gifford, Lanny M Faulkner, Lucas Key, Dave Thawley, William McAuliff, Razgriz, James Goering, Eric Couture, Martyn Chamberlin, Edward Woods, Thomas Balzamo, Brent M Zenthoefer, Tyler Rolfe, Ruth Lammert, Gregory Nelson Chase, Ron Arduser, Caleb Farris, Dale Buchanan, Jess English, Aaron Spence, Orlando Vergel Jr., John Day, Joshua Bennett, K.Q.E.D., Brent Karding, Kofi Adu-Boahen, Steve McDowell, Kimberly Miller, A.A., James Allman, Steven McDougal, Henry Jordan, Nathan Howard, Rich Weatherly, Joshua Witt, Wade Huber, M.L., Brittany Fisher, Tim Gresham, Lucas Shannon, Easy_Peasy , Caleb Richardson, Jeremy Steinhart, Steve Groom, jac, Todd Bryant, Corey Henley, Jason Sykes, Larry Castle, Luke Burgess, Joel, Joshua Bolch, Kevin Moses, Tyler Harrison, Bryon Self, Angela Ruckman, Nathan N, Gen_Lee_Accepted , Bryan Wilson, David Peterson, Eric Mossman, Jeremiah Mays, Caleb Dugan, Donna Ward, DavidJamie Saxon, Omar Schrock, Philip Morgan, Brad Dixon, James D Leeper, M.A., Nate Patterson, Dennis Kendall, Michelle Lewis, Lewis Kiger, Dustin Burlet, Michael Butera, Reid Ferguson, Josiah R. Dennis, Miguel Lopez, CRB, D.R., Dean C Brown, Kalah Gonzalez, MICHAEL L DUNAVANT, Jonathon Clemens, Travis Manhart, Jess Mainous, Brownfell, Leah Uerkwitz, Joshua Barzon, Benjamin Randolph, Andrew Engelhart, Mark Sarhan, Rachel Schoenberger
I look forward to every lesson Mark Ward brings us on how English has changed in 400 years, which helps us both understand God's Word better and exercise greater care not knowing what else we don't spot. Very humbling. All the parts of the body working together!
You are very kind! Your support of this channel has been invaluable.
Believe it or not, if this is what I think it is, this was actually one that confused one of the churches I went to when I was about six years old. I had the verse memorized as "through Christ who strengthens me" because I used the NKJV. This church that I was attending Vacation Bible School at used the KJV (I don't think they were KJV only though), and, for some reason, they didn't bother printing any of the memory verses on paper. They expected everybody to be able to look them up in the Bible themselves. Not a terrible idea in theory, but in execution it had terrible results. One of the results was when one of the memory verses was Philippians 4:13. I went to get my points for memorizing the verse and was told I was wrong because it was "which" not "who." The staff running Vacation Bible School insisted that it had to be "which" because it was referring to the things strengthening me rather than to Christ strengthening me. I ended up running over to my bookbag, pulling out my Bible, and flipping to the page to point out to them that I had memorized it directly. It ended up not only getting an apology out of them but also changing their entire interpretation of the verse.
You anticipate my content!
It’s is because the man Jesus, flesh and blood, is not God. You must go through the flesh by the Spirit of God, which is our strength, which is the Spirit of Christ.
It is because Hypostatic Union is a lie, which tries to unify the flesh with the Spirit of God, despite Romans 8:8-9 KJV. They teach the the flesh of Jesus is God, WHICH is a lie for the purposes of claiming God has a “chosen race” in the modern Bible corruptions in 1 Peter 2:9. That is a blatant lie, given Roman 8:8-9 KJV. How can God have a chosen race, when they that are in the flesh cannot please God??? It is chosen generation because it is only those who are regenerated (born again, not of flesh and blood, but by the Spirit of God. it’s a blatant attempt to teach racism for Zionist.
Notice the “which”….
Romans 2:29 (KJV)
But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.
1 Corinthians 2:11 (KJV)
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1 Corinthians 2:12 (KJV)
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Ephesians 6:17 (KJV)
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Philippians 3:3 (KJV)
For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
Philippians 1:19 (KJV)
For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,
Galatians 3:14 (KJV)
That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Hebrews 9:14 (KJV)
How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
1 Peter 1:2 (KJV)
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
1 Peter 1:22 (KJV)
Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, [see that ye] love one another with a pure heart fervently:
1 Peter 3:18 (KJV)
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
I've commented on some of your other videos regarding an old Afrikaans translation released in 1953 (revision). In just this short lapse of time from 1953 to 2022 it has become, in my humble opinion, at least partly difficult to understand. Language is just so alive and changes. I pastor two churches in almost rural South Africa. The other day I was sitting in on a children's program, when the elder was reading a Bible text. He then zoomed in on an old word. He asked the children what it meant, and they didn't know. So he tried to explain it.
However, he created his own definition of what the word meant! I tried to correct him by giving the correct definition, but he dismissed it and carried on with his definition. Even older people who were born in the 1950s don't know what that translation is actually saying, coming up with their own meanings for words. I was not impressed...🤷♂
This is why Bible translations should always and regularly be updated: for clear understandable language and scholarly advancement in the source texts.
Awww, was waiting for a quick glimpse of the hummingbird :)
I really tried! He’s so fast!!
A man that loves God, his word and ultimate Frisbee.
I could hang with you, brother. 👍
Yup. Just played with my buddies on Tuesday.
Mark, I know this is an older video, but thanks a lot for making it. This verse tripped me up for decades as I always thought "which" was referring to "things" and not "Christ."
I would like to point out (just for funsies) that we do use which to refer to people when asking a question. For example, "which one of you wrote on the white board with permanent marker?" or, "which student/kid/person, etc."
Yes, as an interrogative pronoun-but not as a demonstrative one. Right?
Glad you enjoyed this!
1599 GENEVA BIBLE "I am able to do all things through the help of Christ, which strengtheneth me."
I decided to use a KJV based Lord's Prayer just so the kids would know it for summer Sunday school and I had to explain the same thing to me little dudes! Little 6 year old: "why is our Father which???"
Note: I quizzed them regularly on specific words and challenged them to rephrase one line each Sunday. 😀
Good!
New subscriber! I love the way you can teach so seriously and then "Ooh, hummingbird!" 🥰
Something I frequently do myself. 😄
Ha! Yeah, it was really cool!
Thank you once again, Mark - excellent and edifying work, as always. Keep going!
My pleasure!
Ask Mark why the modern Bible versions call God a sinner? Mark. Please explain 1 John 3:6 and 1 John 3:9 in light of Col 3:3 KJV versus the modern versions.
My understanding is that of my life is hid in God himself, I cannot sin because God cannot sin.
1 John 3:6 (KJV) Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
1 John 3:6 (ESV) No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.
1 John 3:6 (NLT) Anyone who continues to live in him will not sin. But anyone who keeps on sinning does not know him or understand who he is.
1 John 3:6 (NASB20) No one who remains in Him sins continually; no one who sins continually has seen Him or knows Him.
KJV is correct because…
Colossians 3:3 (KJV) For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.
Philippians 3:9 (KJV)
And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
Acts 17:28 (KJV)
For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Mark!! Your video production manner is delightful!
Wow, thank you!
"I can do all of those things through the One who gives me strength - Christ."
Yup!
I love that phrasing!
Dude I love you’re humor “which” made me laugh watching this video! 😂
;)
Hi Mark, I hope you will allow me an observation about the TR/KJVonliests. I will admit, as a CT guy, that they make some legitmate arguments against the CT. In fact, it is causing me to become much more eclectic in my outlook...CT, TR, MT "mixture." But the one thing that still is a sticking point with me is their inability to answer the question "which TR?" or "which KJV?". They side-step, obfuscate, and label the question as a false narrative. Then they go on to explain why it's a non-question. Here's the thing...not ONCE have I EVER understood what one of them is saying. To me, that is an admission that they just don't have an answer but don't want to admit it.
I feel precisely as you do. I think one of the best points made by TR defenders is to question that we should go with the more difficult reading. I can see both sides there, and I can see why someone would in good conscience take the anti-CT tack on that one. But not only do TR defenders commonly side-step and obfuscate, they also strike back at me, calling me a liar and disingenuous (and a few other less printable things; I wish I were kidding). When people have to resort to ad hominem, they've lost the debate.
@@markwardonwords I know they do, Mark, and I truly feel for you. As I prepare to retire next Spring, I had given some thought to starting a "Bible Tid-Bits" blog or video channel. Just doing some "Did you know...?" stuff. I have decided against it. It is sad that what could be stimulating informative dialog so easily devolves into hate speech (no politics intended).
I admire you for your "sticktoitiveness" (an ancient Aramaic word) ;)
Blessings to you!
I am surprised the pastor didn't attack the modern versions for replacing "Christ" with "him" (textual variant).
I almost got into that but decided not to!
I gathered it means I can endure all of these things listed through God who give me the strength. He allows me to endure all things through his strength which is within and upon me. If that paraphrase helps at all.
Love all the very simple explanation plus some funny comments on the side!!!
All I can remember when studying English during younger years on which and who was - which would refer to objects/non-persons and who to persons. 🥰
Right! When they are relative pronouns.
Great video!
I was looking into this verse because as you've stated, this is one verde that is often cited out of context.
I have to acknowledge that there have been instsnces in which the application -although still out of context- is not really theologically incorrect or improper. As far as we're saying that Christ is the one doing the strengthening.
I think that a way I would put this verse in English that I believe is more in keeping with the overall context of the passage would be translating the Greek "ischuó" as "I'm able" or "I prevail/endure"
"I endure all things through The One stregthening me"
Paul just compared his life before Christ and his life after Christ. He was a well respected pharisee. In the eyes of the world and man made religion, he had everything. But when he came to Christ, he lost everything the world offered him. He was now suffering persecution, he was either in need or didn't have the extravagance that as a pharisee he once had. He was shipwrecked, arrested, beaten and mocked by his peers.
But he learned the secret of how to endure despite all these circumstances, that secret was contentment, but not just any contentment. He was content no matter the situation, because if he was suffering lack, persecution and everything else, it was because of The One on whom he had faith, The One stregthening him through tribulation.
So all these "tribulations" I'm able to endure, I'm able to persevere or prevail while being faced with all these tribulations because , or through or in The One stregthening me. The One who is presently and continually stregthening me; Jesus Christ.
I'm able to endure persecution, mockery, beatings, my family disowning me, my wife leaving, my children hating me. I can endure the media portraying me as a hateful bigot.
And I can also endure having need as well as having no need at all, I can mange if I have much. I can persevere in the faith whether I'm rich or poor, it doesn't go to my head, because my strength in all things is not the world, is not my family, friends or my material possessions or wealth, it's not recognition or fame. My strength is Christ and with Him I'm content, no matter what life situation I may or may not find myself in.
And so I prefer to say endure, or persevere or prevail through all thing (through it all, in spite of it all) rather than "I can do all things" because as you said, I don't think Paul was talking about scoring a touch down on football, but he was able to persevere in the faith despite the suddem and drastic change his life went through because of his encounter with Jesus; and he was able to endure or withstand these sudden drastic changes because Christ was his strength and contentment.
Does this make any sense, or am I rambling? 😂
God bless you and your ministry!
I appreciate your videos, Mark. You take the time to graciously correct misunderstandings about the KJV and instruct us about the phenomenon of language change.
Pray for me!
I appreciate this video. I have long been somewhat “cheesed” about the misuse of this verse. I been perusing your book for a while now and I’m new to your channel, but I have found intellectual honestly in the points you make. I grew up KJVO. I’m only in the last decade, and by my own experience preaching through the Bible coming to conclusions that from my youth I would have found anathema. Another commenter mentioned a desire to see you debate. Have you had any serious discussion from the anyone on the KJVO side?
Yes, I have. I have a video from a few months ago where I answer my best opponent, Christopher Yetzer. Here's the video: ruclips.net/video/h4x5Di_9xJI/видео.html
I've also had some good interaction with Bryan Ross, though most of it is private. Also Robert Truelove, Dane Johannsson, and Robert Vaughan-though the first two are not KJV-Only. I get better interaction in private. I also talk about responses to my work in this video: ruclips.net/video/WGGmH0KzScY/видео.html
@@markwardonwords Thanks very much!
Nicely done. My understanding of Phil 4:13 has become, "if doing some 'thing' strengthens me, I can do it in Christ." That is, sharing a word of encouragement, giving something to a homeless person, explaining a scripture - these are all self-edifying things, and Christ gives me strength to do them. On the other hand, robbing a bank, running a brothel, selling a product to someone who doesn't need it ... these are destructive activities that cannot be done in the power of Christ.
"My understanding of Phil 4:13 has become, "if doing some 'thing' strengthens me, I can do it in Christ." "
It's not about "your understanding", it's about what the text says, and that is NOT what it says!
Mark thanks for the scholarship of opening up the word of God as it was intended.
It is my great honor and my duty as a herald!
Man why dont these kjv onlyists just get some kjv bibles which definitions at the bottom of the page? I love the kjv but mine has definitions for strange words or phrasings. And i have other bibles for extremely odd things.
I'd love for more of them to do that! Some do.
@@markwardonwords you still get the beautiful phrasing and vibe, but then you can understand what it means… then youre learning “new” words and history at the same time. And sometimes you can see where certain words in modern english came from.
defined king james seems to have more definitions than the TBS westminster altho they are not that complete. Reading kjv in parallel with free kjv verse by verse commentaries found on the internet is the most reliable way to find all archaic words and get explanations of idioms.
The content is exceedingly valuable, but the delivery is what I admire most…John 13:35…thank you Mark
Pray for me, brother! I don't always live up to that verse.
@@markwardonwords none of us do brother, but you set a fine example…
Very good. The interpretation in context is key!!!
I agree, when it comes to children they should be allowed to use a modern version. However, when ever someone is reading from any version, the only way to follow along is to use the same version, or I get really lost. ☺
I get this-I hear this from people, and I believe them! I don't get lost, but I'm nerdy that way! I recommend that pastors stick with the same translation for this reason.
I’ve heard this interpretation once before. Good job handling it!
I had never heard it. Never occurred to me. Surprised that others have heard it. One of the urban legends of exegesis, I suppose.
Thanks!
Thank you in turn! I appreciate this!
Wow your channel is awesome! This info is very needed! God bless you and thank you for doing the Lord’s work 😊
Thank you so much!
It's "which," isn't it?
I can do all the things that strengthen me, but I can't do any of the things that weaken me.
It's sorta like that pressing question in the KJV Lord's Prayer: "Which art in heaven." Impressionist? Cubist? Rococo?
Yes-and I wouldn't be surprised if your tongue in cheek take has occurred seriously to others: when you use English in unexpected ways, you get unexpected results!
@@markwardonwords It's a problem for non-English speakers for sure. My dad actually got confused over the title of the hymn "How Great Thou Art".
I have strength for all things by the One empowering me.
A good rendering.
@@markwardonwords Thank you, Mark! How about another one? How about James 4:5?
“Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?”
(James 4:5 KJV)
A tough one! I feel like I've touched on it briefly elsewhere; I know I have. I think it is a simple and clear example of inspired ambiguity, as the translations show.
@@markwardonwords Here is my translation: "Or you think that the Scripture says for nothing that the spirit which settled in us yearns for envy?"
@@karencohen7295 So why that rendering and not the other main option?
All I should say is this. I am guilty of not trusting the Word of God. And I also felt deeply troubled that it seemed I could never hold the scriptures in my hand unless I learned "high level Greek."
I have learned the hard way that the King James Bible is incredibly hard to understand if you don't read it.
My friend, for some reason some of your previous comments have disappeared. I really urge you to watch more videos in my Fifty False Friends series. I do believe you were simply misunderstanding the intent of the title of this video. If you will watch those videos, you will understand my purposes better - and, more importantly, you will understand the King James better.
ruclips.net/p/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc
@@markwardonwords thank you I will check it out!
I'm curious, Mark, do you script out your videos and read from a teleprompter? Or do you have an outline in front of you (or in your head)? It doesn't change anything for me, each video makes me shake my head in amazement as you dodge and weave through the English language! I'm just curious.
I actually use a complicated system of hand gestures from my eight-year-old, as well as a trained squirrel. And, usually, a teleprompter. ;)
Hi! Sir.. I'm from Burma How can I get your books are please...
Do you have Logos Bible Software, even the free version? On phone or computer?
A comment from your residential “ ex-KJVO-fundamentalist-now-turned-confessional-Lutheran-through-a-long-long-story” person at the back of the class:
When I attended my KJVO IFB church many moons ago, I recall the head pastor specifically doing sermons on this verse, and he said the following: You should read this verse as “I can do everything I am suppossd to do as a Christian in the power of Jesus Christ who empowers me to do so.”
He liked to shout a lot, so I dared not ask him why the KJV wasn’t updated to fit his reading.
Yes, KJV-Only pastors actually often do update the KJV in their sermons.
I mean, the whole thing is exegesis and not translation! But more accessible would be good. 😉
Do the Salem which trials play into this at all?
Not sure I follow you here!
@@markwardonwords just a which joke. Sorry.
@@Philisnotretired I got it! 😁
Great answer! I am sure that Polly / Pol / Pah / P-dawg has some good direction here! 😂😂
I hope so!
Another great video
I was literally just talking to one of my teens about this one last week! Woohoo!
I hope it lives up to expectations!
If you read the following verse gives an explanation as to why Paul can do all things through God who strengthens him because he learned to be content in his circumstances Phil. 4:11-12 context is important.
Hey, i have a question, what is you're opinion on the Illustrated Bible (NRSVCE) Bible? Is it accurate?
I don’t have sufficient time experience with the NRSVCE to form a valid opinion, I’m afraid!
The NRSV-CE is identical to the standard 1989 NRSV except in its arrangement of the Deuterocanonical material (unlike the RSV-CE and the RSV-2CE, both of which were modified to better suit the needs of their Catholic readership). So any positive or negative things that could be said about the original NRSV will apply to the Catholic Edition as well. It enjoys the endorsement of Robert Barron, one of the most prominent and respected bishops in the United States, and it has been the academic standard for the last 30 years.
Much like its sibling translation, the ESV (which has its own Catholic edition adapted from the 2016 Protestant edition), the NRSV is part of the traditional line of English Bibles that traces back to William Tyndale and which famously includes the KJV. This can be either a positive or a negative aspect of the version, depending on how you feel about using a Bible written at a 10th-11th grade reading level with a strong focus on literary beauty and literal adherence to the original languages. It's more challenging than the NABRE or the NLT-CE, but it is also a much richer reading experience, in my opinion.
Where it differs from the ESV (and their cousins: the NASB, NKJV, and MEV) is in its use of contemporary English conventions related to gender. Much like the 2011 NIV, the NRSV is "gender-accurate" by modern stylebook standards, which means that it largely attempts to avoid using the pronoun "he" or the noun "men" to refer to both men and women. It does retain "he" in the legal language of the Torah, but it strives to avoid doing so elsewhere. The translators also bring _adelphoi_ into English as "brothers and sisters" as opposed to the "brothers" of the ESV or the "brethren" of the NKJV (except in cases where the word clearly refers to men only, such as in the Jerusalem Council passage from Acts 15).
Its other notable difference from the ESV is in its choice to translate the Old Testament without regard for its interpretation in the New Testament. It presents the text of the Hebrew Bible in a distinctly Jewish light, even at the cost of traditional Christian viewpoints. Thus, the words "holy spirit" are not capitalized in the Old Testament, even though they are capitalized in the New Testament (since Jews and Christians see the Holy Spirit differently). Where the ESV will see the Old Testament as a foreshadowing of Christ, the NRSV will see it as a reflection of the traumatic exile experience. (This dual approach actually makes the two versions go well together if used in tandem.)
The final thing to note about the NRSV is that it is more likely to incorporate non-Masoretic readings from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint than the other Tyndale-based Bibles are. In that way, it is less bound to tradition and more dedicated to modern scholarship than its peers. (The NIV, NABRE, and NLT are willing to do this, too, but the ESV, NASB, and NKJV shy away from departing from the Masoretic Hebrew text.) In summary, if you're choosing between the NRSV-CE and the ESV-CE, you're choosing how traditional you want your English Bible to be, with the understanding that both are rooted in the same literary tradition.
Doesn't this verse actually say, " I can prevail in all things by the one empowering me" No which or who do deal with.
OK. I give up. What is the "PLV" at the 5 min 11 sec mark where you show Philippians 4:13?
Painfully Literal Version. ;)
😄Thanks @@markwardonwords
Just a guess, but I would say the KJV translation could be understood to mean "which is the one that" strengtheneth me. The modern translations accomplish the same results, but they do so in a manner that is more readily understood, and with less need for explanation from the teacher. Now I will watch the rest of the video to find out just how wrong I am. 🤔
No, this was good!
I've not watched all of the false friends videos or read your book, so it's possible you've already covered this one and it's not in the relevant video title or thumbnail. But a recent discussion elsewhere has led me to think that there are places where "charity" seems to be a false friend, The most well-known use in 1 Corinthians 13 isn't misleading, since it explains exactly what it means. But passages like 1 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 4:12, 2 Timothy 2:2 &, 3:10, Titus 2:2, and Revelation 2:19 seem to be using the word in a way that I think most modern readers would naturally misunderstand.
This one is a bit more challenging, and I haven't tackled it yet. I believe Tim Berg has talked about it on kjbhistory.com or his old site, the address for which I forget now!
Stephen, I believe you are right. My TENT Lexicon has the definition for Strong's #26: ἀγάπη; "sacrificial-love [fig.: cherishing / (pl.) charity-meals], n. 117x, ( from NT25 - "sacrificially-love / cherish") "
Thank you, that was brilliant!
Glad you enjoyed it!
"two brothers sat in the kitchen and drank a smoothie... suddenly one of them dropped the straw right smooth on to the floor" ... "which one?" 😆
What’s the name of his other leg?
I give up!
@@markwardonwords the Right One, of course 😁
Just stick to the LSB, NASB, CSB, NET, I use these 4 everyday, no regrets!!
Good choices!
@@markwardonwords Thank you dear brother for your kind reply. As a 19 year old in 1987 doing my 1st year of Bible College I knew nothing about bible versions, I was forced to use the KJV, likewise my KJV only church , I was only a 1 month old Christian when I entered Bible College. I privately used the unparalleled brilliant NASB 1977, I got into a LOT OF TROUBLE, and even debated my Greek Lecturer (my Pastor) during my 2nd year. Now I’m 55 and Praise God I’m more knowledgeable and mature, I use a multitude of versions plus my trusted Gk and Heb both for my devotional purposes and Teaching. God bless
Mark, is PLV a translation of the bible?
The Painfully Literal Version. ;)
@@markwardonwords Makes sense. I get it now 😁.
and "that". I love the KJV and it's my preferred translation. But I noticed they use which and that when they're referring to people. It's just something I've understood and gotten used to. They mean who or whom.
Would it be wrong to revise and update these words?
Your podcasts make me wish I'd been an English major.
Sometimes I wish that for myself, too!
what is the name of the podcast?
Thou shalt not call her "Pol" .... neither shalt thy call her "Pa" !! ........................... 😊
How about becoming a "professional" Calvin-Ball player? (A reference to the comic strip Calvin & Hobbes) P.S. Great video, please keep them coming.
Yes!!! I’ll do that!
Good job! There is also an issue with the usage of "a" and "an" within the kjv.
Say more!
@@markwardonwords Sure. I will find it again over the weekend and get back with you. I'll respond with email.
@@markwardonwords Did you get my email? First four letter of email address is adtf.
Yes! On vacay! Hope to get to it soonish!
@@markwardonwords Awesome! Have a blast! God bless on your trip.
Mark Ward, I know that this is off topic, but can you please shed some light on why in the world the KJV renders the original Hebrew word “re’em” as “unicorn” in so many passages such as Numbers 23:22, Numbers 24:8, Deuteronomy 33:17,
Job 39:9-10, Psalm 22:21, 29:6 and Isaiah 34:7, whereas no other translation does this, this? What does the OED say?
Thank you so much!
I did talk about this briefly in my book, Authorized. I think the KJV translators were transliterating the Vulgate. "Unicorn" means "one horn." Here's the OED entry:
"Used in Middle English versions of the Old Testament to render the Vulgate ūnicornis or rhīnocerōs (Greek μονόκερως) as translations of Hebrew re'em (also rēym), and retained in various later versions (but translated by ‘wild-ox’ in the Revised Bible)."
Thank you. I was wondering if the ancient Greeks worshipped unicorns, then why would the translators of the KJV use that word. I read something that it was mentioned in the Ancient Greece, but not in mythology as one would expect, but in their‘natural history’ writings. Not sure what that exactly means.
@@tamarafox1585It was a totally normal Latin for an animal with no English name. It's a rhinoceros.
This was a total guess by the Greek translators because the auroch was extinct by the time they were translating it in Alexandria! They knew it was a big exotic mammal but didn't remember what type.
Let's be honest, there are 2 forms of king James bible onlyism: the words mean what they mean today (God's word changes); words change over time and every 50-100 years a new updated translation should be made.
I appreciate your videos.. and if the other commenter is correct, this would make more sense.
Which other commenter are you referring to?
I agree with your conclusions on "which" equating to "who" in modern English. I'm sure you'll sleep better now knowing this ;-).
I was curious about your thoughts in Philippians 4:13 on some translations using "all this", referring to the previous verses (11 and 12), instead of "all things", which if taken out of context could imply, as you pointed out, "everything." I'm by no measure a Greek scholar but after looking through the Greek dictionary and lexicon it appears "things" is the word chosen over the word "this". Any thoughts?
I like this! But it's not strictly necessary, in my opinion. Good readers who pay attention to context should already know to read this with contextual sensitivity.
I'd love to see you debate a KJVo person on dead words and false friends.
Probably no need to debate with uneducated people who are not even aware that english words can change in meaning after more than 400 years. Probably should fix the broken american education system instead. I heard america used to have free college education for everyone like some socialist countries or communist countries. There are some kjvo who follow Gail in guessing the meanings of words based only on context which often does not work but kjvo who follow Gail prefer to believe in the unreliable context method anyway, so pretty useless to debate with people who deny reality. Lots of debates are probably still useful to benefit the uneducated, the gullible, those who habitually reject expert consensus, those who are prone to believe in conspiracy theories, those who have gotten into the habit of cherry picking evidence, and it is unfortunate that these people are not aware that debates about the critical text probably already ended in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s. About maybe half of america seems prone to conspiracy theories and cherry picking of evidence and the broken american education system probably needs fixing.
I get very little genuine engagement; I love it when I do. I figure I have no reason to do a public debate with someone who hasn't shown a willingness to engage.
A lot of them deny it or consider "Jacobethan" a pure form of English and contemporary English "degraded". But that said, still they prefer not to speak as hath been spoken in days of old...
The Simplified KJV uses “who” in these verses 😀 2022 from Barbour publishing updated language but no critical text changes 👍
✔
Nicely said! I have a sermon series entitled, "It Doesn't Mean what You Think It Means" which includes this and other verses routinely quoted by evangelicals, but almost always misunderstood. Want to really see a reaction? Try explaining to pastors the actual meaning of Revelation 3:20. Be prepared for fireworks! ;-)
@therealkillerb7643 "Try explaining to pastors the actual meaning of Revelation 3:20. Be prepared for fireworks! ;-)"
Yep. It's not a gospel verse at all! People get very bent out of shape about that one.
They also get bent out of shape if you point out that there are no singing angels anywhere in Scripture.
It seems to me, using which implies going through Christ to do the all things... all things have to be the commands of God in Christ from repentance, prayer, confession, living, walking, wearing, keeping in step with the Holy Spirit, wearing the full armor of God and all we will need to do in order to best ensure we are wearing that armor, and so on and so on.
From this going through Christ - we would receive power which is expressed supernaturally as physical energies in mind to concentrate, focus clearly, set our mind to a single-mindedness on His word for meditation, memorization, exegetical studies of God's will through biblical cultural context, etc
And stamina for daily functions, talking, emotional power for courage, fruit of the Spirit and many other areas of our physical being.
Some of that power can be manifested as gifts of the Holy Spirit, fruits of His Person and stronger, firmer degrees of devotion, commitment and determination to believe, trust, obey and carry out His instructions.
What do you think after watching the video?
Greetings:
If that pastor had truly been "KJV-only", he would have looked up Phil 4:13 in the Textus Receptus, for his parishoner.
The Greek says:
Panta isxuo ev [preposition takes dative case] tw [dat] endunamounti me Xristw [dat].
Literally, "I have might for all [things], in the [one who is] empowering me, Christ."
(1) He would see it is all dative case. So "in" governs the rest of the words.
(2) He would see "Christ" is in apposition to, explains, identifies, "the [one who is continually] empowering me".
............
BTW: "Empowering" is continuous, like a hydroelectic power generating station at Niagara Falls!
............
Please may I say I do think this is a universal principle, which Paul has applied to a specific situation?
Jesus used to do the same.
............
Only took me 40 minutes.
............
Kurios Iesous Xristos!
:--}>
I would t mind getting a cup of coffee with you. I could see how this would be fun.
Any time you’re in the area!
Regarding being "statistically incapable of checking the Greek," which you mention around 10:20, I have to state that for basic matters such as clarifying word meanings, most anyone now is capable of checking the Greek through sites like Blue Letter Bible. In fact I did this just today when I went on a lexicographical odyssey while researching the Greek word behind "miracles" in John 3:2. (Of course making rulings on grammatical matters is something else.)
There is real truth in what you say. In my experience, however, use of Greek by those who have never studied it almost always goes awry somehow. =| At best, it yields only an affirmation of what the English translations already say clearly. At worst, people end up making all kinds of silly (though usually still minor) interpretive judgments. I used to have more faith in the possibility that people could use Hebrew and Greek without training. I'm still hopeful that, someday, I can write a book that will provide some of that training. But my experience of actual Greek usage among pastors and laity is discouraging to me. =(
@@markwardonwordsI hate to say it, but my observation is the same. 😢
@@markwardonwordsthe next time a preacher goes on about six meaning missing the mark and then by extension implying that sin is something trivial (bad etymology driven approach to bad theology) my hair may burst into flame
I was on a show with nick sayers 2 weeks ago, and I brought up Topheth, then qualified the "spit" definition with Tophet, which seems only logical that you spit when you abhor something. Tophet was abhorrent to God.
Nick sounded as though he was going to make a video that week addressing that issue which he had no answer for, but I am still waiting.
I also think he is wrong about easter. The kjv1611 defines easter as being every sunday in the preface. The one time it is used in the book, it replaces pascha which can be on any day.
I think that is like me, in the beginning of a book, explaining "bad" means cool or great when I was growing up. Then the one time I use "bad" in the book, I say "hey man, that's a bad car". It doesn't matter if the dictionaries say "bad means awful, not good", I defined it in the book and the one time I used it, it would be wrong to think I meant anything else but "cool" or "great" in the one place the entire book I use it. So obviously, it doesn't matter if easter was used various ways before the kjv, the translators defined the word, then used it wrong in replacing pascha.
fundamentalists seem to have low tolerance for comments from atheists so I already got banned from the channels of Nick Sayers and Jeff Riddle.
Complete Biblical Library NT Commentary by evangelical pentecostal Thoralf Gilbrant Philippians 4 v13 (1st section compares kjv with other translations, 2nd section has commentary):
I endure all things with him that strengthens me (SAWR), ...I have strength for all things in him (ALFD), ...I have strength for all circumstances (PNT), ...of him who makes me strong! (TCNT), ...in him who empowers me (RTHM).
Reading kjv in parallel with kjv commentaries is the sure way to avoid misunderstanding both words and idioms. Idioms can also be false friends. The more commentaries, the better.
What do you think of the versions that remove the name of Christ, Philippians 4:13. Do you have a problem with that or no big deal?
My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
In other words, I do not believe that any evangelical Bible translations remove the name of Christ. But if you do, you’re probably KJV-Only. And you probably think that the Textus Receptus is the only appropriate text to translate from. If you do, then use the NKJV or MEV alongside the KJV. You’ll catch some things you didn’t catch before, I promise! If I’m wrong in guessing your view, please correct me!
I appreciate the NWT’s rendering of Philippians 3:14. It makes it very clear the reference is towards Jesus; “For all things I have the strength through THE ONE WHO gives me power.”
Also, your excellent comments on the word “all”. There are those that insist “all” is absolute in many scriptures when it is more context oriented or “relative.” Atheists point out 1 Samuel 15:7,8 where it says ‘Saul smote ALL of the Amalekites’ then they turn to 1 Samuel 27:8,9 where later David ‘smote the Amalekites’. How could he do that if they were ALL already smote? They add; “See the bible contradicts itself.” Another example is when people ask “Who created God?” and point to Col 1:16 where it says; “He [Jesus] created ALL things.” Well, obviously Jesus didn’t create himself or God. All here, isn’t absolute either, though some may insist so. My favorite is Genesis 3:20 which says Eve is the mother of ALL living. Clearly there were countless living creatures before Eve and she wasn’t her own mother!
By "all the Amalekites," I always assumed that it meant "all of them that they came across."
Yes, that's correct. But when an atheist wants to think the bible has contradictions, they won't think like that.
In the case of Colossians 1.16, I'd point out that English translations are treating the Greek word πάντα as two words ("all things"), when it more strictly just means "all." That's why I actually prefer the CSB, GNB, and NLT for using the single word "everything."
But even if πάντα implies "things," the use of the verb "were created" limits the meaning of "things" to "created things." God is already exempt by definition. And, depending on your understanding of the nature of the pre-incarnate Jesus, you might say the same thing about Christ. (Hence why I don't find the NWT's "all other things" very convincing.)
If Jesus was used (as mediator) to create "all things" [or "all"], it stands to reason that he couldn't have created himself, thus it would be understood that he created all other things. I doubt if there is anyone that believes Jesus created himself. Plus again, "all" isn't absolute. That's the point even Mark Ward made, along with plenty of other scriptures.
Your understanding of πάντα is correct. I typically jest that if Porky Pig spoke Greek, it would be grammatically correct for him to say "That's all Folks." :)
Why is the NWT getting mentioned??
Anyways this is what modern versions have due to a textual variant.
Preferred pronouns: thee/thou
Yup.
😂
"Which" was used for people, and "that" for things.
Source?
That's not an error..but what is an error, are things like, taking away verses, or revising apostle Paul to have a problem with pride and saying that the thorn in the flesh, was God giving him a sickness or disease to keep him humble. Even though Paul tells us what made up the thorn in infirmities, which was all of the trouble he got from Satan inspiring the Jews to get to kill him and persecute him and to manipulate entire crowds of people to stone him to death. Only in the west, in mainstream denominations, do we find this "KJV shouldn't be used anymore". But in the rest of the world, it is the dominant translation.
I never said this was an error, my friend.
@@markwardonwords I was meaning, not doctrinal error, etc, but "mistake".
@@dominiclapinta8537 Dominic, I'm asking you quite sincerely: do you want to know why the conservative Christians who translated the various modern evangelical versions made the translation choices they did in the passages you bring up?
Oh-and I don't think the KJV translators made a mistake either. I think what they did in the verse I discuss in this video was perfectly fine.
@@markwardonwords I see. Got ya
Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism.
I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin,
but not the Greek so out it goes.
Good will towards men
Doxology in Matthew
Without cause
God manifest in the flesh
Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin,
so out they go
The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek
and Latin so out they go.
Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8
some throw out.
If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem,
what would you see as a problem?
My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
@@markwardonwords Thanks. The problem I have after reading Burgon is when he pointed out that there was no historical evidence for the Lucianic recension theory, which the Critical Text folk now accept they didn't abandon their conclusion about the Greek churches' texts. " I know of no text critic today who would argue that the Byzantine text as we find it promulgated in the minuscules is the result of a concerted fourth-century recension … No major textual critic, to my knowledge, holds to Westcott and Hort’s fourth-century revision view anymore though it may well linger among those in the wider NT guild".[2] Gurry, Peter. “Where did the Byzantine text come from?” Posted on May 11, 2018, at Evangelical Textual Criticism.
Lucian and the Lucianic Recension of the Greek Bible
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009 Bruce M. Metzger
Extract
Among the several scholars of the ancient Church who occupied themselves with the textual criticism of the Bible, one of the most influential was Lucian of Antioch. Though not as learned or as productive in a literary way as either Origen or Jerome, Lucian's work on the text of the Greek Bible proved to be of significance both in his own day and, to an even greater extent, during the centuries following. In fact, his recension of the text of the New Testament, with only minor modifications, continued to be used widely down to the nineteenth century, and still lives on in the so-called Ecclesiastical text of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
@@jamessheffield4173 Maybe can get defined king james and or TBS westminster for definitions.
@@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175 Yup. Blessings.
@@jamessheffield4173 Is it online?
Well people should research the language instead of using inferior bibles taken from 2 or 3 documents that have entire verses missing.
My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
@10:07 a man which, a man which, a man which, a man which. Oh the irony! A man "WHO". Maybe the language hasn't changed after all.
I think you missed the point, my friend!
Amazing how you talk about Ruckman and his abrasiveness and that he’s vile and you in another way with your smug intellect, smirky remarks ( I’m sure the pastor meant well but pray for him) do the same thing but in a subtle way. Both are irritating.
Pray for me. I don’t want to sin. I do surely feel a temptation toward the very things you name.
@Mark Ward
Hope you don't mind that I intrude here. I think there is a big difference between constructive sarcasm, and vitriol. (1 Kings 18:27; Galatians 5:12; etc.)
Uh, such "a barrier". Understanding that they mean who or whom when they say that or which is so haaaaarrrd. 🙄 KJV and NKJV are fantastic. Hush. CSB (which I'm reading through right now) is a real disappointment so far. For example, instead of "knew" saying "had sexual relations". That leads to people not seeing the doctrine of election and understanding what foreknew means.
I've pondered this. I'm really not sure there's a connection between "Adam knew his wife" and "the Lord knows them that are his." Maybe, and maybe not. Reading multiple translations will give you the tools to catch that possible connection as well as the tools to make sure you're not misunderstanding an idiom or metaphor.
Here is the link to my video I made refuting your statements. With civility of course.
ruclips.net/video/gHXTCgpXMQ0/видео.html
You said to let you know in the comments why it was which instead of who.
That's because which and who are both pronouns that can be properly used for both people and things. I noticed that the definition you gave from Oxford English dictionary was only the middle definition. But you neglected to show the first and the last part of the definition which would refute your conclusion that - which is odd and not in our English and incorrect. There is nothing wrong about the word which in Philippians 4:13. It is proper and grammatically correct.
My friend, I'm content for people to watch my video, watch yours, and come to their own conclusion. Thank you for your effort to listen hard and be courteous!
Ok, ok-I'll add one more thing! Anthony, my friend, take note of the difference between interrogative pronouns and relative pronouns!
Boy this guy is spreading lies,beware
Please interact with the arguments made in the video.