The Biggest Step the IFB Needs to Take
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- I was invited to hear a leading KJV-Only preacher at a nearby church. What I heard vexed my righteous soul.
🎁 Help me end Bible translation tribalism, one plow boy at a time:
✅ / mlward
✅ buymeacoffee.c...
📖 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
"What can I say about this OR what does this say?" Wow!!! What an important distinction and one I've never heard put quite that way.
I've thought of that set of questions a thousand times. So helpful.
@@markwardonwords - I will be sharing that with every preacher and teacher I can now.
I am currently teaching an introductory Hermeneutics course and I am passionate about this very thing. I took note of this quote as well and will be sharing it with my class also.
Preach the Word, the whole Word, and nothing but the Word.
As a former IFB, your criticism that they ask, “what can I say about this?” versus “what does this say?” rings so true to me. I grew weary of it. It’s one of the reasons I left.
Got that straight from a preacher who considered himself a fundamentalist-but not of the KJVO sort.
Wow! Excellent Mark! I know Bro. Oullette and Bryan Samms and have talked with Bro. Oullette about your book. He is gracious, but we land on separate foundations. Sometimes in our circles we can feel alone holding different views. Your video changed that. Thank you! I am a Pastor and faculty at a small Bible college and teach Bibliology. I have your book which you graciously sent me in digital form. Excellent work all the way around. Keep the videos coming!
Thank you, Pastor McGee! May the Lord help us all to teach his word with accuracy!
Thank you for this. It's a bit of a "You're not crazy." moment for me.
I showed it to my wife and she said "It sounds like he's talking about [our former church]". Which is because it is. Ouellette, WCBC, and Lancaster are all part of the association we grew up in, got married in, and recently left. I wish the best for those churches and individuals we loved, but everything you critique here is spot-on. You're guess is correct; the type of hermeneutic/homiletic in this sermon is not the exception. It's the norm in this branch of the IFB. The "righteous vexation" you experienced was a weekly event for me, and just not something I could sustain any longer.
I also appreciate that you maintain a charitable voice throughout your content. The only times I've heard you get riled up are about KJVO and this tendency in the IFB to butcher passages. Two things which keep the Word from the flock.
Thank you for all the hard work brother. And thank you for putting words to feelings I've struggled to express.
Dale, I’m grateful for your words-and as I think you know, my heart goes out to you. May the Lord help you find a doctrinally sound church (has he already?) in which you can hear careful, faithful exposition.
Thanks for modeling both grace and truth. As former IFB, I know my IFB brothers love God with all their heart. I have been praying that my IFB brothers learn more of what it means to love God with all your mind. (Matt. 22:37) Thank you for mentioning and addressing anti-intellectualism. Content like this is so valuable! Thanks again!
Let us pray for our brothers! They can repent, and they can learn, as we have had to do!
Thank you. Important warning for all of us!
“Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.”
Right. I could have just quoted James 3:1 instead of making this whole video!
I love you my dear brother. Thank you for sharing this encounter. I believe, I heard him speak at Heartland Baptist Bible College in OKC. I’m not positive though. I spent approximately 13 years with the IFB. I learned a lot of wonderful things. I did however find myself constantly having to weed thru these types of messages, where the preacher preaches opinions from a text rather than what the passage is actually saying. I appreciate your love for the Word and desiring to please God over men. God bless! Keep up the good work.
I, too, am grateful for my four years in a KJV-Only church in high school! I had a good experience, I truly did.
"What can I say about this?” OR “What does this say?"
An important subconscious distinction of mine that you vocalized and crystallized! The primary reason I left two churches, one IFB, the other Pentecostal.
Thank you!
✔ I must give credit again to my most important mentor, Mark Minnick, for this one!
Mark, you seem to be one of the nicest people on the planet… You are one of the best spokespersons on the KJVO debate.
Pray only that my children will grow to say the same. I want that reputation with them more than I want it with the planet. But, ideally, both! May God help us all.
Yes, amen ! Thank you, Mark
"What can I say about this? Or what does this say?"
It's such a simple adage, but man, it's difficult to get into that habit. I had preached for maybe 7 years before I really started to understand that distinction.
Right on. I heard a youth pastor friend, now senior pastor, say the same thing.
I began my Christian walk, and was baptized, in an IFB Church, and quickly bought into the KJV Onlyism that I was taught there. I eventually learned better, and gained great respect for the hard work of Bible translation and textual criticism. Great work brother!
Right!
Dr. Ward, I really appreciate your videos and look forward to them each time. Grace and peace be with you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Thank you, sir.
I cannot agree with this more. I have long been grieved by my IFB brethren who don’t preach the text and I have personally seen it time and time again, too many people teist the text to push their preconceived agenda instead of letting Gods word speak for itself. You hit it on the head here brother.
Thank you, Jordan. We all make mistakes in preaching, but to positively twist a passage into saying something it couldn't possibly be saying… That (like I said in the video) fills me with dread. =(
I did not send this video to Ouellette before making it, but I did sit on it a long time. I don't take any delight in calling him out. I actually hope and think that he may respond humbly to me. He did when we spoke in person.
Thanks again Bro. Once again, this is outstanding. I honestly wish my KJVO brethren would just preach the text in context as originally intended. But as of yet, I’ve not found much exposition among the KJVO crowd.
Thanks for what you do!
Right-if a Christian genie appeared and gave me the option of 1) instantly converting all KJV-Onlyists to using the ESV or 2) instantly converting all KJV-Onlyists into careful expositors of Scripture, I would choose the latter in a heartbeat, knowing that eventually the KJV-Onlyism would go away, too.
Exactly!! Blessings my friend!
“Ruckman would never say that in a million cuss words.” 😂
Ouellette told me some good things about Ruckman's dedication to evangelism, but I sure hope none of his converts went to his church. He was full of unrelenting hatred and bile. =(
@@markwardonwords From what I've seen, Ruckman sure spoke in a serpentine way, full of venom. He and his ilk have done so much damage to the Body.
Thx so much for this video. It really helped me to see how you dealt with strong disagreement in a humble and charitable manner. Very timely as we are in the process of gently leaving and correcting a life group leader not necessarily because she is taking the group into a charismatic direction (though I have issues since I was once one and licensed at that) but because of her sheer disregard for basic hermeneutics opting instead for a more direct felt/led approach. Like you said God can use crooked sticks to draw straight lines, and I’m no expert, but this is grieving to me. I like you want to know what the text says…. Not just what I want to say about it. On a positive note, this has helped my wife and I to reconfirm our commitment to more biblical rigor even discovering new assumptions we have after 25 years if marriage. One of this wins was finding you Mark. Thx for the channel, content and great demeanor.
Praise God, Robb. May the Lord help us both-and that Bible study leader!
"What can I say about this OR what does this say?" Reminds me of some of the wishy-washy Bible studies I attended a few years back. The question was often posed "What does this verse/passage mean to you?" Whereas my question was "What does this verse/passage MEAN?"
Application is part of the interpretive process; you haven't understood what the passage says until you've gotten there. But I do think it's helpful to see application as the end of a process that has to travel through other waypoints first.
Thank you for sharing a difficult conversation with a KJV only preacher. You are correct. I grew up on the KJV but never felt compelled to limit my reading and study to the KJV. I am much more comfortable with newer translations like the ESV, NASB, CSB and NIV 84. I'm glad much of your experiences at the church held to a spirit of unity and harmony.
Yes!
Glad you made this video Mark. Thank you.
More than differing on the positions, I am, like you, grieved at the constant misuse of Scripture to defend various IFB practices, chief among them, KJVonlyism. It's this manipulative practice, often paired with poor reasoning and historical misrepresentation and/or ignorance that drives me up a wall. Those practices are simply un-Christian.
Thank you for pointing out that error.
Thank you, Shelby. There are sincere mistakes out there in the world. And KJV-Onlyism is a sincere mistake for some of its adherents. But some of its leaders, especially, have had many opportunities to know better. =(
I recently had a KJV onlyist resort to name calling and misrepresenting me and when he started the name calling I reminded him that's all he had..
Another said I wasn't being truthful in saying the King James bible is a calvinistic Anglican church translation was not answered with any written refutation to correct or show me the error of my ways..
Thank you, Dr. Ward, for your strong encouragement for us all to behave in accordance with our belief that the Bible is the word of God. I fully agree that preachers must tell us what the Bible says and not what they want to say about the Bible. However, I am not sure that brother Ouelette approached the text, asking, "what can I say about this passage?" instead of "what does this passage say?" He may well have: many preachers have not been taught the right way to approach a text of scripture. However, it seems to me that his error was born from his theology.
As someone who has been in IFB circles a decent bit and who used to be KJV-only, it has been my experience the KJV-only people typically study only their King James Bible when attempting to understand a passage of Scripture. They don't consult modern translations or commentaries because they believe they are corrupt, and they don't consult the original language because they consider it to be superfluous: they hold an inerrant translation in their hands. Thus cut off from the resources that might help them to recognize errors in their interpretations, it is easy for them to depart from the text upon which they are claiming to expound. Their anti-intellectualism often also keeps them from studying preaching and learning better ways to approach the text. However, many conservative evangelical pastors make the same errors even without these hindrances.
I have no doubt that brother Ouelette is a godly man and probably a far better pastor than I, but it is dangerous to proclaim God's word based only on a translation that we cannot read as well as we think we can. Unfortunately, the path out of that kind of theology that keeps us from truly understanding God's word is a very painful one. I am speaking from personal experience. Blessings to you and your ministry, Dr. Ward. May God use it to open many eyes to the riches of His word.
Some very wise words here. I don’t disagree at all. I see what you’re saying as absolutely complementary to what I’m saying. I have reason to believe that even the more moderate, “TR-Only” variety of IFB KJV-Onlyists in practice (which Ouellette actually is!) in practice treat the KJV as perfect. I heard an Ambassador Baptist College professor say, in a recording just a few years back, that he doesn’t even own any modern translations. =( This is not supposed to be their view; they’re supposed to be “The Text Is the Issue” folks.
@@markwardonwords Thank you, sir. I completely agree that approaching the text wrongly and interpreting it wrongly are complementary problems. I know TR-only people who use Greek and Hebrew or the NKJV, but most don't. I presume its because they trust the KJV and believe modern scholars are all part of a giant conspiracy to destroy the Bible, thus they become functionally King James only. This was essentially my position for many years. I now recognize that reading the KJV exclusively greatly hindered my ability to understand and interpret Scripture. There are so many wonderful and godly people who insist on the exclusive use of the King James, but I fear this position harms them as it did me.
On a recent video I published, a sister in Christ told me that I should read "A More Sure Word" and another book I don't remember, because I used a lot of different translations in my video. I Googled them and saw that they argued for King James Onlyism, so I told her that she definitely could use the KJV, but that it wasn't the right choice for me. And I recommended your channel.
She later deleted her comment, so I hope it was because something you said changed her mind.
I appreciate your channel and your approach! I really think your ministry is making a difference in the body of Christ.
Thank you so much! I pray for this woman as I hit reply!
Thank you for this brother. So needed. Already have sent this video to a friend.
Pray that God will grant repentance to those who need it and humility to all involved in this sadly necessary discussion.
As is your typical platter; thoughtful, generous and yet intellectually stimulating work. Well done!
Thx!
I resonate with this sooooooo much. I sat through 3.5 years of IFB Bible College where this kind of "preaching" was all I heard. 5 days a week in chapel, + 3 services at church. And almost every service I left furious (I may also have written a few letters to these preachers during my time there 😂). When I finally graduated and got out of there, I started attending a non-denom church in the area. And for the first time in my life, I actually was sitting under expository preaching every week (Pastor Steve DeWitt who is awesome👌) It was so refreshing to hear the Bible being taught carefully and accurately. And one of the first things I noticed after a few weeks of that was the Holy Spirit's conviction of my sin that I felt after many of those sermon. I hadn't felt that in a church service for years. But that just proved to me how powerful simply preaching the intended meaning of the passage is. This truly is the main problem in the IFB. If the Bible was rightly taught (and not added to), so many of the other issues would take care of themselves over time.
I believe this, too. I don't want to deny the good God does for many people in the IFB, not at all. He did it for me. But I can't erase the sins and missteps, either. And what could be more harmful than feeding sheep grass God didn't grow?
@@markwardonwords "Even if I'm wrong to use Critical Text Bibles (and I don't think I am), I'd rather have a pastor who accurately exposits the "wrong text" than one who doesn't bother to explain the right one."
Such a great point...
@@davidgreen1517 So, so many times I've thought that the *actual* differences between the TR and the critical text pale in comparison to the differences between 1) the critical text as preached by a faithful expositor and 2) the TR as preached by someone whose preaching is consistently answering the question, "What can I say about this?" rather than "What does this say?"
My Lord....more than what you said....which you so eloquently put....more than that is that i can feel the pain....that of someone who loved and still loves the denomination he came from....but has had to make the very painful choice to leave it.....and still in some ways ...still yearn for it...and you go back and you are reminded once again...why you left it...and the pain resurfaces again....thank you so much for the vulnerability in this video....I NOW have to make a decision...!😪
Yeah, you pretty much nailed it. I spent my most formative years in a different sector of the IFB, one in which bad Bible interpretation was far less common, one which has kind of shed the label "IFB." But I still love my KJV-Only IFB roots.
This was excellent critique from a gracious heart. Bless you, brother!
Thank you kindly!
Growing up in the IFB church, and since getting out of it,I know it can be hard to go back into that environment. Going back and listening to what you believed for so long but got out of can make you grow angry and bitter. But I commend you for you patience, understanding, and the love of Christ you have shown this pastor and his flock. Your attitude and humbleness goes a long way.
I go to an IFB college, and I’m happy to say we emphasize expository preaching. If a sermon is eisegetical, we would get demolished in grading. Our text books are Haddon Robinson’s and Sunukjian’s books on the subject. I agree with your indictment and believe there is a shift happening in this area.
I pray you're right! And I think I know what college you go to-so I think you are indeed right.
Your intellectual treatment of this subject, your objectivity, and your emotional restraint are appreciated! The IFB NEEDS this challenge. God willing, the right people will get hold of these facts, and translate them into solid action. God bless!
I think some have, I really do. I have some friends in that world who work at educational institutions. They have a long road ahead, but I have good reason to believe that they’re doing good work.
Ward is a wolf in sheep skin. "IFB" doesn't have any problems, humans are at the heart of them and humanity's old nature is too sin. Ward praises IFB as having a back bone to the culture and then asks them to bow down to it. Ward is a Nebuchadnezzar with the three Hebrew men.
Thanks, Mark for this sermon critique. It reminded me of many thoughts that I need to be reminded of.
Whether it is the pulpit or our kitchen table, we need to accurately report what God says. We need to ask, "Am I saying this because God said it or because it is what I want Him to say?"
We need to encourage, our preachers and teachers to teach us God's words. We need to know what the Bible says, how it relates to our world and how we put the Bible into action. Let us never settle for a mix of pop psychology and professional opinions.,
I am also humbled by the thought that God would use us, plastic containers to carry His riches. It is easy to criticise our leaders. It is harder to remember that we are no better.
I suspect that on the day of judgement. when God reviews this day, He will not ask us how we would have preached that sermon better. But He may well ask us about the harsh words we said to our spouse this morning and why we ignored helping a friend. May we be found worthy of what He has entrusted to each of us!!
This was excellent. I appreciate how you model graciousness.
Wow, thank you! Ouellette was gracious to me, too. He really was!
Thank you for this. I also grew up in IFB and KJV only. And my family still attends. It's been hard. I was sincerely looking forward to hearing a good argument in favor of KJV only so I could test it, I would love for it to be true. The church I attended as a child is currently doing a series on it and it's on part 4 right now, I have yet to hear 1 argument that is a true argument in favor of KJV only. Many passages are taken out of context and it grives me so much. My own mother says I use a fake Bible and says I twist God's word cause I don't use KJV. If you want to amuse yourself look up Treasure Valley Baptist Church in Idaho on RUclips. Sam Gipp is preaching a series on KJV only. It makes my heart hurt.
I didn't get saved till leaving that church as an adult and I read the NLT and ESV Bible versions.... I finally understood the gospel cause I couldn't understand the KJV Bible. Praise God for that and for opening mine and my husband's eyes as he also grew up in that. We both grew up under ruckman preaching at that church as well.
Wow. Gipp is an extremist. My heart really goes out to you and your husband! I pray that your family will stop dividing from you and insulting you over this.
@Mark Ward thank you, it definitely has been tough. Praying God just keeps working.
@@tgiese209 You almost sent me down the rabbit hole. =| I watched just a few minutes of Gipp's addresses at your home church, and in the first moments after picking a random spot, I heard him claim that the allegedly archaic words in the KJV are just the way British people talk today. I have shown repeatedly from the Brits own lexicographical piece d'resistance, the Oxford English Dictionary, that this is not so. It's difficult to keep up with all the false claims Gipp makes. They come so thick and fast.
I know there is so much mis- information. In the 1st video of the series (about 4 weeks ago) he uses a passage in Jeremiah 32 to try to prove how God feels about the originals. "That you should do away with the originals" because of the story of the king who burned it in the OT. Not sure if you have heard that argument yet.
Anyways praise God for opening my eyes, I sat under this preaching my whole life. I'm growing and learning now about where the Bible actually came from, it's been amazing to finally have answers to some questions. Thank you for your videos, I just found your ministry today, it's already been a blessing. The video on the KJV being at a "3rd grade reading level" was really helpful for me. I'm excited to learn more. Thank you
Just before I came across this video, I was looking at the constitution of a church I considered checking out years ago that was an IFB church, and KJV-Onlyism is in that constitution as well as an authoritarian spirit in the same sentence. The consititution gave exclusive interpretational authority to the pastor in that same sentence.
There was so much good in that constitution, but I couldn't get past those two issues when considering attending that church.
I now attend a Reform Baptist church that has a constitution more in line with my beliefs on the essentials and on the issues important to me. They use the ESV primarily but also sometimes use the NASB95 and the LSB and might rarely reference the KJV. If only it was a lot closer to home. I drive roughly 15 miles to go to church there.
During your time you were surrounded by DESPERATE people. Those DESPERATE people are DESPERATE to believe that what’s in their hand is what they believe it is instead of what they know it is😢
Ruckman would never say that in a million cuss words
😂 I thought that was hilarious
I know whereof I speak. =| I read a ton of Ruckman’s stuff years ago in a research center at the BJU library. It’s so, so sad.
It should be noted that asking "What does this say" is not a guarantee that you will come away with the correct answer, but you definitely increase your odds of doing so.
Dealing with KJVO individuals really got me tired this year , but I deserve it because I was once one of them. I thank the Lord for dragnetting me out of it.
Praise God. What do we have that we did not receive?
PART 2 GENERAL NOTES
I liked the opening generally.
I was always told when speaking to start by stating what I was going to say, say what I said I would say and then round off by saying what I said. Now that is not everyone’s cup of tea, but there were times when I was not sure of what the aim of the sermon was and what I was meant to get out of it.
The first half 10-15 minutes I thought was a reasonable presentation. It was interesting and logically presented. I liked has he referred to various passages to help us understand the story.
From there the sermon could have gone in several directions.:
What was God’s reply to Job’s plea for a hearing?
How does Ch 31 speak to how we live our lives and how we deal with ill fortune? These are some examples of where I might take a sermon on Job 31.
From there the sermon went looking into Job’s desire to have an indictment (Book) from God. This was not an obvious way to go. I would not say it was a totally wrong decision but, I thought he did not explain or argue it well. One needs to show why you are saying something is true and he did not do this very well. This damaged its value as a teaching tool. There was also a noticeable drop off in Bible examples which was disappointing.
Generally, this sermon followed the lines of the ones I heard earlier until he started talking about Bill Hybels. The sermon was longer by 5-10 minutes from this point on compared to other similar sermons. About 40 minutes instead of 30 minutes. I think this harmed the presentation. The sermon lost focus, and the arguments became disjointed and flew away from the text in a carefree manner.
This time issue is important to me. There is no use spending 40 minutes talking about something that should be said in 20-30 minutes. People become bored and the arguments are lost in the extra fluff. It also turns people listening to sermons.
Overall this is not the best example of this stump speech. One can compare it to one done about 6 months later in another church soundcloud.com/user-250273483/071121-sunday-am-if-only-god-had-written-a-book-rb-ouellette?in=user-250273483%2Fsets%2Fspecial-speaker-dr-r-b
Sparlingville Baptist Church
07.11.21 Sunday AM - If Only God Had Written a Book - R.B. Ouellette
Mark very good 👍 I enjoyed this episode very much as usual. God Bless my Brother!!
Thank you! Same to you!
Ouch. Job was already misunderstood enough by his friends. Now he has to endure more bad comforters....
Ack! I wish that weren’t funny! But it is!
This is so so spot on!! Thanks Mark!
Thank you, Scott.
Oh, you hit the nail on the head with the Allen Edmonds wingtips. Your feet are anointed by God, sir.
Yes! And they last for years and years!
@@markwardonwords They do! I find your content extremely interesting. Thank you for going in-depth into this subject. I grew up in the IFB, and still have many friends who are. As a teen, I saw the issues with KJVOnlyism, and tried to reason some people out of it with no luck. Could you do a video on the history of KJVOnlyism: how it started, how it spread? At its worst, I see a lot of people believe that the translation itself is inspired, mixed with the conspiracy that liberal theologians want to hide the truth of God's Word. Unfortunately, so many young Christians come to faith into the IFB, and have the hardest time reading God's Word because its language is so archaic. Thank you again for all your content! It truly is a blessing to see you breaking down the pieces of KJVOnlyism while providing gentle encouragement to our IFB brothers.
@@benallen2854 Yes, this is why I do my work! Tim Berg is my historian friend. Maybe I'll have him on to talk through the history of KJV-Onlyism. It's not something I've had particular interest in; it's more the arguments that hold sway in that world that interest me, especially when they have to do with Bible interpretation or the nature of language.
@@markwardonwords Thank you for your response, and especially for your work! Looking forward to how God uses your channel to change hearts and minds so that people can best understand God's Word in a language they understand.
One of the first frustrations my husband experienced leading into his changes on many rigid stances characteristic of the IFB.
You will encounter poor preaching wherever you go, of course. But I can never be truly happy while it still exists!
Thank you for all of your work on this subject. You speak and teach in layman level English. I enjoy how well you show and explain where different translations are different but still accurate or false.
You're very welcome! My pleasure.
I think that if one is paying attention to the context it actually doesn't matter whether it says "book" or "indictment" because Job is using figurative language, not literal language.
Dear Mark,
Over the last week or two I have had holidays and I decided that I would catch up with as many videos of yours as I can during this time. Alas that time is coming to an end. so, this will probably be the last comment I will leave for a while. I have appreciated how you try to mix reason; kindness and a firm resolve together. I also like the blend of word nerdiness and fun. At least to me, you are informative without being boring. I am impressed by your willingness to provide feedback to people commenting, I am sure you have plenty of other things to do with your time, but I appreciate it. I just hope you are able to juggle all your priorities successfully.
But before I go and leave you in peace, I wanted to leave you with a few thoughts. I do not expect you to reply but maybe they may give you an idea or two to use in the future, if you ever run out of video ideas.
1) I am surprised that you can put out so much high quality content out each week. For me a 20 minute speech can take 20-40 hours of work to research, draft and write. How can you do you output so quickly? I guess the answer is something like practice and talent. But some tips to make the process more efficient would be appreciated.
2) I realise that as an academic, author and an employee of Faithlife you would want to us to use the best and latest resources. The ox is worth the price of the hay. However (for example), even though I am sure the BDAG/HALOT Bundle on LOGAS is worth the 240 bales of hay it costs, I do not think I could justify raiding the family barn for such an endeavour. There is a part of me that weeps with joy when I look at all the Logas packages, but I know that if I got them my family would weep with grief when I tell them I spent the farm’s hay, corn and cattle on them.
However, with that in mind:
a) Are there free or cheaper products that are worth getting or using?
b) Do have any advice in the use of the Blue Bibel website?
c) If one was to buy books to make a Bible study library, where would you start?
d) How do you use various resources to best study the Bible?
3) While I appreciate your need for a proper studio, I do like it when you go outdoors. I hope you can do this still from time to time. I hear your area has lots of nice tulips, maybe you could use them as an illustration or backdrop sometime.
4) Like the wise men video and the “false friends” series, are there other passages that have words or ideas that Christians commonly misinterpret? For example in Genesis, the Mizpah Benediction is not the sweet request for God’s protection that learnt as a child.
Thanks once again for your time. May you and your family always know of God’s love and presence in your life.
Excellent comment! I write fast on topics I’ve invested in for a long time. Suggestions very much appreciated.
Oh, you asked for tips and I ignored that… In all honesty, my whole life has been pointing toward this work. I've put in decades, not years. But on the videos, I do work hard to simplify. That's why I have to have a studio. It's so much more efficient. But I love shooting outside, and I just bought yet another microphone that should help me shoot outside!
You bring up an important point about BDAG, and you have uncovered a real difficulty for my overall program: the key tools really aren't accessible to everyone. BUT semanticdictionary.org comes pretty close, especially for the New Testament. I'd point you there.
For a Bible study library, Logos is it, it really is. =| I'd get a base package. I don't say that because I work at Logos; I work at Logos because I say that.
Lots of great ideas here. Thank you for putting real time into your recent comments!
Your podcast with Bryan Samms sparked the beginning of my journey out of KJV-Onlyism. Thank you for your gracious spirit and devotion to truth in love. Thankful for you, Mark.
Wow-I’m not sure I knew that! Praise God! And then you were my connection to the RFP, which got my message out to a large audience that has been very appreciative. Praise the Lord.
Give us the Book!! Yes!! Yes!! Yes!! Such a GREAT video!!
I'm sure Ouellette has given the book countless times in his ministry. He did not that night.
@@markwardonwords - It's heartbreaking how often that shortfall is found in pulpits, even outside the IFB.
I thought it would be good to hear what Mr Ouellette said. (I like listening to speeches and reviewing them.) I do not know the exact speech that Mark listened to, but Mr Google has recorded several speeches on this passage by this speaker and I have listened to 3 or 4 of them. They have been of course all different, but I think I have a good feel for what He generally is trying to say through this passage.
In summary, I think I ended up with warmer feelings about this speech than what Mark has, but I do appreciate Mark's review and agree with the thrust of his critique.
It seems to me this speech has been formed from two different speeches. The first half is a nice introduction to the Book of Job. The second half is a rousing speech about how we should value the reading of our Bibles. I actually enjoyed each part and got something valuable out of them.
The argument that links them goes something like this.
Job wants to hear from God, even if it is just an indictment
Job says that he would honour that word by wearing it proudly.
Unlike Job, we do have words of God in our Bible
So we should honour God's book by reading it.
Does a reading of Job 31:35-37 support this argument? Well, I am not sure. I can see how one can make that observation and I have heard worst points made in other sermons. (including my own.)
However,
1) Chapter 31, like the rest of Job raises many questions that need to be answered. For example, is Job right or wrong in his statements? Is Job saying he would wear God's indictments like a crown because he would be honoured to hear from God, or because he thinks they will show him as being innocent? Would we want to hear God's indictments on us? What does the passage say about how to live a righteous life? Is Job too proud in his response? Oh, how I wish there was a preacher who would take hold of the Book of Job and help me understand what God is trying to say!!!
2) Personally when arguing my case, like, encouraging Bible reading, I like to support my case with many Bible passages. For example Ps.119 and Proverbs 3. This demonstrates that I am not just plucking a thought out of the air but revealing something God wants people to understand. Even in the best of circumstances, Job 31 does not provide much support for the reading of the Bible. Personally, I probably would not use it and if I did it would be only as a passing reference.
3) I am not sure how this stump message could be used to support the use of the KJV-only argument. I think that would be a bridge too far.
Now such an experienced international speaker will not come looking for sermon advice from me! But my takeaway thoughts would be to remember to choose one topic and use scripture to prove it well. Mixed messages have mixed results and thin arguments are as supportive as thin ice.
Here’s the message. Would you be willing to listen and offer any additional feedback? ruclips.net/user/livewYHoJVac-d4?si=UE8yQ7Hs4otwkVS2
Sure
"And something I don't think I've ever mentioned on this RUclips channel; King James Onlyism." Lol
But... if the KJV is the only inspired Word of God in their minds (even going so far as to say that they "don't care what the Greek says, this is what my King James Bible says" - as a traveling preacher once said in my church), how would they get to the point that they could look at multiple modern texts or maybe even the original Hebrew and Greek - to see what it actually says? That mind block fueled by fear keeps them from getting anywhere... It did for me, for the majority of my life. I'm thankful that the Holy Spirit called me out of that deception.
Right! But Ouellette is supposed to be part of the moderate KJV-Only faction, the one that says “the text is the issue,” the one that acknowledges that the KJV is not itself inspired and therefore not perfect. There is nothing wrong, in principle, with a preacher who prefers the TR using Hebrew and Greek study resources. And many of them do do it! Just not anywhere near a majority or a preponderance in my experience. =( I try not to judge people with a measure I’m not willing to be measured by (got that advice once from a rather wise Person…), so I try to have a lot of mercy on preacher’s mistakes, because I’ve made them. But I just can’t ever find it in my heart to excuse someone saying what the text doesn’t say, acting like they *are* saying what the text says, and promoting a false and divisive doctrine to boot.
Thank you for responding! I see what you're saying. Those folks should be using Hebrew and Greek in their study and in their preparation to preach the Word, if they're being consistent. I haven't been exposed to moderate KJV-onlyism, only the extreme version. I kinda forget the other exists.
Appreciate your work so much, Pastor Ward!
@@markwardonwords can you define moderate KJV onlyism? Or point me to a resource that does?
That interpretation of Job was not a stretch, it was just wrong.
In my mind, the line between the moderates and the extremists is the perfection and inspiration (I see those as the same thing) of the KJV. Ruckmanites say that the KJV is itself inspired and perfect. The moderates say that the KJV is the best (or only) translation of the perfect Hebrew and Greek texts.
@@markwardonwords interesting take. I'm familiar with the Ruckmanite position, I don't know anyone that holds to a perfect Hebrew or Greek text, and will take your word that Dr. O. holds that position. But I do note that the definition comes from your mind. Which is the problem - there is no fixed definition of what KJV only means. That label is broad, often defined more by the user of the label.
There is a local church that claims to be balanced(moderate) but holds that if you quote John 3:16 with 'believes' rather than 'believeth' you've distorted God's Word. A pastor now in heaven once said 'the hyper- view is right of my view' when asked if he was a hyper-dispensationalist. His point is obvious.
Back to Dr. O monologue, it is as disturbing that he said it as it is that people AMEN at that point. Since there are some people I know that were there, I assure you not everyone agreed. I was in Portland when jack schapp the child molester preached that when we got saved we did not become the son of God. I nearly exploded. I asked my pastor at the time if that statement bothered him: he did not see a problem even though I quoted the rest of the passage. This 'pastor' holds that systematic theology was a waste of time. Within 6 months the truth of jack was exposed. jack was not the first time I had seen wildly incorrect preaching followed by discovery of sin. Therefore, when a 'man of God' so distorts a plain meaning, I wonder what else is going on.
How long, you wonder? Ah, He is patient. The hubbub created by his sermon is already heard on the mission field. People are asking 'did he really preach that?' God uses the internet for His glory as well. There's enough of an uproar that Dr. O will need to at least consider he might be wrong. We can pray to that end. I have also seen that happen. How long God was patient with my impenitence! I want him to be the same for others.
Great and needed wake up call.
I’m the ten thousandth guy to make this call. But I still have hope.
Hello watching from Singapore sending hugs. See you around. Well done 👍
Thanks for watching!
The IFB is a strange group of many smaller ponds. The church I attend hung out in Hyles circles and I’ve never heard of Oullette (sp?). 😂
Ouellette just got a big award at West Coast Baptist College. I don't doubt that he's done much good; I am certain I'll spend eternity in heaven with him. He is my brother.
Good stuff Mark. "Allen Edmonds wingtips" - yes!! :D
;) I’m wearing Allen Edmonds boots this very moment. I’ve gotten tons of use out of these up here in the PNW!
What a God! A God who can write straight lines with crooked sticks.....I am going to write that down.
I appreciate Job saying that he has his signature....his testimony if you will....and the rest is just awesome:
Because I feared the great multitude,
And the contempt of families terrified me,
And I kept silent and did not go out of doors-
Oh that I had one to hear me!
Behold, here is my signature;
Let the Almighty answer me!
And the indictment which my accuser has written,
Surely I would carry it on my shoulder;
I would bind it to myself like a crown.
I would declare to Him the number of my steps;
Like a prince I would approach Him-
(LSB) Job 31:34-37
"Indictment," yes. Not as literal as it could be. But a great translation.
@@markwardonwords The KJ3 has indictment as well. I have a copy and it's a literal translation. The English language will keep us busy for our lifetime. Btw, I was so into digging into Shakespeare, back in 2005 I bought a concordance...it's huge.Thank you so much for being on RUclips because what you are teaching me is invaluable to me and I'm eating it up! I've been called a heretic openly on RUclips for reading and reviewing a NKJV bible, by KJVO's I used to hang with when I was on milk. Now I am on meat despite being saved 5 years. I will be reviewing the LSB when it comes in a few days. KJVO's are just as you said, thet are the meanest, cruelest, most ruthless Christians I've come across. I am in rural part of South Australia but have no suitable church even though some are in my town.
Great job, Mark. Just a note here: Even if Job was desiring a Bible (which he really wasn't), the text IN NO WAY identifies it as a King James Bible. NOWHERE does God's word tell us to use a particular version of the Scriptures -- NOWHERE!
I've gotten a fair bit of pushback on this video, but I think that's partly because Ouellette's argument is so muddy. He didn't clearly make the connection between Job 31 and the KJV. But what else could he have meant?
@@markwardonwords Agreed.
Does spiritualizing and twisting the text that badly not make him a false teacher? If not, how badly must one mangle the scripture to be a false teacher?
What is your circle of churches? What names could you give from the IFB that preach the text?
I don’t think it does. I’d have to see a common and willful pattern, and I’d have to see his teachings going consistently in wrong directions.
@@markwardonwords Also wouldn't having a teacher that isn't "apt to teach" be breaking the commands around who can be a bishop just as much as a woman pastor for example? Or a pastor with multiple wives, a sinful desire for money, or addicted to alcohol? Even if it isn't willful doesn't it make one unfit for the office? Doesn't a bishop have to tick all the boxes?
What is your circle of churches? What names could you give from the IFB that does preach the text?
@@DrGero15 Good questions. I agree: “able to teach” means “able to teach.” My circle of churches is complex because of my history. I have connections to several circles. But I’ve always been some kind of independent and some kind of Baptist. My pastor in SC, Mark Minnick, would call himself IFB, I think, though he’s part of a specific branch of it-the best one, I think! Pastor Minnick is the greatest expositor I’ve ever heard. But BJU produced a lot of excellent preachers, many of whom have ministered in independent Baptist churches.
Careful, Mark!
If an IFB church tries to reform, they might just become reformed!
If you know, you know. lol.
I know!
Brother Ouellette made a clear error as you said, and it's a key one that frustrates me within IFB circles, and I say that as a person within that group, though I would often prefer not to have the label.
In regards to the translators' choice to use the word "book", it's relatively consistent with other uses of the English word throughout the King James. It was more commonplace to use "book" as an accounting of something, and Webster's 1828 mentions this definition for the word.
Examples within the King James
It references "books" being opened for judgment where a person's deeds are recorded for an accounting at judgment.
It references the "book" of Life, which will have an account or record of who has eternal life at the end.
It references "book" or "books" to discuss narrative, historical accounts of something that transpired - such as in Chronicles or the prophets (Malachi mentions a "book of remembrance").
God commanded Moses to write a "book" for a memorial in Exodus 17:14. This would be an account of what happened.
In modern English, we hear "book" and think "literary work", though it's meaning is more broad. Even still, we might use it in turns-of-phrase more similar to the way it was more commonly used in the past (i.e. "throw the book at him" in a legal usage or "let's take a look at the books" in financial accounting).
Just a little bit of thinking, even if reading from the KJV, would make it clear that if an adversary is bringing you a book (an accounting of something), it's to accuse. This becomes even clearer by just reading the verses right after it as Job is expressing how he could defend himself against such charges by citing specific potential accusations and his innocence in regards to them.
The translation is fine. Mr. Ouellette's abuse of the text is terrible.
To answer your question, "Why does God let this happen?" If He didn't, then no one would ever get to say anything. How many of us have unintentionally mishandled the Word of God (in thought or word) and didn't realize until afterwards? I shudder at the thought of my own errors and God's mercy.
"my king james only brothers insist on having a perfect English Bible in their hands and yet I cannot help observing how carelessly they treat it once it actually gets into their hands."
Rarely have truer words been spoken. I use the KJV and prefer that a church does (or something accurately translated from the TR), but trying to get my brothers to understand your point is incredibly difficult. What good does it to do to have the perfect words if you're just going to corrupt what they say with your amen-soundbites and mental gymnastics.
This often even happens when making a biblical argument for something, but using the wrong/inapplicable/out-of-context verses/passages to support the very biblical point they're trying to make. They don't get that they hurt the very doctrine they're teaching, because if you used a false foundation to peddle it and the hearer discovers it or thinks it through, they may question a legitimate doctrine.
I feel the same "anger" that you've described.
May God help us both, and may He bring reform to a group that has many of His choice gifts! Thank you for this. I've often thought that this video ought to have gotten a few more amens from the IFB. That statement you quote is one I've thought of so many times.
Amen brother
Thank you for watching.
I agree with you Brother Mark Ward
You know, liberals do the same thing. In fact, lots of preachers, liberal, conservative, or miscellaneous, completely miss the content of the Biblical text that they're preaching.
I’m not denying this. I believe I myself must have done this at some point in my writing and teaching. But not, to my knowledge, in order to support and defend false doctrine.
Thank you for the video brother!
I would say, “My pleasure,” but I can’t honestly say I enjoyed making this one. :(
Excellent video! (and very nice work on the greenhouse!)
I can’t take too much credit; the wood and materials were pre-cut and pre-drilled. But it was a ton of work-lots of fun.
Hi Mark, I know we already discoursed about this some through Facebook, but I'll post some of that here to give a "counter-argument of sorts.
1. I'm a IFB KV-only user (but not a weird, cultish, heretical one). 2. I've heard Bro. R. B. Ouellette preach several (maybe a dozen) times, and while he's not my favorite style of preacher, I do not remember in other sermons taking issue with his preaching content.
And 3. to address the comment at 20:08 about God waking up the young men in the IFB KJV only moment, this awakening is already well underway. A great many (even older) KJV IFB preachers have realized our own “blind spot” in this area and have made a concerted effort to course correct.
I even know some older preachers (55+) who have been mentored by other well-established expository preachers, read books by Bryan Chappel, Haddon Robinson, etc. to correct their preaching.
And the problems of consistently misusing texts are largely relegated to that older generation. And I don’t mean that as a criticism at all. And certainly it’s not all of them. But it’s just a fact that the Bible college training they received did not teach/emphasize true biblical preaching (discovering and preaching the central idea of the text).
But that is not the case with the younger generation by and large. There has been a great resurgence and emphasis put on biblical preaching. Are there some younger guys making the same errors as the older generation? For sure, but I think you’ll find it’s far less common and that you’re more likely to find biblical preaching than not among 45 and under preachers, especially those coming out of Heartland Baptist Bible College.
My point is, we recognize that there has been a problem in the past and many of us (I’m 38) are determined not to perpetuate that problem but are committed to biblical preaching and to passing that discipline on to the next generation.
And as I said on Facebook, this is welcome news. Very welcome. I’d love for my call to be needless!
Dear Mark,
Part 1
I did write a reply to you regarding the sermon, but it appears youtube has not posted it. Probably because it was too long. So I am reposting it to you in 3 pieces.
When writing this I realised 2 things:
Firstly, both you and Pastor R.B. Ouellette are way out of my league. I really have no right to say anything. So, I am trying to be humble and reasonable about this. It is very kind of you to give me the link and ask me for my thoughts. Please forgive me for any naively on my part. While I am firm on some opinions, I am sure some others will change as time progresses.
Secondly, I also realise that I think we are approaching the sermon from 2 slightly different angles. You are a major advocate of one position and going into this sermon you needed to be ready to discuss your beliefs with those of a different view. I think I am right in saying that you were (and maybe still are) naturally in active engagement mode with matters surrounding this sermon.
For my part, I am a casual observer on the other side of the world. I have no skin in the game other than my desire for God to be glorified and for God’s word to be proclaimed clearly.
I am saying this because I have not responded to this speech with quite the same intensity as you have. I also appreciated much of what he said.
For example, I do have a bad habit of talking about the Bible instead of actually reading it and putting it into practice. I also appreciated his challenge of reading more of the Bible more often. I think I will do that next year God willing.
SUMMARY
I certainly believe, and try in my own small way to teach what the Bible says and nothing more. The preacher has a precious opportunity to illuminate the scripture, to explain and administer God’s word. We must never waste a second with our mere thoughts and presumptions.
Like you, I am fully aware that God is most displeased by people who misrepresent Him and His holy Name It must never be taken lightly.
So I have several disappointments with his sermon. There are better ways to use Job 31. He does not support his arguments with scripture as well as he could have. And I am particularly disappointed by some of the observations he made about other Christians.
I do find it ironic that my complaint about a sermon on reading the Bible is that there was not enough Bible in the sermon!!!
However, I am not sure why, I am not disappointed as you are. I feel the sermon has some relationship to what Job is saying. I see it more as ham-fisted than a deliberate attempt to twist scripture to meet his needs. That the issue has more to do with the way he presented it than the underlying theology.
Maybe the difference is I do not see the sermon as an attempt to show that the KJV is the correct translation. I realise that is his belief and what was advertised the sermon was about. However, He only mentions the translation issue once and that was more a side blow in a disappointing reflection on Calvinists. Yes, it was a low blow and thus unfair. But I do not see this attack as the main thrust of his arguments in the sermon.
Do you have any advise for a Christian that is in a kjvo church and wants to study the subject of Bible translations for their selves, instead of listening to what everyone around them are saying. I have read your book authorized but want to study this subject deeper. Thanks
I got your email and will reply… =) I'd go right for John Frame's Doctrine of the Word of God. He's accessible and humble and biblical. www.amazon.com/dp/0875522645?tag=3755-20
@@markwardonwords thank you!!! Your book was a big help. I had never heard anyone explain the issue the way you did with love for the KJV Bible. I had only heard anger. I do and always will love the KJV but I’m starting to think that there is really no harm in using other translations to help deepen my study.
No translation is perfect, but I can tell you that there are Bible study riches in other translations! And I practice what I preach. I use all the major evangelical translations constantly.
@@Ssurrett 2 things, brother. Ask the pastor: if he is angry and unwilling to teach you with patience, ask God where He wants you to be pastored. If he is angry and unkind to those who differ with him on HIS version of KJVo, run not walk to a shepherd. If his sermons are what he wants to say, not what the passage says, move on. Take your family where you don't loose your kids and you're taught to love.
Second, prayer and the Holy Spirit. Don't become a bitter accuser of the brothers.
KJVo, like IFB is more defined by its enemies.
Two thumbs up!
Thank you.
Here is a way that may help your IFB King James Onlyist do what you suggest, maybe gift them a Reader's KJV, Holman Bible Publishers have released it.
Idiosyncratic, perhaps, is best to describe the IFB. My only concern is that if reform is to come to the IFB congregations, then please walk prayerfully over this matter. I am southern Baptist. And reform, if used in the modern context has certainly come to the SBC. Political aspirations, melded with arrogance is what has been hatched from such reform. If a reform for the IFB is in God’s will , then a translation of the Bible will be provided. If I had my druthers , it would be the nkjv or a revision of the ESV to include M.T translation offerings and a pleasant use of the word- “begotten.”
I'm with you. Not all change is change for the better. =( May the Lord bring reform according to the Word!
The Gideons' alteration of the ESV kind-of gets there.
When the seed of the movement is J. Frank Norris, do you really think there's going to be a course correction?
Yes! I really do.
PART 3 COMMENTS BASED ON MARK’S OBSERVATIONS
BOOK OR RECORD OF WRONGS
You are right, Ouellette did not mention that the ‘book’ was some sort of list of charges against Job. I have noted that he occasionally mentions this in other renditions of this speech but not always ie
ruclips.net/video/HZSgOwWTnpk/видео.html
02/27/22 Sunday Morning "If Only God Had Written a Book" (R.B. Ouellette)
Northview Baptist Church
52:01
he said you know what I wish I was somebody to answer me. I wish
52:08
that my adversary had written a book. Now as you read the book of Job you'll find out Job was not envisioning Psalms
52:15
and proverbs in the gospels. Job would be really happy if God had a
52:20
written record of Job's wrongs. Right. What is it the accusation is then?
52:27
I can answer it. I can make it right. I can talk to God about it. I wish I had
52:32
some written revelations from God. Wait a minute Job
52:39
You wonder what your purpose is you know your purpose
I am not sure if this was a deliberate admission or not, but it would have made what Job was asking for clearer. It does not matter much to me as I know what was meant. (I have a newer translation). Others may have gotten this from the context, but some may well have thought Job was anticipating the Bible in general and the KJV in particular and this would be incorrect.
However, the fact Job is talking about an indictment and not a Bible I do not think changes Ouellette’s argument much. Both Job and we need to hear from God. If Job would have been honoured to receive just an indictment from God, how much more should we rejoice in having our Bible?
“I BELIEVE THE IMPLICATION OF OUR TEXT IS THAT THE BOOK WOULD BE THE AUTHORITY.”
Ouellette in this speech gives the reason that
Job said I'd take the book. I'd reason with God out of it.
I am wondering if He is thinking of Job 13: 3.
In another video, he has a slightly different reasoning
ruclips.net/video/mCvxp1y5tUE/видео.html
First Baptist Church of Bridgeport
166 views Apr 28, 2020
Job’s desire if only God has written a
21:20
Book.
What would you do with it Job? Well, I believe our text at least strongly
21:30
implies that it would be his authority. (Speaking as if he was Job) “For I could answer the foolish and
21:37
fallacious philosophy of my friends if I had a book from God.”
you know I'm glad we
21:43
have a Bible as our authority
I think that both reasons could be reasonable. Job could be saying “ If I have the official charge sheet I can show that it proves my innocence.”
However, this is a major point in his speech. One needs to focus time and attention on it, making sure the listeners understand what you are saying and why. It seems to me the speaker presumes everyone will understand and agree with Him. But he needs to demonstrate a) why this passage points to God’s authority and b) why this is important. If He cannot prove this point then a large part of his argument falls.
The need to strengthen this point is especially true when the Bible verse is not saying exactly what he wants it to say. He needs to prove his point.
I have a personal rule, that if I need to base a point on just a strong implication, then it is probably not worth doing.
The sad thing is that there are plenty of verses in the Bible that support God as an authority e.g. Psalm 119:105. He needed to spend time explaining it and using other scriptures to demonstrate his point's soundness. I would not go as far as saying he is totally wrong though at this stage. It just needs more work to improve it.
SURELY I WOULD TAKE IT UPON MY SHOULDER AND BIND IT AS A CROWN
Ouellette says this word of God would be an object of adoration. This sounds reasonable based on the limited resources that I have.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
36. So far from hiding the adversary's "answer" or "charge" through fear,
I would take it on my shoulders-as a public honor (Isa 9:6).
a crown-not a mark of shame, but of distinction (Isa 62:3).
Matthew Poole's Commentary
I would take it, i.e. that book containing my charge or accusation.
Upon my shoulder; as a trophy or badge of honour. I should not fear nor smother it, but glory in it, and make open show of it, as that which gave me the happy and long-desired occasion of vindicating myself, which I doubt not fully to do.
I hope you do not mind but I think you made a small error at the 10:33 mark of your video. When Ouellette was talking about the shoulder and crown section, he was referring to us adoring, and respecting God’s word not having God’s word as our authority.
VERSE 37
I agree with you that this passage is a little obscure and that it has no connection with the KJV. But to me, there seems to be a connection between Job wearing the indictment/ Bible and verse 37.
Job is confident of his innocence. Thus he strides into the court proudly, ready to give an account of his days. He sees that that charge list around him proves his innocence. Either because it is blank, or because the charges are so small that he can batter them away with his purity without effort.
I like though how you stated it was an obscure passage. The basic ideas around the sermon were good, but this is not the passage to demonstrate them.
ON THE TRANSLATION ISSUE
One strange thing I found about the service was that near the start they stated they wanted to “focus on the translation issue”, but the service did not. As far as I can see, the word KJV never came up and the word translation only occurred once in the sermon.
This is the context as far as I can tell..
I've never met anybody became a Calvinist by reading the Bible. There’s been some, I don't know, but everybody I know read somebody's writings. And everybody say, “You know I was reading, I thought, Oh I need a different translation.” You can get them in the Bible. We gotta
from what's what he said about the Bible (the meaning of the last sentence is uncertain).
I reacted slightly differently to you. I was grieved at the implication that other groups like Calvinist made their doctrines up out of thin air. Anyone who knows anything about Calvin should understand he had an exceptional understanding of the Bible. Anyone who has listened to a John Piper sermon realises how it is backed by the Bible. The lack of Bible understanding or non-biblical teachings is not the issue. The issue between Calvinists and other groups is the interpretation of the Scripture. You can dispute their interpretation, but not accuse them of altering the Bible. Besides they were around long before even the KJV was formed. To imply they need different translations to prove their claims is a low blow.
Thanks, Mark, I hope this makes sense. If not please request a link to one of my sermons and you have fun critiquing all my mistakes!
P.S. Readability score is 76
Is there any chance you have a link to that sermon on RUclips?
I’d prefer not to link it here. I don’t want people to pile on Brother Oullette. Contact me at byfaithweunderstand.com/contact, and I’ll give you the link.
@@markwardonwords I certainly understand your hesitancy and appreciate your gentleness and gracious handling of issues like this. I'll head right over there.
Good video....
The IFB as a a whole will never reform due to the things you describe. Isolationism, tribalism, legalism...etc.
I will say the zeal is contagious & that is what is so attracting. But the zeal is misplaced. Zeal & energy don't equal truth. RB Oulette can preach , the hymns can be sweet but it is so misplaced, much like pentacostals.
My experience was the IFB taught me to study the bible. That's what opened my eyes. Carefully studying on my own revealed lots of errors that I could not reconcile. Local church, KJV only, 1 baptism, closed communion, landmarkism, and the list goes on.
Conclusion. In my case the IFB helped me but in spite of all of these things not because of them. The IFB helped me grow by learning what not to do....
God uses flawed vessels for sure as I am one. I suppose one could pick apart any group or denomination of man & find flaws. The IFB will decry their waning influence & blame it on worldly Christians, America's moral decline but never self evaluate and make needed changes due to the arrogance & zeal. "Bless God & the KJV"! lol
Thanks😉
I have sincere hope for any group that maintains a focus on the Bible and tells people to read it. You and I both were taught by the IFB to read our Bibles. That's a super hopeful sign. I also may be biased in a positive way because 1) my experience in the KJVO IFB was so positive, 2) I get to know what I think of as the cream of the crop of IFB KJVO Bible college graduates. They're the ones who read their Bibles hard enough to see that the Bible doesn't teach KJV-Onlyism; they're the ones who reach intuitively for the kinds of study resources that both help create good sermons and slowly undermine many KJVO ideas; they're the ones who end up writing me emails nearly every day.
Brother Ward, Let me state up front, I am not KJVO, and my comment is more a general one, than tied specifically to this video (which I thought was very good and I agree with wholeheartedly). I am putting it here because of replies you make to some of the viewer comments here.
You state that Ouillette doesn't believe that the KJV is "perfect", and you also don't believe that it is perfect, or that any translation is "perfect". But isn't that a misleading standard? What does that even mean, in reality? I believe in the inspiration of Scripture. But what does it mean to say that the original autographs are "perfect"? Does it mean that they had no grammar errors, spelling errors, factual errors, "scientific" errors, etc? Which errors are present in any given translation that are not present in the "originals"? And which "originals" do we actually have that don't have those errors, or other error like them?
My point is not that the KJV (or any other translation) is "perfect" or "not perfect", but that "perfect" is a contrived standard that the Biblical authors never would have applied to their writing, or even conceived of-in the modern sense that it is used when saying that translation "XYZ" is "not perfect". Also, any standard of perfection that could be applied to the originals, is applicable to at least some translations; I would say most translations.
KJV Onlyists come into their own, albeit usually unwittingly, when they resist this "not perfect" lament over translations and the lionization of the "originals". Their intuition is correct that this attitude is wrong. Their resistance, at least in part, against the Greek and Hebrew is not only their foolish belief that the KJV is better than the originals (few actually think this), but it also comes from disdain for the implication that one references the Greek and Hebrew because the poor translations are wrong and need to be corrected. Granted, they torch their own high ground by turning around and saying the same thing about the modern translations, especially in texts that aren't textual variants.
This "perfect" vs "not perfect" argument is not only contrived, it is anachronistic and simplistic. There is no clear way out of it either. It seems to me that our entire worldview is so saturated by the modern realities of a world with printing presses, digital duplication, bit-perfect copying that we think of "perfect" in very different categories than someone making a handwritten copy of a text on papyrus with soot. If we were to ask the Ephesians if their copy of the one or two books of the Scriptures they possessed were "perfect", not only would their answer probably startle us, but what they meant by that, and what we meant by it, would probably be worlds apart. It would likely be like asking what blue sounds like and getting the response, it feels like four.
I do commend you for being reasonably clear that archaic language is not the sole source of misunderstanding, arcane and ambiguous writing is more the cause of the difficulty; and there is nothing that can be done for that, short of simply inserting interpretation and commentary directly into the text, as the more paraphrased translations do, e.g., The Message Bible.
Again, I really appreciated this video. You are correct, the problem in preaching (and not just in the IFB) is not which translation they preach from, but that so many simply are not even attempting to exegete the text. They have an agenda and the Bible is nothing more than an excuse to say it and a badge to flash to avoid judgment.
I get a lot of wild responses from my KJV-Only brothers. I expect this, and I knew to expect it before I began this work. Lots of ad hominem; lots of non sequiturs. But I honestly didn't expect how many of them would insist that there was nothing to complain about in Ouellette's message. I listened for the *seventh* time last night to that message, and I stand by my assessment. I think I'm getting blamed for his lack of clarity. He failed to make his KJV-Onlyism clear in that message; he *did* explicitly make the connection between "book" (Job 31:35) and "Bible"; but he did *not* explicitly take the next step to "KJV." That was left assumed and mentioned only in an aside. Here's the flier I got, announcing that the purpose of the meeting was to address "The Bible Version Debate," and promising that Ouellette would provide "Support for preachers to hold fast the faithful Word," which can only mean one thing in those circles: drops.forwarddesigner.net/i/blcEll. Also, his KJV-Only book was handed out to everyone at the conference.
But I'm not really answering your comment; I'm making my own! So let me turn to yours: I agree that "perfect" is left undefined by our KJV-Only brothers. I've assumed, in the absence of their spelling it out, that it must mean that at every point the KJV translators chose the perfect English word. In every place of inspired ambiguity, they went the right way. With every literary device they chose the one true and best English equivalent. But most KJV-Onlyists don't know Hebrew or Greek, so they don't go to that level of detail. And the ones who do know tend to back off the claim of "perfect."
Oh, little brother, that you find this event so unusual... My experience, over many decades, is that completely misinterpreting the text is the norm, not the rare mistake it ought to be. Perhaps you have had the grace to have attended churches with far better pastors than was my experience; but long, long ago, my standard for a "good" sermon was that the preacher taught no major heresy in his message - and these were fundamentalist/really conservative evangelical, baptistic churches.
Wow. I definitely haven't had that experience. Not in churches I chose. But in institutional contexts (camps, schools), I have seen this. It's extremely disheartening to me. =(
Gene Kim's "reasoning" for the KJV and KJV only, is that we "must" insist on a perfect bible (no reason ever given for that) and that they have decided the KJV is it. By their line of "reasoning" they could have just as easily picked any other translation and declared it perfect.
Exactly. This is true of all varieties of KJV and TR defense. My question is consistently: which TR *and why that one*?
In my experience wherever there is a dominating agenda there will be a tendency to misinterpret scripture to make it come in line with their agenda. Already we’re seeing some Bible teachers make certain scriptures about Covid and quarantine. The only solution to this is to come back to a thoroughly biblical exposition.
I agree. And this can come from a good place, from a trust in Scripture as God’s word, a word that addresses all of life. But hermeneutical sins are still sins. Jesus said, “Have you not read…?”
This is confusing to me. You say there is a group of people purposely not preaching what the text says on a regular basis but you say they love God and are brothers and sisters.
How can I email you?
Thanks!!!!
I don’t know that I would lean heavily on the “purposely” part; I don’t know all their motives. I’ll add that the further and more often they stray from the text the less I can say they love the Lord. :( I have an email contact form at my website: byfaithweunderstand.com/contact.
Is it ok to prefer the KJV for being the textual basis for the reformation and the days of the puritans? That’s kind of where I am. So my reasoning is historical significance. Ha! Good video bro
Brother, I don't see the Bible telling me how to reconcile the minor differences among existing manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. This means I can fellowship gladly with a man who prefers the TR, who says, "This version of the text served us well; why not continue?" I can absolutely see where such a man is coming from. But this is why I put pressure on the dead words and false friends-because if "the text is the issue," then it ought to be possible to use contemporary translations of the TR, such as the NKJV and MEV. They use fully intelligible, contemporary English. Why is it-I am sincerely asking-that I have met no more than two defenders of the TR who use the NKJV in their preaching? What do you think?
Does this make sense?
If the underlying Greek of the KJV is what you're valuing, I highly recommend the NKJV or the MEV. You've still got the historical connection to the puritans, but the readability and understandability of a modern translation.
Edit: I just read Mark's comment. If all mine serves is to second what he said, it's a good comment.
@@markwardonwords ok you win...I will now become a NIV Onlyist. Lol. Jk. Just wanted to say that.
You bring up a good point and I do like the NKJV but when I compare it to the KJV there just seems to be a deficiency in the NKJ. IMO. I don’t think it’s as literal as the KJ...and it doesn’t retain what I think it should have...but that’s another subject. The MEV is not very popular and not used much at all. Most don’t even know it exists. I am a preacher, btw, and I tend to favor the TR but also use the NAS on occasion. I am not a great fan of the ESV although I do like some of it. I actually like the NIV’s treatment of some things better than the ESV. So for some time I have had an internal dilemma when it comes to which Bible version to use. I wish I’d just pick one...stick with it...and invest my heart and mind to it...but I struggle with which is best in our day. I know there are no perfect English translation but I wish there were. I wish we only had one to be honest. One standard. I digress.
@@DTzant That’s a reasonable desire. Absolutely. And having one standard for a long time provided a lot of value. But what mechanism could *EVER* bring this about again? How exactly would it happen? It cannot and will not happen apart from some special act of the Spirit of God. Has He done this in other countries-for the Germans, the French, the Spanish? No. Has he said he’d do it for us? No again. So perhaps we can learn to see the benefits of our multi-translation situation. I know I have!
@David Vzt You should give the MEV a chance. You're right that it's not especially popular--I think even its own publisher may have given up on it--but it's a fine translation and the only significant translation of the 21st century that uses the TR. In some ways it reads a little more smoothly and uses more modern English than the NKJV. Personally, I find the the KJV, NKJV and MEV make a good team.
If the passion of the IFB has towards KJV onlyism could be redirected towards more important areas they would have a huge impact on the world. KJVO is not a hill God calls His children to die on.
Right! The Bible does not teach KJV-Onlyism! You have to take very specific, disputed interpretations of a few passages, then make unwarranted leaps from them to history to get to KJV-Onlyism.
What version do you recommend?
ruclips.net/video/gFsQv7Z4jis/видео.html
You should do a video with Pastor Steven Anderson.
I have Bible verses telling me not to, I’m afraid.
By the way, my previous comments were written before I had watched all of your video. Now that I have listened to every word, I will heartily agree with you that IFB churches are chock full of sermonizers who seemingly can only ever devotionalize, emotionalize, or spiritualize a given passage. But IFBs are certainly not alone in this. It is all throughout the denominations, as well as the so-called non-denominational groups. The continual missing of "what does this text say", and pushing only "what can I say about this text" is as common as pot-luck suppers and membership rolls.
But my prayer today for you, my friend, is that you will have your eyes opened to the shocking realization that God is no more powerful than last week's newspaper if He could not preserve all of his inspired, pure words in such a way that a man actually MAY "search the scriptures", receive the word of God "not as the word of men, but as it is in truth the word of God", and be "perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works".
Mark, I stand with the KJV translators against the idea that God promises perfect translations of his perfect Word.
I don’t have the quote handy, but I’m going to go from memory and put it a bit into modern English. Let’s see how I do…
There is no cause why the Word of God should be forbidden to be considered the Word, or forbidden to be circulated, just because there may be some minor errors in the translation. For what was ever perfect in this world in which apostles or apostolic men, people who enjoyed an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, didn’t have their hand?
That’s what they said. And again, I stand with the KJV translators.
@@markwardonwords yes, it is very clear to me that you wish to stand with anyone who will cast doubt upon the words of God. I pray that someday you will change.
I will stand with the inspired, pure words of God, which indeed have been preserved to this generation.
I've seen this scores of times in the IFB ... "a message" but NOT exegesis
Agreed. I've seen it hundreds. And I try not to judge too harshly, but to use sober judgment. This one stepped over a line for me. It was so brazen. =(
I've seen it in every group, not just the "IFB". Maybe your group is perfect in their exegesis. I think, tho, the only perfect exegesis was by Jesus.
Mark, have you had a chance to talk with Spencer Smith?
I confess I'm not sure… Have I?
@@markwardonwords That would be a great listen for sure!
@@caleb4015, is he a KJV-Only leader? I'm not familiar with him, then, I think.
Oh, found him on RUclips. I'll pass. =| I follow very specific principles for direct engagement.
I listened to Mr. Ward’s critique of Ouellette’s sermon, then I listened to Ouellette’s sermon. The sermon was a good exhortation about the importance of the Bible to us and for us. The critique was more in regard to what was not said than as to what was said, IMHO. It doesn’t seem to be that Mr. Ward actually listened to the sermon; makes me wonder if he actually carefully read Ouellette’s book. People like Mr. Ward don’t understand what preaching is, and certainly misunderstood the intent of this sermon.
I listened to that sermon six times. I have represented it fairly. Ouellette did not preach the intent of that passage, and he used it-in a way that I admit is less than fully clear-to promote KJV-Onlyism. I do not say he always does this. I do not say that everything he said in the sermon was wrong; it wasn’t. He said many good and true things. But what he said had literally nothing to do with the text of Job that he “preached from.” This grieves me.
Dave, answer one question with honesty, brother: Did Ouellette preach accurately the intent of Job 31:35-37?
How did Ouellette use that text and that sermon to promote KJV Onlyism? He barely mentioned the issue in passing.
As to the text being “out of context,” Job said that he wished that God would write a book, and if He did Job says he would carry it about and wear it like a crown. (Probably not an indictment, because why would you wear an indictment like a crown?) Oulette makes a point that no one at that time probably had the written scriptures, and that we today do have a “book.” He’s extrapolating the idea that over time we now have the complete word of God now. Andy Stanley has said that he no longer says, “The Bible says,” because the Early Church didn’t say that because they didn’t have “the Bible” in one book until centuries later, which is ridiculous- we have it now, and the “book” he preaches from says on the cover “the Holy Bible.” It almost sounds like you would be in agreement with him on this matter with your line of reasoning.
You stress that the meeting you expected to attend would be Ouellette preaching an entire sermon or series on KJV-Onlyism, and we’re disappointed he didn’t address that specifically, with reasons, examples and arguments for his translation/version position. I can understand that. If I had a Bible Conference that advertised we were discussing the KJV issue, that’s what we’d do (and have done). Many KJV Only people are shallow in their understanding of the issue because many preachers in the “IFB” KJV Only crowd have a “conviction” but don’t want to get into the “details” because it distracts from “soulwinning,” or they don’t want to be called a “Ruckmanite.” But I have heard some pitiful IFB preaching that is “take a text and run with it,” and they can preach the same sermon from any text (which requires much study and skill - LOL).
I appreciate your exhortation at the end of this video for KJV only people to be Bereans, unfortunately I think this is unlikely to happen because as soon as they become Bereans they will have to give up their fight for KJV onlyism.
I do tend to think this is what will occur. But I’d rather get the horse of exposition going before I attach to him the cart of translation change. =)
It's always striking to me how much the KJVO movement relies on assumption. They'll find a passage--or more often a verse, or portion of a verse, taken out of context--that they read as God promising to preserve his word. But having, they think, established that (which I agree is true, even if I disagree about how he does that, or where he promises to do so), they can only assume that, in some cases, the TR is the perfectly preserved text, and (in all cases) the KJV is the perfect translation. No text of scripture tells them that (obviously, as the last word of it was written 1500 years earlier). There's no scriptural basis to believe that a certain Roman Catholic priest, 1400 years after the last word of the NT was penned, would prepare a perfect printed text (or that his text would become perfect through the revisions of two other editors after his death)--that's nothing more than an assumption, for those of them that give any thought to the Greek at all. There's no scriptural basis to believe that a particular assortment of scholars, about 100 years later, would somehow prepare a perfect translation into a language that wouldn't exist for over 1000 years after the last words of scripture were penned. Why not the Bishop's Bible? Why not Wycliffe? Once again, nothing but assumption--even if you believe (which I don't) that God promises to preserve a perfect *translation* of his Word, there's absolutely no reason to believe that the KJV is it.
Right. And why the 1769 KJV rather than other KJVs?
Mark, I must meet Dr. Ouellette! I've read Job countless times (as my favorite book) and never saw that marvelous verse from the heart of Job craving the manifested KJB to clearly understand the Father! Three short comments to expose an apparant lack of understanding on your part my most intellectual friend. #1 Haven't you heard of a 'phylactery' used by fundamentalist Jews to litterly bind the Bible around their heads out of respect for the written Word? I could send you a picture. #2 You seem amazed by Ouellette's claim that the KJB (not 'version' but Bible) was at a 5th grade reading level. You should explore a high school graduation test from the year 1900--only a Bachelor of Science major could pass it today! Most of my mechanical-engineers-to-be were plagued with innumeracy. The reading-level for Shakespeare is 5th grade for a truly educated child rather than one of our primarily socialized kids. Obviously, Ouellette is referring to an IFB home-schooled child, NOT one from the Denver Public School system. Spring Semester of 2023 was my last before retiring after 15 years as a mechanical engineering professor at Colorado's largest university. Prior to that I worked 42 years in pump manufacturing. In addition, I pastored an independent baptist church for 6 (overlapping) years. I have my own funny KJB stories too: my pastor once admonished us that God was our "re-reward": "He rewards us and then rewards us again!" He mispronounced the old English word for 'Rear Guard'. #3 Don't you realize that Jesus spoke in parables so that many of his listeners would NOT understand? His words were intended for a select few: only those that were 'poor in spirit'... Well, sorry for rambling along for so long and I love your work providing so many ways to encourage me that the KJB is the ultimate, complete and final longed-for Word-of-God publication: not only publishing the exact Words God intended but the words that exceed the Greek and Hebrew (sometimes the scribes were in error, not God) but also, of course, the divinely inspired chapter and verse divisions which, oddly, are used in every 'modern' translation without fail. And, I can't believe you could refer to Job as somehow an ignorant primitive (I hope you don't believe in Cave Men). As an engineer and metroligist I know that the ancient stone cities around the world far exceed our modern engineering capacity and ability to form (create cylindricity, perpendicularity and flatness) and stack without mortar or modern cranes. Based on this video (I love your green house) you probably don't realize that God told Adam, but not Eve, not to eat of the forbidden tree! I look forward to hearing you speak sometime... I would drive a very long way to compare notes in humility and love. With my very best regards, Jack (please forgive the lack of English integrity in this spontaneous note!)
I'm not sure what to say, brother.
But I'll try:
#1 Can you find a single Hebrew-reading interpreter who took Job 31:35 this way? I'm not saying that reading is impossible, but I think it's very much improbable.
#2 I have explored the 5th-grade-reading-level claim in some detail in my book, and in even greater detail here: ruclips.net/video/-gnyPMuulaY/видео.html. I invite you to respond to my ideas there.
#3 Did God inspire/direct/guide the KJV translators to choose the word "besom" in Isaiah 14:23 so we wouldn't understand? Did he inspire/direct/guide them to choose the word "study" in 2 Tim 2:15, despite the fact that the word meant something different in 1611 than it means today? I invite you to watch my Fifty False Friends in the KJV series. ruclips.net/p/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc
Wants us to learn Greek, but the AV is to hard. Give me a break.
I want Bible teachers to learn Greek, brother.
@@markwardonwords If you learn Greek, you should also be able to read the greatest work of the English language. Blessings.
Your comment at 18:28 explains exactly why your view cannot be trusted. You would rather have Abbott and Costello explain to you how 13x7=28 than have to find out for yourself that it is actually 91. This explains why you are willing to accept a version that clearly states in plain everyday English that Jesus lied, rather than to use a version where The Way, The Truth and The Life actually speaks the truth. For those wondering what I am talking about, read John 7:8-10 in the NIV, ESV or many other modern versions, then look at the KJV. An accurate, reliable version would not have a sinless savior lying.
My friend, I don't believe Jesus lied. No evangelicals I know of who use the critical text believe Jesus lied. We do not believe that the ESV (for example) says in plain, everyday English that Jesus lied. How do you account for this?
@@markwardonwords When someone says he is not going to do something, but does it anyway, that person has told a lie. this is a simple concept. When Jesus tells his brothers he is not going to go to a feast, he lied in the ESV.. How do we know it was a lie? Because he went to the feast. How do you get around that? You cannot. You have to be willfully blind not to see it in John 7:8-10. So if you don't believe that Jesus lied, you don't believe the critical text. You know it is wrong.
@@timlemmon2332 *When someone says he is not going to do something, but does it anyway, that person has told a lie.*
So if I told someone that I didn't want to go to an event, but then I changed my mind and went anyway, did I lie to the person?
In John 7.3-4, the brothers of Jesus sarcastically tell him that since he clearly wants to draw attention to himself, he should publicly display himself at the festival. In verses 6-8, Jesus makes it clear that he doesn't want to go to the festival because the time (of his crucifixion) has not yet come, and his message will provoke controversy and hatred if he goes there and starts preaching. Then we see in verses 9-10 that he initially doesn't go, but when he decides to go, he does so with the intent of not drawing attention to himself. As the chapter continues, Jesus opts to teach in the temple despite his prior reluctance, and the Pharisees try to get him arrested as a result, which shows that his concerns at the start of the chapter were valid.
@@MAMoreno Thank you for your response. Here is the problem. Jesus knew he had to go to fulfill the law. Let's face it, Jesus knew how he was going to feed the 5,000 before he asked Philip how they would feed them. Jesus did not change his mind.
When you read the KJV, you will find that Jesus did not lie about going to the feast. Instead of flat out saying he isn't going, he says he isn't going yet. This one word makes the difference between Jesus lying or telling the truth.
I cannot trust a version that has Jesus lie. I find it inaccurate and unreliable.
@@timlemmon2332 "Jesus knew how he was going to feed the 5,000 before he asked Philip how they would feed them."
But then we have any number of instances in the synoptic Gospels where Jesus apparently expresses surprise in response to people and their actions. And that's just as true in the KJV as it is in its modern revisions. So at best, it may seem inconsistent with John's Gospel, where Jesus seems especially aware of things outside his sensory perception, but even that critique feels overstated.
What we do see more than once in John's Gospel is the idea that the time for the death of Jesus "had not yet come" (see also John 2.4, 7.30, and 8.20; contrast 12.23-27, 13.1, and 17.1). And in the case of John 2, he expresses a degree of reluctance about performing the water-to-wine miracle for that very reason. Consider also John 11.4-6, where Jesus responds to the news of Lazarus with a remark that sounds as if it's saying that Lazarus won't die ("This sickness is not unto death," KJV). A hostile audience might inclined to label that statement as a lie, too.
There are worse sermons.
Agreed!
Okay….
1. Readability of the KJV. Ya, it’s hard, but if you have been KJV all your life, it really does appear to be at a very low reading level. It’s like reading the original 1611, read a couple chapters and it reads smoothly. My six year olds can memorize it, can’t be that hard.
2. Okay, let’s put the KJV in some hard to read text that looks archaic. Not necessary.
3. “Book” is a bad translation…. And we are in Job 31, already had 30 chapters of accusations… Ya, I would call it a book at this point in the dialog.
4. Okay, you are in a room full of pastors, and they don’t, can’t understand the KJV? I mean come now…. I will admit to having trouble with words at times, but it is 15 seconds to look the word up.
5. “I don’t understand it” -- O come on Mark, you are at another category smarter than me and I can figure it out.
6. Ruckman. I never read or watched a single second of Ruckman before watching Mark talk about him. Mark sparked my interest, and I have to say, Ruckman is extremely knowledgeable on the Bible, and he is very funny, very entertaining to watch. And boy, that guy know his Bible.
7. I am not seeing a big issue in using Job to start the conversation on the Bible. Pastors do that a lot with OT parts of the Bible and I think it is more to get people to remember books like Job are in the Bible and should be read. Linkage to the topic is not always the point, nor does it have to be.
8. Okay, ya, I have been going to KJV churches for a long, long time. I have been under many pastors, and sorry but I am not seeing carelessness with the Bible. Even with topics like drinking alcohol, even though most IFB pastors say it is wrong they don’t twist scripture, though they do avoid some passages.
9. Critical Text pastors use the Bible in the correct way…. Ya, not sure if you are listening to the sermons. I went to Liberty University, five services a week, and currently doing four a week at two churches so I think I am probably at the same number of services at this point as Mark. Frankly, I have heard more problematic services in non-KJV churches than KJV churches.
10. Every time Mark promotes the NIV I just really hope he is still making videos when the next revision for the NIV comes out…. And he mentions the NASB, which one? The 1977, 1995 or 2020? And which one is correct where they disagree?
11. Ya… so Mark, as you sit and watch the entire Church sliding into progressivism, opening the door to LGBT, Female Pastors, Red-letter Christian movement, and really walking away from the Bible, you want a fundamental part of the Church to change?
12. Contemporary Bible translation are best at telling you what God said… sure thing, so Gen 3:16 in the CSB, ESV, NLT and NIV…. What does God say?
Well, sort of a let down. I am indifferent if the pastor’s jumping off text has anything to do with the message. I have been in a great number of services where the lead text was used for two minutes that we wind up in a completely different part of the Bible for 30 solid minutes.
An IFB preacher taking something out of context certainly doesn’t prove anything about the KJV. It’s much worse than that though. Many IFB preachers have now gone the way of the “doctors” in the SBC, teaching the heresy of repenting of sin as an element of salvation.
By the way, how can two contradictory books both be the Word of God? If you don’t think 16 missing verses qualifies as a contradiction, then I can’t imagine where the conversation could go from there.
Troy, I'm asking you very, very seriously: do you want to know what my answer to your question is? Are you willing to put in some time to understand the answer if it is complex?
@@markwardonwords yes, I do. I want to clearly present the truth to my class. I don’t want to just say that your side doesn’t believe we have any pure copies of God’s Word. I want to present what you believe, in your own words, and let the men in my class decide what is correct as they’re guided by the Holy Ghost.
@@troydrury12, would you be willing to reach out to me via email? It may be easier to converse there, so I can send attachments if need be, for example. Just use my blog's contact form: byfaithweunderstand.com/contact.
@@markwardonwords will do, thanks.
The Authorized King James Bible is a preserved translation from the original text and is the preserved Word of God for English speaking people in this world. The corrupted texts dismantle and destroy the pure doctrine of God found in the Authorized King James, which is exactly what Satan has desired to accomplish in the perversions that has come from it. I agree that the Independent Baptist movement has in the past and possibly even the present strayed from Biblical ministry into legalism and authoritarian leadership by some pastors and evangelists, which is sad and sinful, but the fault is not with the Word of God, but with the fallible man that strays from the Word of God, even if he is an Independent Baptist. The root of the problem with those who want to depart from the Authorized King James Bible (God's Word) is that the pure truth of God's Word has nailed your hide to the wall so many times for wanting to cozy up to this ungodly world's standards and water down Bible salvation so that a person can repeat a prayer without being made a "new creature" by the power of the New Birth and for wanting to adapt to the pop-culture of these last days instead of "keeping God's Word and not denying the precious Name of Jesus." There is no doubt that you are more popular today with the stand you take on the King James and having adopted Contemporary philosophy in ministry, but the day you and I are living for is the day we see the Son of God face to face and answer to Him. It will be interesting to hear you try to explain to Him why you thought it was a good idea to depart from His Book and herald Satan's many perversions.
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 Sir, I respectfully disagree. The Textus Receptus and the Vaticanus Text are two separate texts entirely.
The King James was translated from the Textus Receptus and the New King James has the Vaticanus Text as the basis for its translation.
I do not believe in critiquing God’s Word, but I do believe in willingly submitting to God’s Word and endeavoring to obey it.
I realize you are not going to agree with my stand on the NKJV, but I have examined it and I know there is more that is changed than just the grammar.
You know that too. The pure doctrine of scripture has been tampered with. So I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the NKJV and your opinion of God’s Word (KJB)
@@joeydurham8800 The thing that is problematic is your claim that Vaticanus was used for the NKJV. This is not true. The general editor of the NKJV Aurthur Farstad was a passionate believer in the TR. He so loved the TR that he claims the NKJV actually follows the TR more than the KJV does. At times the KJV heavily relied on the Latin Vulgate and in many places chooses readings from the Vulgate over the TR. Not looking to debate textual history, just a fact check. He speaks to this directly from 43:00-44:50 in this video. ruclips.net/video/E1R-TCpXb68/видео.html The NKJV is indeed from the TR.
@@ericduenke8528 Eric, you will find that every doctrinal change made in the NKJV was made using the Vaticanus underlying text.
I know that on the “surface” the group of translators say they used the Textus Receptus but when they changed the doctrine, they used the corrupt line.
If they did not do this, there would have been no reason for creating the NKJV.
@@joeydurham8800 Farstad also says the reason why they made the NKJV in the section I referenced in the link provided above. Did you watch it? I am curious, where are you getting this information? Do you think your source is more valid than the executive editor of the NKJV?
Either way, thanks for taking the time to dialogue and I prayed for God's blessing on you and your ministry. Keep preaching Christ!
Maybe you've forgotten those words of old: "[O]f making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh" (Ecclesiastes 12.12 KJV). Did you ever consider that you could've been wearying your flesh with all that Logos software? Instead of checking those "many books" on your electronic device, you should've stuck with the Good Book: AV1611!
As it says in the King James Bible, "I found a book of no small learning: therefore I thought it most necessary for me to bestow some diligence and travail to interpret it; using great watchfulness and skill in that space to bring the book to an end, and set it forth for them also, which in a strange country are willing to learn, being prepared before in manners to live after the law" (Ecclesiasticus prologue). We are in that strange country, and we must be willing to learn from a Book, not that silly website you keep bringing up. And what better Book than the one that contains these exact words?
Oh, M.A.! ;)
You are correct. Amen.
The Logos bible software (a downloaded application which stores your library in your device, not a silly website) has an insane amount of useful information on the King James Version. The King James Version you’re most likely using cannot be a 1611 edition. Also why is learning the original Hebrew & Greek texts your translation is based on such a bad thing?
@@christo-chaney I have a 1611 KJV facsimile on my shelf, thank you very much. :P
But even if I didn't, I can still see the newer editions as a purification process. If you look into its history, you will see that the AV has gone through seven editions: 1611, 1629, 1638, 1760, 1769, 1873, and 2005. And we all know that seven is the number of perfection, right? Maybe you should get yourself a New Cambridge Paragraph Bible.
@@MAMoreno does it have the full introduction from the Translators to the Reader? Along with the Apocryphal texts? How about the Calendar of Church readings (with apocrypha readings) with footnotes in the New Testament referencing the apocryphal books?
PART 3 COMMENTS BASED ON MARK’S OBSERVATIONS
BOOK OR RECORD OF WRONGS
You are right, Ouellette did not mention that the ‘book’ was some sort of list of charges against Job. I have noted that he occasionally mentions this in other renditions of this speech but not always ie
ruclips.net/video/HZSgOwWTnpk/видео.html
02/27/22 Sunday Morning "If Only God Had Written a Book" (R.B. Ouellette)
Northview Baptist Church
52:01
he said you know what I wish I was somebody to answer me. I wish
52:08
that my adversary had written a book. Now as you read the book of Job you'll find out Job was not envisioning Psalms
52:15
and proverbs in the gospels. Job would be really happy if God had a
52:20
written record of Job's wrongs. Right. What is it the accusation is then?
52:27
I can answer it. I can make it right. I can talk to God about it. I wish I had
52:32
some written revelations from God. Wait a minute Job
52:39
You wonder what your purpose is you know your purpose
I am not sure if this was a deliberate admission or not, but it would have made what Job was asking for clearer. It does not matter much to me as I know what was meant. (I have a newer translation). Others may have gotten this from the context, but some may well have thought Job was anticipating the Bible in general and the KJV in particular and this would be incorrect.
However, the fact Job is talking about an indictment and not a Bible I do not think changes Ouellette’s argument much. Both Job and we need to hear from God. If Job would have been honoured to receive just an indictment from God, how much more should we rejoice in having our Bible?
“I BELIEVE THE IMPLICATION OF OUR TEXT IS THAT THE BOOK WOULD BE THE AUTHORITY.”
Ouellette in this speech gives the reason that
Job said I'd take the book. I'd reason with God out of it.
I am wondering if He is thinking of Job 13: 3.
In another video, he has a slightly different reasoning
ruclips.net/video/mCvxp1y5tUE/видео.html
First Baptist Church of Bridgeport
166 views Apr 28, 2020
Job’s desire if only God has written a
21:20
Book.
What would you do with it Job? Well, I believe our text at least strongly
21:30
implies that it would be his authority. (Speaking as if he was Job) “For I could answer the foolish and
21:37
fallacious philosophy of my friends if I had a book from God.”
you know I'm glad we
21:43
have a Bible as our authority
I think that both reasons could be reasonable. Job could be saying “ If I have the official charge sheet I can show that it proves my innocence.”
However, this is a major point in his speech. One needs to focus time and attention on it, making sure the listeners understand what you are saying and why. It seems to me the speaker presumes everyone will understand and agree with Him. But he needs to demonstrate a) why this passage points to God’s authority and b) why this is important. If He cannot prove this point then a large part of his argument falls.
The need to strengthen this point is especially true when the Bible verse is not saying exactly what he wants it to say. He needs to prove his point.
I have a personal rule, that if I need to base a point on just a strong implication, then it is probably not worth doing.
The sad thing is that there are plenty of verses in the Bible that support God as an authority e.g. Psalm 119:105. He needed to spend time explaining it and using other scriptures to demonstrate his point's soundness. I would not go as far as saying he is totally wrong though at this stage. It just needs more work to improve it.
SURELY I WOULD TAKE IT UPON MY SHOULDER AND BIND IT AS A CROWN
Ouellette says this word of God would be an object of adoration. This sounds reasonable based on the limited resources that I have.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
36. So far from hiding the adversary's "answer" or "charge" through fear,
I would take it on my shoulders-as a public honor (Isa 9:6).
a crown-not a mark of shame, but of distinction (Isa 62:3).
Matthew Poole's Commentary
I would take it, i.e. that book containing my charge or accusation.
Upon my shoulder; as a trophy or badge of honour. I should not fear nor smother it, but glory in it, and make open show of it, as that which gave me the happy and long-desired occasion of vindicating myself, which I doubt not fully to do.
I hope you do not mind but I think you made a small error at the 10:33 mark of your video. When Ouellette was talking about the shoulder and crown section, he was referring to us adoring, and respecting God’s word not having God’s word as our authority.
VERSE 37
I agree with you that this passage is a little obscure and that it has no connection with the KJV. But to me, there seems to be a connection between Job wearing the indictment/ Bible and verse 37.
Job is confident of his innocence. Thus he strides into the court proudly, ready to give an account of his days. He sees that that charge list around him proves his innocence. Either because it is blank, or because the charges are so small that he can batter them away with his purity without effort.
I like though how you stated it was an obscure passage. The basic ideas around the sermon were good, but this is not the passage to demonstrate them.
ON THE TRANSLATION ISSUE
One strange thing I found about the service was that near the start they stated they wanted to “focus on the translation issue”, but the service did not. As far as I can see, the word KJV never came up and the word translation only occurred once in the sermon.
This is the context as far as I can tell..
I've never met anybody became a Calvinist by reading the Bible. There’s been some, I don't know, but everybody I know read somebody's writings. And everybody say, “You know I was reading, I thought, Oh I need a different translation.” You can get them in the Bible. We gotta
from what's what he said about the Bible (the meaning of the last sentence is uncertain).
I reacted slightly differently to you. I was grieved at the implication that other groups like Calvinist made their doctrines up out of thin air. Anyone who knows anything about Calvin should understand he had an exceptional understanding of the Bible. Anyone who has listened to a John Piper sermon realises how it is backed by the Bible. The lack of Bible understanding or non-biblical teachings is not the issue. The issue between Calvinists and other groups is the interpretation of the Scripture. You can dispute their interpretation, but not accuse them of altering the Bible. Besides they were around long before even the KJV was formed. To imply they need different translations to prove their claims is a low blow.
Thanks, Mark, I hope this makes sense. If not please request a link to one of my sermons and you have fun critiquing all my mistakes!
This is very helpful. Admittedly, it never occurred to me to go listen to other renditions of this sermon. I don't know how guilty I feel for this; I did listen to that sermon live and then repeatedly afterward.
I think one BIG element of the context of the sermon for me does point to a genuine misunderstanding between me and Ouellette. I was invited by the host pastor specifically for that evening, and specifically because Ouellette was going to address the KJV issue. The flier said he was going to do this, too. I interpreted his sermon in light of what I was repeatedly told was going to be its purpose.
There's another big element of the context that may be different for you and for me. I don't know how many IFB KJVO sermons you've heard, but I've heard hundreds, maybe above a thousand? I came into that sermon already with a vexed soul over the countless misuses of Scripture I'd heard.
I really appreciate the time you took with this. It was helpful to me. I don't believe I need to take back what I've said in this video, but this gives me some more charity toward Ouellette.
@@markwardonwords Thanks again for your kind words. I am glad I could be of help. Actually, I think htere are only one or two sermons that I could find dating before your video so you may have not found them anyrate. But if you get the time I would listen to one or to of his sermons.
Maybe if needed you could pin a comment to the video about any changes you would make to it.
I have been on camps and meetings with KVO. Christians. I love their intense belief in GOd's word and their desire to live it out. I have found them to be gracious although at times I felt like a vegan at a barbeque. I do not recall having too many sermons about it though. It was more related defending oneself for the pollutants of modern christiany (that is anything that came after the death of Spurgeon)/ textual critciam and that the KJV was just perfect and just get a dictionary if you do not understand anything.
Well, I could to on, but I must stop. But two more thought..
It seems to me that their KVO belief a bit lke both an overreactive immune system and an underactive immune system. Overactive in that they are so keen to be pure and true that everything modern is seen as a pollutant, a threat and therefore almost automatically rejected, Including new translations.
Underactive in that it is like some viruses that can fool the immune system into beliving they are apart of the body. Once they are established the body does not notice they are not meant to be there. That is, KVO is so much a part of their belief structure they cant see it is not meant to be there.
Thanks again. I actually to have some Logos material but I find it difficult to use.. Maybe that will be a project for my next holiday!
God bless you and your family May thoughts and prayers are with you