I first interacted with Mark Ward multiple years ago. Since then, he has become a “virtual” friend. We have interacted on various topics. In all our hours of communication, he has demonstrated a spirit of grace, humility and an ever-present push to love those on “both sides” of any topic we’ve discussed. More than once, he has cautioned me in that very way, always seeking the good in others. I say all that to say, what you see in this video is just “more of the same.” A humble Christian scholar who desires the edification and growth of Christ’s church. We could all learn from his stance and his spirit. If this is your first exposure to him, I encourage you to watch his other videos. If you are exploring the KJV topic, I strongly encourage his book “Authorized.” You will likely be challenged in your thinking but in a gracious way. It’s a refreshing contrast to so much of the sensational and shall I say “fleshly” literature I’ve consumed on the KJO side over the years. God has used this brother in my life in very specific, helpful ways. I’ll always be grateful for our providential intersection.
As one who would be in the Majority /Byzantine camp, I love all my brothers regardless of their translation position…yet, I have felt the same tug, in my heart as well. I love you brother and love your hearts transparency. Blessings as you continue to serve the body with the gifts our King has given you 🙌🏻
Thank you, Mark, for this honest, humble and heartfelt response. May the Lord Jesus bless you and your family, encourage you and strengthen your heart. Keep going brother!
@@davidfehr235 What I was trying to express is that I want to know God's Word before I draw my last breath and step into eternity and stand before the Almighty.
@@philipmorgan5500 I understand, John 1:1 says that Jesus is God’s word, let’s study and learn from his life for he is the image of the invisible God. Romans 10:8 speaks of the word of faith. God has always been pleased by faith in him.
I have trouble understanding how he can walk over that chasm either. As Dr. R.C. Sproul once said it is one thing to SAY you can conceive of square circles but another to ACTUALLY conceive of them.
Mark, I wish we lived nearer. I would love to hear you speak on anything on any occasion. Such a wonderful display of honesty and integrity. CB is a painful problem to deal with. As a Pastor, I've struggled with KJO groups and extreme rhetoric about people like myself. I also enjoy the times I'm called a liberal, so strange and unfamiliar.
Excellent video brother! Thanks for modeling, or at least attempting to model, good Christian character through your public discourse. Because of your love for your brothers, I have come to value your insights and arguments. May the Lord continue to use you for His glory, red hair and all 😅
I am convinced that the two positions, as held by their lead adherents, are very similar-unless you came out of Ruckmanism. CB is clearly not Ruckmanism.
I was disappointed, while reading one of these leading proponents' blogs, to see the personal attacks leveled towards you and the Textual Confidence Collective. I can understand why you're doing this, and I'm praying that one day almighty God will restore unity to His church on this subject.
Right. I know the difference between substantive engagement and, well, everything else. Christopher Yetzer gives me substantive engagement. A few others do. Most others don't. I think Tim Berg said the most helpful thing in the days following the release of the first TCC video. He said that the main criticism of Textual Confidence was that it isn't Textual Absolutism. That one little key unlocks (and disintegrates) the vast majority of the criticism the videos have gotten. I've written down what I take to be substantive critiques, however, and I'm planning to get the TCC together again to talk about them.
I would love for u brother Mark and brother Riddle just to have a 2 hour discussion on your differences. You guys are brothers in christ let's sit and talk.
I don't really see this discussion being productive, because while Mark first searches then looks at all available evidence and then comes to the conclusion based upon it, Riddle already has his unchangeable monolithic conclusion and then looks (and fabricates, if necessary) evidence to back it. This scenario makes it impossible for productive discussion to exist.
@@G.D.9 yes while I'm kjv perfer I don't push it on others now from time to time their those who asked me why do I still read that hard English 😅 lol then I will answer for me I love the majestic music of it. But reading some of the modern translations trust me it's the ones Mark wouldn't recommend. I'm concerned what the future revisions of these bible would say and read as Satan the god of this world will change to fit agendas that is not of God or against God. But I guarantee u these would be translations or bible version the critical text scholars dr .James white nor Dr Mark ward would tell u to don't even look at the cover 😆 🤣 lol Paraphrase bibles is what I'm concerned about. Now don't get me wrong some times I read modern bible it's clear as day lol
I don't think I've ever heard a more compassionate rebuke to an unbiblical viewpoint. It is clear that you love your Christian brothers and sisters in CB, but I understand how it is impossible to stand by when these believers call modern translations of God's Word Satanic. At best, they are standing in God's place, declaring something to be from the devil which God has not declared so. At worst, they are ascribing God's own words to Satan.
As far as Greek NT editions go, there are no editions that are found in one ancient greek manuscript. All editions including the TR are composite renditions, so rejoice in all the variant readings you have as long as they are responsible reflections of the manuscript traditions.
Well said. I hope they will respect you back. I see in the Christian Church to respond to others peoples opinions all to quickly, they call them of the devil. They seem to give him to much power.
While I'm not a scholar of such things, I'm with you: the claim to have a perfectly--to the jot and tittle--preserved text is meaningless if they can't identify that perfectly preserved text. If they can't identify it, it might as well be the NA28 or the THGNT. Edit: Doug Wilson, at least, has answered the question--for him, it's the 1550 Stephanus. But why he chooses that one I don't know.
For a good while I thought this was so obvious that I just HAD to be missing something. But I tried and tried to discover what I was missing, and I simply could never find it.
Hey Mark! I'm happy to see that you're bowing out of the conversation. I think the dialogue between you and Dr. Riddle has been going downhill for a little while now and the interaction between you two has become less and less helpful. I think you've recognized here that it's time for you two to 'agree to disagree' and move on. I appreciate your openness and candor, and I also appreciate your channel and insights. I will be continuing to watch your great content!
@dwayne Jeff is just not charitable to fellow Christians. Have you watched his discussion with James White? I would have been embarrassed for him to represent the Christian faith.
@@jwatson181 he is very harsh to JW. JW is objective and asks hard questions. Unfortunately character flaws arise when you are cornered and it’s clear your argument doesn’t hold.
@@matthewmurphyrose4793 I have nothing bad to say about Dewayne. I do wish he would call out the bad actors a bit more. Jeff Riddle does not conduct himself in debates as a Christian should.
I am more than a little surprised at one level, but I think on hearing you out I understand. I do hope your ongoing private conversations with CB folk end up bearing good fruit for all.
Thanks for the video. I was just telling my wife the other day that I think looking into the CB dialogue has made me worse off spiritually because I either 1) enjoy the controversy and enjoy being annoyed by the brothers, or 2) grow weary. I think this is good confirmation that I should stop looking into the subject.
I've enjoyed your channel immensely, thanks for the work you've done engaging those who disagree with you. It's extremely helpful to us lay people out here.
What a video. Wow. Your gracious and humble response is just such a breath of fresh air in this discussion. I respect and agree with your conclusions. I'd also like to thank you again for helping me come to a more firm CT position in recent times. I will continue to look at this in due course but it's no longer my top priority. Fantastic. Praise the Lord for your faithfulness and graciousness, what a clear reflection of our Saviour Jesus Christ. Such a blessing. Keep up the wonderful work, brother! From a brother in Northern Ireland, UK. :)
Excellent review. Christ honoring, demonstrates the more extreme of the view and it's illogical and even slanderous claims, and holds the view to account to make sure they are confessing the entirety of 1:8 in the standards. Thank you for this video and your work!
Thank you, Mark for bringing this issue before us. It saddens me that a TR sect is hounding you as they are. I think you and I have much in common. I am open to reading and studying scripture across the spectrum of Formal Equivalence and Dynamic Equivalence translations and that includes those based on the Textus Receptus and the Critical Texts. I'm confident of your sincerity as you approach textual criticism and I'm certain your faith will move beyond the current distractions by your detractors. God bless and I hope for a peaceful resolution soon.
Thanks Mark, I've been in discussion with many of my brethren on this topic for about a decade now and lately it has become a disturbing discussion. There is no room for disagreement or for honest intellectual discussion when you have people like Nick Sayers saying that all modern translations are garbage and should be thrown in the garbage. I love the KJV, I use the NKJV (and the CSB). I attack no one for using the TR. But the CB side seems to feel a compulsion to undermine everyone who doesn't share their view. Many are going intentionally out of their way to undermine people's confidence in their Bibles, and I detest that. Anyway, I appreciate your gracious approach, the recent textual confidence conference was excellent, and wish you the best in your attempt to step back. I've tried many times myself but always seem to get drawn back in by some statement that is essentially a historical fantasy (such as the claim that all editions of the TR are identical to the autographs). So I wish you more success than I've had!
Dr. Ward, As always I am so blessed by how you state your position gracefully as much (if not more) than what you state as your position. You are clearly working hard to fulfill the commandment to love others. God bless you and thank you for you serving us with exemplary humility.
I really appreciate your work on this and I think you are right to step back. It's sad to say, but it appears to me that the leaders of CB are so caught up by the facts that the eclectic and majority/byzantine text views do not provide the certainty of textual absolutlism (which they are 100% confident that the Bible and the Reformed confessions teach) that they cannot see that their view does not offer "jot and tittle" certainty either. I hope some of the Byzantine priority guys will continue the discussion with CB advocates, but I do not expect it to end well.
I've been troubled by the CB position for a long time because it felt like a return to the kind of mentality I left when I got out of the IFB, but I am absolutely shocked that such a "mainstream" CB publication would use the phrase "Satan's Bible" in reference to my favorite Bible translations. That kind of line belongs more in a book containing what is now called "symbolic logic" as of the latest edition (since the legitimacy of acrostic algebra was rightly questioned by pretty much everyone). Getting angry helps no one, certainly not myself, but it really pains me to see Reformed guys misguidedly attacking the Bible itself.
I’m excited to see what the lord will have you do next brother mark ! I have learned much from your efforts in this study of CB . Some people have got so much invested in this position that it’s really difficult to admit defeat on any level . Given the fact that the CB crowd is hesitant to update the KJB and or the NKJB this CB position will eventually fade with the passage of time due to language change . And thank you brother for helping me to understand the significance of using other translations along with my NASB :) , I now use all of the good ones .
I don't think they see how extreme they look-and how it drives them to further extremes-when they won't give me an inch. One of their leaders even told me privately, "We fear that if we give you an inch you'll take a mile." That's a big reason I started out this video by giving several inches.
Thank you Mark. I appreciate your stance and the way you handle your critics. I am praying this video will be used to grant repentance to people who are on dangerous ground .
M. Ward, could you please clarify one point? There seems to be some confusion as to whether you no longer believe that Confessional Bibliology is indeed another form of KJVO, or if you have simply decided to no longer label it as such? Same goes for the mainline IFB form, is it no longer KJVO in your eyes - or have you simply decided not to label it as such? Thanks
I promised not to use the label “KJV-Only” for Confessional Bibliology. They consistently heard me as calling them Ruckmanites and insulting them, despite repeated explanations that this is not what I meant, that I grew up in a form of KJV-Onlyism that taught nearly everything CB does and yet was happy to call itself “KJV-Onlyism,” minus appeals to the Westminster Confession and the Puritans. This started to feel like a petty dispute, so I backed off. I still believe that-minus appeals to WCF 1.8 and minus a 5% greater likelihood that a given CB preacher will use the NKJV-the position I was taught growing up and the viewpoint known as Confessional Bibliology are identical.
From what I've seen, (a) If you're an independent, fundamentalist Baptist who decries Calvinism and anyone who sprinkles babies and believes that the KJV is divine!y inspired, along with or more so than the TR, you might be a KJV Onlyist. (b) If, on the other hand, you're a staunch Calvinist who may or may not sprinkle babies, who disassociates yourself from KJVO, claims to be just TR-only but despises any non-KJV translation, including the NKJV & MEV, then you might be a Confessional Bibliologist. You don't hear about them as much, because they're not as loud and extreme, but there are those who prefer the Byzantine / Majority text family and are thus more comfortable with the NKJV but who also use those so-called Satanic modern translations and who are rejected by both groups.
@@markwardonwords thanks. The thing is, Riddle's own definition of KJV-Onlyism would exclude even Ruckman from being labeled as KJVO. So it's quite obvious he hasn't a clue what he's talking about. And if the leader of the CB camp could err so badly on such a hotly contested point, it stands to reason that his followers are also misguided/mistaken here. I fully understand and respect your decision to bow out of the conversation, as well as your "promise" to stop referring to CB as KJVO, but - said "promise" has emboldened KJV/TR/CB advocacy, and now they're claiming that you've repented (or the like) of wrongly labeling them as KJVO. Which is making it extremely difficult for the rest of us who agree with you (and are still attempting to engage with them) on this point. As of now, I'm going to refer to the camp as *Confessional King James Onlyism* with absolutely no quarter given until a list of incorrect textual choices made by the A.V. translators is presented. Although, I suppose the Lord will return before such a list exists.
@@matthewmurphyrose4793 I had previously decided not to say this publicly, because it is one of the signal examples of the pettiness that so disgusted me and made me want out of public debate with the current leaders of Confessional Bibliology, especially Dr. Riddle. But given your comment here, I apparently need to say this: I tried to meet my brother in Christ, Dr. Riddle, halfway by backing off a label he found offensive and inaccurate. My explanations ("I am NOT saying that CB is Ruckmanism") never seemed to register, and respected friends agreed that the label dispute was starting to be a distraction. So I told Dr. Riddle that I would "stop using the label" of "KJV-Only" for him and for KJV/TR defenders in the IFB world who don't like the label either (Joe Shakour was one of those-he's someone across the aisle whom I like and who, I think, plays fair). Here's a screenshot of what I said to Dr. Riddle on his blog: share.cleanshot.com/wS3NVcNf. Dr. Riddle immediately started saying, repeatedly and publicly, that I had promised not to "conflate" the two views-a not insignificant misrepresentation (though, I still assume, not a self-conscious or purposeful one) of what I said. I believe I was quite clear in saying that I still believed that the mainstream, non-Ruckmanite KJV-Onlyism I grew up with in the IFB was in all essential points (minus appeals to WCF 1.8!) identical to Dr. Riddle's viewpoint. I did and still do believe this. I detailed the many substantive points of overlap on Dr. Riddle's blog (screenshot: share.cleanshot.com/6z5wFFX3 ). I pointed out the institutional overlap, the way both groups appeal to Hills and like the Trinitarian Bible Society. I clarified, of course, that the vast majority of self-conscious "KJV-Onlyists"-and remember, I was one of them!-do NOT regard themselves as Ruckmanites. They all insist that "the text is the issue!" I don't know how I could have been more clear, and yet Dr. Riddle persisted in saying that CB and KJV-Onlyism are radically distinct-precisely by defining "KJV-Onlyism" as Ruckmanism. He also persisted in misrepresenting my act of good will by saying that I had promised not to "conflate" KJV-Onlyism and CB. I just couldn't bring myself to dispute his mischaracterization publicly, lest I appear to descend to what felt to me like fourth-grade schoolyard argumentation. =( This was the final straw, really, that led me to make this video bowing out of public debate. I held off saying anything from July to September while Dr. Riddle continued making this claim. But now I feel I've been forced to clarify by someone (you, Matthew!) who listened perceptively. If someone is motivated enough to dig this far into the issue, I've now explained my viewpoint-and offered what I hope to be the final public word I ever need to say about Confessional Bibliology! You asked a legitimate question for which some clarity was still needed. I do believe that Confessional Bibliology is, in all points of substance minus appeals to WCF 1.8, identical to mainstream, IFB, "the-text-is-the-issue" KJV-Onlyism. But because enough of my brothers in the CB world just cannot seem to hear anything but "Ruckmanism" when I say "KJV-Onlyism" (this happened again the other day with a RUclips commenter: he literally seemed unable to understand my words), and because I want to focus on substance more than labels, I will continue to avoid using the label "KJV-Only" or "Reformed KJV-Onlyists" to describe Confessional Bibliology. Can I take my ball and go home now? ;)
@@markwardonwords thank you very much for the clarification! I hope I didn't tax you too much, but (1) this keeps getting thrown in my face, and (2) Riddle (and others) have silenced dissent on this point by refusing to allow comments...which, he couldn't do with you because your platform is too large, and therefore he couldn't get away with such behavior. Even so, thanks again for your reply.
I was asked about the academy and it’s role in the CT/ translations and was told that somehow this is inappropriate and should be in the hands of the church , any thoughts / recommendations? I think you have addressed this somewhere, just can’t remember where .
I probably need to do a video. But one answer: ok, then use the Tyndale House Greek New Testament. It’s done by Christians for a non-profit Christian publisher. Another answer: in what world will non-academics have the skill and time necessary to do textual criticism?
@@markwardonwords Great answer ! This question is often asked to silence me . A thought has just occurred to me , has the text ever been in the hands of the church in that way? Brash writes about ordinary providence in his book .
@@michealferrell1677 Right. Weren't all/most of the KJV translators academicians? They may also have been churchmen-I think most/all were-but so are ALL of today's Bible translators and ALL of today's evangelical textual critics.
@@markwardonwords did not the church before the printing press make use of the scriptorium in many cases much like other books ? This history would be fun to trace !
During the Old Covenant, the church under age was entrusted with the oracles of God (Romans 3:2). In the New Covenant, stewardship was transferred to the Christian church, that it might serve as the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).
Hey Mark, I've greatly enjoyed your content, specially the TCC series since I love textual criticism, however all this discussion about "Confessional Bibliology" is simply tiresome, since every smarter person amongst us knows (and this is abundantly clear) that it's simply another manifestation of KJVO no matter how they try to phrase or present it, and especifically for me (I'm not a native of an english speaking country) it's simply abhorrent how these people try to push this ancient translation as a "jot and tittle" perfect word of God by twisting and taking verses out of context to make them say whay they don't since their other arguments, in the best of cases, dwell on the dumb category. Thankfully in my own country we do have a few fanatics that import these ideas from the english speaking world (more especifically the USA) but they're laughed down very fast due to how obviously ridiculous their ideas are, so sanity prevails.
I do believe indeed that there is huge overlap between CB and the form of IFB KJV-Onlyism that I was taught growing up. Both thankfully reject Ruckmanism. But both make the same substantive claims from the Bible and about the Bible. CB appeals to the Westminster Confession, however, in a way that my IFB pastors would not do.
@@syriacchristianity9007 It is similar to the Trinitarian Bible Society doctrinal statement. An example is the Russell Stendal Jubilee Bible which is based on reformation era hebrew and greek texts, reformation era translations like William Tyndale, kjv, casiodoro de reina spanish translation, etc., and it is mainly a Reformation Era Traditions Only belief. Some in the confessional bibliology believe in the variants chosen by the kjv translators as their TR and these are obviously KJV Only.
The undeniable gulf between positions that you describe Mark is, according to my years of thinking about these kinds of things, the gulf between personality types, between those who crave feelings of certainty more than anything and those who can be content with some lack of certainty. I perceive it in every kind of interaction I have had on every kind of topic you could name, with Christians and non-Christians alike.
I have been thinking about this all day. I am compelled to agree, in the absence of a better explanation. Not like I'm agreeing against my will-I just don't want to be uncharitable toward these brothers. It fills me with dread to see otherwise good brothers sweep away obvious, central questions. =(
I thank you for your response when someone is giving clear reasons for a position that a person may take. I do think you may be missing the method of reasoning that is happening in someone who chooses to believe that the KJV is inerrant. In the rules of logic there is the claim of god of the gaps and this is pointing to a god as the reason for a claim that one makes. This is what this would look like if I were to do it: "God has blessed the Bible and made sure that we have what he wants us to have." Notice how I put God as the main reason for the claim I typed this is what you are seeing on the KJV side mostly. There are a view people that would be classified as layette that put in the work to show that many of the verses that scholars choose for various reasons to not translate in the new versions are in the evidence and some of the early writings have claims that seem to come from these sentences that are in one manuscript but not in another. I myself have listened to many of these individuals that are actually responding and interacting with the evidential claims and these individuals make a strong case for including these sentences in a modern translation. I myself understand the need for translation but my misgivings come when in the Hebrew and Greek their is the second person singular and second person plural but it is not always clear in the modern translations as to which is which. So, for me to account for this I use the KJV because this is covered by the use of the (thee, thin, and thou) (ye, you, and yours), and then I will read some passage in a more modern translation to double check my understanding of the text. This has been very helpful for in-depth Bible study for instance in the NASB in Genesis chapter 3 verse 1 it has this "You shall not eat" and in the KJV is this "Ye shall not eat". With the KJV I see the serpent is speaking to both Eve and Adam in the first verse of chapter three but I would not have thought this by reading the NASB because simply using you in all places were in the Hebrew it is from my understand a second person plural. Also there is no annotation as how to view that 'you' in the NASB that I have which is 1995 copyright. I personally would love to see a translation that handles these types of discrepancies and even possible listing the actual manuscripts that are used to justify the differences so that those of us that like to look into this information can do so.
I appreciate this. I urge you to wait in October on my channel for the release of the King James Bible Study Project. I will discuss in some detail the second person pronoun issue you raise.
Thank you for your effort on this issue. You have helped clarify the issues with confessional bibliology. CB sounds good and right however when CB is examined it falls apart and I think your challenge of CB has helped show just that. Blessings to you in your future projects.
@@markwardonwords Without your book and all of the videos posted along with the TCC I would have had next to nothing besides Dr whites book and a few other guys on this subject. Although not an issue in my church , for you could find on any given Sunday multiple English translations being used , all three of our Elders are persuaded by the CB . Now two of the three use the NKJB but the one uses only the KJB and has in the past given a spill on textual criticism , he also had me reading Letis , hills . I’ve tried to understand the reasons for their position but with nearly all of its leading proponents disagreeing amongst themselves, it’s kinda hard for me to follow.
For the question how to choose the perfect TR or the perfect KJV printing, this usually requires revelation and some christians do believe the gods are telepathically communicating with them and maybe even revealing some new bibles (some christians maybe rely on presuppositions or fideism). There is at least 1 person who claims to have received revelation about which particular KJV printing is the perfect one and I am very much interested in what other messages the gods have communicated to this same person, and maybe I can also learn how to receive telepathic messages from the gods. My christian mother used to claim telepathic messages from the gods and these messages seemed about as fake as the messages received by scam spirit mediums.
If evangelicals are trying to convert fundamentalists into evangelicals, this can sometimes result in name calling like fundamentalists will just call evangelicals as Satan. Some fundamentalists will call catholics as Satan. I remember my mother's chinese fundamentalist baptist church did not believe catholics were saved and maybe also did not believe non baptists were saved. Some in confessional bibliology use evangelical translations like nkjv, niv, esv so these TR only believers might actually be evangelical similar to Arthur Farstad who was majority text only believer.
So as I noted in private, I think your comments here are too weak, not to strong. To call a translation of God's Word Satanic is blasphemous, hedging into the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. It seems to me on this point, those editors who refuse to repudiate this language should be under church discipline for this type of language, churches holding to this standard removed from fellowship and those in ministerial positions defrocked. It is one thing to have substantive disagreements on inferences from the Scriptures, I think their Bibliology is based on bad inferences from the texts they cite. But, to move from that position to one which defamed the text in this manner is very serious.
I have good reason to believe that Myers’ words do not represent the opinions of all the rest of the contributors. It’s up to the RPCNA to decide on Myers’ doctrinal soundness. I know some very good men in that denomination-and one woman I think incredibly highly of, Rosaria Butterfield.
@@markwardonwords that may be, but they need to go on record. And of course, there is a process that takes time in all this. The PCA had a similar problem with Kinism a decade back, as well, it took time, but they did handle matters. I only note the seriousness of this particular line of reasoning. And yes, Rosaria's books are well worth reading and contemplating.
It reminds me of the IFB, in a sense, they went after a few writers such as Schaeffer for being like Jehosaphat (whom God treats as a revival king), but strangely were late to the game when it became obvious that Jack Hyles had become involved in both immoral conduct and heretical doctrine. It is dangerous when we hold different standards for the theological leftist than for the theological pharisees, using the latter term cautiously due to its history of misuse. We tend to either err by treating every issue as if it were a fundamental of the faith or we err in thinking there are no fundamentals. My dear friend, no disservice to what you have done here is implied.
TBS and most in the confessional bibliology probably admit that archaic kjv is as archaic as shakespeare plays and TBS does have the TBS Westminster bible which has some definitions for archaic words similar to an Arden Shakespeare Hamlet. There are some KJV Only who reject reality and claim that archaic kjv is not archaic at all and is as outrageous as somebody claiming Shakespeare Hamlet play is not archaic at all, and even 2 year olds can easily understand Hamlet.
Ahhh… could those whom cannot see their own ‘illogical gulf’ in their perception of a perfect text that allows variants, be laying hold of other mysteries of the faith; ie Jesus being FULLY God; yet, at the same time; FULLY man… and other unexplainable mysteries? Maybe they are subconsciously guided by such mysteries, yet do not realise it; hence their inability to explain their stance. I am constantly reminded of Galatians, chapter 3.
For the riddle about which TR has the perfect jots and tittles, some KJV Only will simply say KJV is the TR, that is, the variants chosen by the kjv translators is the TR they believe in.
@@alexjessalexjess864 Those who believe only in the TR behind the KJV can be called KJVO. Other examples are spanish readers who only believe in the TR behind the casiodoro de reina translation and these can be called casiodoro de reina bible only, german readers who only believe in the TR behind the martin luther translation and these can be called martin luther bible only.
@@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175 and this is the reason why they do not answer the "which TR?". Cause if they do... The answer is "the one of the KJV". They are KJVO cause in the end their standard is not the greek text but the text of the KJV.
@@alexjessalexjess864 some kjvo do say kjv is the TR but they do not like to be called kjvo bec kjvo is a label invented by their evangelical enemies (fundamentalists and evangelicals split in the 1950s when john rice split with billy graham over ecumenism).
That’s a particularly difficult ask, as those of us whose wives have left KJV-only circles are not interested in becoming lightning rods of controversy themselves.
Saying other believers are Satan or anti christs is probably an influence of the reformation era when such language was normal, catholics called protestants heretics, protestants called catholics anti christs. In the 1950s, fundamentalists and evangelicals split mainly over ecumenism, since evangelicals prefer to be friendly with other christians such as catholics, to be friendly with other religions such as Parliament Of The World's Religions, and to be friendly with atheists as seen in the example of Billy Graham. Fundamentalists prefer separation and prefer to call other believers as Satan. I just thank the gods that catholics are now more evangelical and more liberal and have stopped burning atheists altho some fundamentalist muslims still burn atheists like in the good old days.
I don't mean to nitpick, but I don't think of them all as a joke. I think responsibility for the "Satan's Bible" comment lies with those who knew it was coming and have not distanced themselves from it. I have reason to believe that not every contributor to the volume is happy that the line made it into the final draft.
@@markwardonwords He has a RUclips channel "New Life Albany", and his name Pastor Steve Aldrin. Many of his arguments or rebuttals are fallacious, cursory, and ad-hominem. His responses or rebuttals are embarrassing, off-putting, and condescending. He uses straw-man arguments, and when you expose his inconsistencies, he shames you for attacking God's word.
There is probably no need to want calvinists to be more calvinist since many protestants are not calvinists, and being a calvinist seems like just following the opinions of 1 dead person named John Calvin.
I confess the 1689 Baptist Confession, though not slavishly. Yet I do not feel a TR only or textual absolutist position is implied by the confession and if someone can prove to me it is then I would simply defer with the confession. This extremism is a denial of objective reality and is a dangerous mindset. Just as postmodernism today denying the objective fact of there existing only two genders so denying the variations amongst manuscripts even the various TRs is ridiculous. It’s unbecoming of a Christian to show such a lack of intellectual integrity. Extremism that deny clear empirical facts must always resist to name calling and ad hominem arguments which is often KJV only defenders primary arguments.
I’m prepared to go with God’s word over my five senses; but I’m not prepared to refuse to try to try to harmonize them first. I expect God’s word and God’s world to cohere.
@@markwardonwords Indeed, both are God’s revelation though often God’s special revelation is more clear or adds to clarity to general revelation. This is something the Church has discussed and affirmed from its beginning. Here’s something ironic Mark: I’ve actually been inspired watching your videos more to read and respect the KJV than any KJV onlyist I’ve ever seen. Because in places I thought the KJV was primitive or just wrong. Yet you’ve often have shown me that I misjudged them because of a false friend. So I think you’re the one who is in the tradition of the KJV translators and are showing their work honor.
@@ejwoods2457 YES! You see what I see! I really am the same way. I wasn't ever invested in a view which saw the KJV translators as dummies or frequently in error. But I kind of thought of them as behind the times. There is some truth there: we do know more now than we used to. But not a ton. I frequently find that the KJV makes a viable decision, and I frequently think of what one of my favorite KJVO friends said to me: that he doesn't count the major modern versions as ten votes but as one-as the modern against the premodern. Scholarly opinion could swing back toward the KJV in individual places. It's frustrating, honestly, to be told repeatedly that I hate the KJV when my own work has increased and not decreased my respect for its quality.
@@markwardonwords No they were not. I’ve spent some time in the Bishop’s Bible, Matthew’s Bible and the Geneva (and they all had good qualities) but I definitely do see a superiority in the KJV. On the surface, it seems that the English is more easier to read and I tend to think their translation choices are better as well. So it really was a special production and has served God’s people well. But now it’s time to move forward and keep the tradition of quality vulgar translations. Yet I totally understand the temptation in holding on to tradition or seeing an update as bad. I did the same with the NASB 95 update recently. As soon as I seen ‘brothers and sisters’ and a few other changes I wrote off the NASB 2020. Thankfully I did a reassessment of that opinion and now I must admit that I’ve really appreciated the updated language of the NASB 2020. It really adds clarity and I can see how it’s more understandable to today’s English speaker. And it’s still just as accurate as before. Perhaps, even more so. Only update I’d still like is editions without italics! They can be annoying to me and probably defeat their own purpose for many readers who are unaware of what they’re doing because in modern English we know italics is for emphasis! But I’m sure others value them. It’s not my world but unfortunately. Or is it?
The Ruckmanites are cultish. But even they I wouldn’t call a cult. I do purposefully avoid that rhetoric. And I can’t imagine a situation in which I would apply it to genuine brothers, as nearly all KJV-Onlyists, except the most extreme ones, are.
And I get that! I really do! I feel the same about the Bible itself. And I won't admit an error in inspired Scripture for that reason. But they are placing the locus authority in what humans did, not what God did-as the KJV translators make perfectly clear in their preface.
@@markwardonwords I love the KJV, and I read the KJV. However, I read and preach from the ESV. I also love the CSB. My denomination was predominately KJV, but they started to include the KJV with the NIV (parallel) in their Sunday School literature about 30 years ago.
It seems to me that you have tired of doing what you have counselled us not to do: engage the KJV Only people in discussions on textual criticism. That is a good idea, because: Dunning/Kruger. But I guess these people you have tired of engaging with are knowledgeable enough that they are being deliberately obtuse. There is no virtue in trying to teach those who will not be taught. SImply trying to get the Word of God in front of those who need it, i.e. those who are struggling with a translation beyond their simple understanding, is a more worthy cause, IMO.
I have had this very thought. I have wondered recently if this was all the most foolish of mistakes. I told myself that these men do NOT insist on the exclusive use of the KJV, and therefore I can dialogue about text with them (I wouldn't be breaking my vow). And that is technically true. I also told myself that these men are better trained than the IFB KJV-Onlyists and could have an intelligent conversation. They definitely are better trained, so we were able to get some clarity I don't get in the IFB. But we ran into the same walls I run into with our IFB brothers, as I discuss in the video. Another motivation I had getting into textual-critical issues was that I get a lot of questions from young IFB men-got this yesterday-who really seem ready to learn about NT textual criticism. They've heard my case on readability, and they accept it. They're ready to hear more. I hope between my few videos on CB and my seven videos for the TCC, I've met that need.
I first interacted with Mark Ward multiple years ago. Since then, he has become a “virtual” friend. We have interacted on various topics. In all our hours of communication, he has demonstrated a spirit of grace, humility and an ever-present push to love those on “both sides” of any topic we’ve discussed. More than once, he has cautioned me in that very way, always seeking the good in others. I say all that to say, what you see in this video is just “more of the same.” A humble Christian scholar who desires the edification and growth of Christ’s church.
We could all learn from his stance and his spirit. If this is your first exposure to him, I encourage you to watch his other videos. If you are exploring the KJV topic, I strongly encourage his book “Authorized.” You will likely be challenged in your thinking but in a gracious way. It’s a refreshing contrast to so much of the sensational and shall I say “fleshly” literature I’ve consumed on the KJO side over the years. God has used this brother in my life in very specific, helpful ways. I’ll always be grateful for our providential intersection.
This is incredibly kind. Thank you, my respected friend!
As one who would be in the Majority /Byzantine camp, I love all my brothers regardless of their translation position…yet, I have felt the same tug, in my heart as well. I love you brother and love your hearts transparency. Blessings as you continue to serve the body with the gifts our King has given you 🙌🏻
Thank you for this!
Thank you, Mark, for this honest, humble and heartfelt response. May the Lord Jesus bless you and your family, encourage you and strengthen your heart. Keep going brother!
Thank you so much!
Thank you, brother Mark!
I want to understand God's Word before I enter God's presence.
Me too!
Philip Morgan, you are always in God's presence. God is not in your presence.
@@davidfehr235
What I was trying to express is that I want to know God's Word before I draw my last breath and step into eternity and stand before the Almighty.
@@philipmorgan5500 I understand, John 1:1 says that Jesus is God’s word, let’s study and learn from his life for he is the image of the invisible God. Romans 10:8 speaks of the word of faith. God has always been pleased by faith in him.
I have trouble understanding how he can walk over that chasm either. As Dr. R.C. Sproul once said it is one thing to SAY you can conceive of square circles but another to ACTUALLY conceive of them.
Right. :(
Mark, I wish we lived nearer. I would love to hear you speak on anything on any occasion. Such a wonderful display of honesty and integrity. CB is a painful problem to deal with. As a Pastor, I've struggled with KJO groups and extreme rhetoric about people like myself. I also enjoy the times I'm called a liberal, so strange and unfamiliar.
I am hopeful that the Lord will do good for and in these brothers.
Excellent video brother! Thanks for modeling, or at least attempting to model, good Christian character through your public discourse. Because of your love for your brothers, I have come to value your insights and arguments. May the Lord continue to use you for His glory, red hair and all 😅
Ha! Thank you!
I came out of KJVO IFB, I don’t intend to go back into it now that I am reformed (PCA). Thanks for your labor in this field.
I am convinced that the two positions, as held by their lead adherents, are very similar-unless you came out of Ruckmanism. CB is clearly not Ruckmanism.
I was disappointed, while reading one of these leading proponents' blogs, to see the personal attacks leveled towards you and the Textual Confidence Collective. I can understand why you're doing this, and I'm praying that one day almighty God will restore unity to His church on this subject.
Right. I know the difference between substantive engagement and, well, everything else. Christopher Yetzer gives me substantive engagement. A few others do. Most others don't. I think Tim Berg said the most helpful thing in the days following the release of the first TCC video. He said that the main criticism of Textual Confidence was that it isn't Textual Absolutism. That one little key unlocks (and disintegrates) the vast majority of the criticism the videos have gotten. I've written down what I take to be substantive critiques, however, and I'm planning to get the TCC together again to talk about them.
I would love for u brother Mark and brother Riddle just to have a 2 hour discussion on your differences. You guys are brothers in christ let's sit and talk.
The door I opened in this video remains open.
I don't really see this discussion being productive, because while Mark first searches then looks at all available evidence and then comes to the conclusion based upon it, Riddle already has his unchangeable monolithic conclusion and then looks (and fabricates, if necessary) evidence to back it. This scenario makes it impossible for productive discussion to exist.
@@G.D.9 yes while I'm kjv perfer I don't push it on others now from time to time their those who asked me why do I still read that hard English 😅 lol then I will answer for me I love the majestic music of it. But reading some of the modern translations trust me it's the ones Mark wouldn't recommend. I'm concerned what the future revisions of these bible would say and read as Satan the god of this world will change to fit agendas that is not of God or against God. But I guarantee u these would be translations or bible version the critical text scholars dr .James white nor Dr Mark ward would tell u to don't even look at the cover 😆 🤣 lol Paraphrase bibles is what I'm concerned about. Now don't get me wrong some times I read modern bible it's clear as day lol
I don't think I've ever heard a more compassionate rebuke to an unbiblical viewpoint. It is clear that you love your Christian brothers and sisters in CB, but I understand how it is impossible to stand by when these believers call modern translations of God's Word Satanic. At best, they are standing in God's place, declaring something to be from the devil which God has not declared so. At worst, they are ascribing God's own words to Satan.
I fear for them, I do. But I'm also hopeful, because the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
As far as Greek NT editions go, there are no editions that are found in one ancient greek manuscript. All editions including the TR are composite renditions, so rejoice in all the variant readings you have as long as they are responsible reflections of the manuscript traditions.
RIGHT!
Well said. I hope they will respect you back. I see in the Christian Church to respond to others peoples opinions all to quickly, they call them of the devil. They seem to give him to much power.
Right!!
While I'm not a scholar of such things, I'm with you: the claim to have a perfectly--to the jot and tittle--preserved text is meaningless if they can't identify that perfectly preserved text. If they can't identify it, it might as well be the NA28 or the THGNT. Edit: Doug Wilson, at least, has answered the question--for him, it's the 1550 Stephanus. But why he chooses that one I don't know.
For a good while I thought this was so obvious that I just HAD to be missing something. But I tried and tried to discover what I was missing, and I simply could never find it.
Hey Mark! I'm happy to see that you're bowing out of the conversation. I think the dialogue between you and Dr. Riddle has been going downhill for a little while now and the interaction between you two has become less and less helpful. I think you've recognized here that it's time for you two to 'agree to disagree' and move on. I appreciate your openness and candor, and I also appreciate your channel and insights. I will be continuing to watch your great content!
Thank you, Dwayne!
@dwayne Jeff is just not charitable to fellow Christians. Have you watched his discussion with James White? I would have been embarrassed for him to represent the Christian faith.
@@jwatson181 he is very harsh to JW. JW is objective and asks hard questions. Unfortunately character flaws arise when you are cornered and it’s clear your argument doesn’t hold.
@@jwatson181 Dwayne was probably too busy showing everyone how "charitable" he is by not properly identifying Confessional Bibliology as *KJVO*.
@@matthewmurphyrose4793 I have nothing bad to say about Dewayne. I do wish he would call out the bad actors a bit more. Jeff Riddle does not conduct himself in debates as a Christian should.
I am more than a little surprised at one level, but I think on hearing you out I understand. I do hope your ongoing private conversations with CB folk end up bearing good fruit for all.
Thank you for this. I do have hope for those private conversations.
Thanks for the video. I was just telling my wife the other day that I think looking into the CB dialogue has made me worse off spiritually because I either 1) enjoy the controversy and enjoy being annoyed by the brothers, or 2) grow weary. I think this is good confirmation that I should stop looking into the subject.
Join the now-ignoring it club!
Thank you, Brother Mark. Thanks for this presentation. 🌹🌹🌹🌹
Thanks for listening!
I've enjoyed your channel immensely, thanks for the work you've done engaging those who disagree with you. It's extremely helpful to us lay people out here.
Much appreciated!
What a video. Wow. Your gracious and humble response is just such a breath of fresh air in this discussion. I respect and agree with your conclusions. I'd also like to thank you again for helping me come to a more firm CT position in recent times. I will continue to look at this in due course but it's no longer my top priority. Fantastic. Praise the Lord for your faithfulness and graciousness, what a clear reflection of our Saviour Jesus Christ. Such a blessing. Keep up the wonderful work, brother! From a brother in Northern Ireland, UK. :)
Excellent review. Christ honoring, demonstrates the more extreme of the view and it's illogical and even slanderous claims, and holds the view to account to make sure they are confessing the entirety of 1:8 in the standards. Thank you for this video and your work!
Thank you kindly! Let's pray for our brothers in that world!
Thank you, Mark for bringing this issue before us. It saddens me that a TR sect is hounding you as they are. I think you and I have much in common. I am open to reading and studying scripture across the spectrum of Formal Equivalence and Dynamic Equivalence translations and that includes those based on the Textus Receptus and the Critical Texts.
I'm confident of your sincerity as you approach textual criticism and I'm certain your faith will move beyond the current distractions by your detractors. God bless and I hope for a peaceful resolution soon.
Thank you for these kind words!
People that do great things are greatly criticized. Thanks for all you’ve done and do.
I hope that’s what’s going on here!
Thanks Mark, I've been in discussion with many of my brethren on this topic for about a decade now and lately it has become a disturbing discussion. There is no room for disagreement or for honest intellectual discussion when you have people like Nick Sayers saying that all modern translations are garbage and should be thrown in the garbage.
I love the KJV, I use the NKJV (and the CSB). I attack no one for using the TR. But the CB side seems to feel a compulsion to undermine everyone who doesn't share their view. Many are going intentionally out of their way to undermine people's confidence in their Bibles, and I detest that.
Anyway, I appreciate your gracious approach, the recent textual confidence conference was excellent, and wish you the best in your attempt to step back. I've tried many times myself but always seem to get drawn back in by some statement that is essentially a historical fantasy (such as the claim that all editions of the TR are identical to the autographs). So I wish you more success than I've had!
Thank you so much for the kind words!
Dr. Ward, As always I am so blessed by how you state your position gracefully as much (if not more) than what you state as your position. You are clearly working hard to fulfill the commandment to love others. God bless you and thank you for you serving us with exemplary humility.
I pray that what you say is true! I know I want it to be.
I really appreciate your work on this and I think you are right to step back. It's sad to say, but it appears to me that the leaders of CB are so caught up by the facts that the eclectic and majority/byzantine text views do not provide the certainty of textual absolutlism (which they are 100% confident that the Bible and the Reformed confessions teach) that they cannot see that their view does not offer "jot and tittle" certainty either. I hope some of the Byzantine priority guys will continue the discussion with CB advocates, but I do not expect it to end well.
Thank you for this. Let us pray for our brothers!
@@markwardonwords Amen!
I've been troubled by the CB position for a long time because it felt like a return to the kind of mentality I left when I got out of the IFB, but I am absolutely shocked that such a "mainstream" CB publication would use the phrase "Satan's Bible" in reference to my favorite Bible translations. That kind of line belongs more in a book containing what is now called "symbolic logic" as of the latest edition (since the legitimacy of acrostic algebra was rightly questioned by pretty much everyone). Getting angry helps no one, certainly not myself, but it really pains me to see Reformed guys misguidedly attacking the Bible itself.
Until these brothers publicly back off of that line, I think it needs to be repeated over and over. =( They just don't see how extreme it is.
I’m excited to see what the lord will have you do next brother mark !
I have learned much from your efforts in this study of CB . Some people have got so much invested in this position that it’s really difficult to admit defeat on any level . Given the fact that the CB crowd is hesitant to update the KJB and or the NKJB this CB position will eventually fade with the passage of time due to language change .
And thank you brother for helping me to understand the significance of using other translations along with my NASB :) , I now use all of the good ones .
I don't think they see how extreme they look-and how it drives them to further extremes-when they won't give me an inch. One of their leaders even told me privately, "We fear that if we give you an inch you'll take a mile." That's a big reason I started out this video by giving several inches.
Thank you Mark. I appreciate your stance and the way you handle your critics. I am praying this video will be used to grant repentance to people who are on dangerous ground .
Yes, let us pray for this very thing!
Mr Ward, that written debate between you and Mr McShaffrey about the second person pronouns sounds fascinating ! Where will I be able to read that ?
He is shopping it out to some publications, for which I’m grateful. He did a great job! He’s a good writer.
M. Ward, could you please clarify one point? There seems to be some confusion as to whether you no longer believe that Confessional Bibliology is indeed another form of KJVO, or if you have simply decided to no longer label it as such? Same goes for the mainline IFB form, is it no longer KJVO in your eyes - or have you simply decided not to label it as such? Thanks
I promised not to use the label “KJV-Only” for Confessional Bibliology. They consistently heard me as calling them Ruckmanites and insulting them, despite repeated explanations that this is not what I meant, that I grew up in a form of KJV-Onlyism that taught nearly everything CB does and yet was happy to call itself “KJV-Onlyism,” minus appeals to the Westminster Confession and the Puritans. This started to feel like a petty dispute, so I backed off. I still believe that-minus appeals to WCF 1.8 and minus a 5% greater likelihood that a given CB preacher will use the NKJV-the position I was taught growing up and the viewpoint known as Confessional Bibliology are identical.
From what I've seen, (a) If you're an independent, fundamentalist Baptist who decries Calvinism and anyone who sprinkles babies and believes that the KJV is divine!y inspired, along with or more so than the TR, you might be a KJV Onlyist. (b) If, on the other hand, you're a staunch Calvinist who may or may not sprinkle babies, who disassociates yourself from KJVO, claims to be just TR-only but despises any non-KJV translation, including the NKJV & MEV, then you might be a Confessional Bibliologist. You don't hear about them as much, because they're not as loud and extreme, but there are those who prefer the Byzantine / Majority text family and are thus more comfortable with the NKJV but who also use those so-called Satanic modern translations and who are rejected by both groups.
@@markwardonwords thanks. The thing is, Riddle's own definition of KJV-Onlyism would exclude even Ruckman from being labeled as KJVO. So it's quite obvious he hasn't a clue what he's talking about. And if the leader of the CB camp could err so badly on such a hotly contested point, it stands to reason that his followers are also misguided/mistaken here. I fully understand and respect your decision to bow out of the conversation, as well as your "promise" to stop referring to CB as KJVO, but - said "promise" has emboldened KJV/TR/CB advocacy, and now they're claiming that you've repented (or the like) of wrongly labeling them as KJVO. Which is making it extremely difficult for the rest of us who agree with you (and are still attempting to engage with them) on this point. As of now, I'm going to refer to the camp as *Confessional King James Onlyism* with absolutely no quarter given until a list of incorrect textual choices made by the A.V. translators is presented. Although, I suppose the Lord will return before such a list exists.
@@matthewmurphyrose4793 I had previously decided not to say this publicly, because it is one of the signal examples of the pettiness that so disgusted me and made me want out of public debate with the current leaders of Confessional Bibliology, especially Dr. Riddle. But given your comment here, I apparently need to say this: I tried to meet my brother in Christ, Dr. Riddle, halfway by backing off a label he found offensive and inaccurate. My explanations ("I am NOT saying that CB is Ruckmanism") never seemed to register, and respected friends agreed that the label dispute was starting to be a distraction. So I told Dr. Riddle that I would "stop using the label" of "KJV-Only" for him and for KJV/TR defenders in the IFB world who don't like the label either (Joe Shakour was one of those-he's someone across the aisle whom I like and who, I think, plays fair). Here's a screenshot of what I said to Dr. Riddle on his blog: share.cleanshot.com/wS3NVcNf.
Dr. Riddle immediately started saying, repeatedly and publicly, that I had promised not to "conflate" the two views-a not insignificant misrepresentation (though, I still assume, not a self-conscious or purposeful one) of what I said. I believe I was quite clear in saying that I still believed that the mainstream, non-Ruckmanite KJV-Onlyism I grew up with in the IFB was in all essential points (minus appeals to WCF 1.8!) identical to Dr. Riddle's viewpoint. I did and still do believe this. I detailed the many substantive points of overlap on Dr. Riddle's blog (screenshot: share.cleanshot.com/6z5wFFX3 ). I pointed out the institutional overlap, the way both groups appeal to Hills and like the Trinitarian Bible Society. I clarified, of course, that the vast majority of self-conscious "KJV-Onlyists"-and remember, I was one of them!-do NOT regard themselves as Ruckmanites. They all insist that "the text is the issue!" I don't know how I could have been more clear, and yet Dr. Riddle persisted in saying that CB and KJV-Onlyism are radically distinct-precisely by defining "KJV-Onlyism" as Ruckmanism. He also persisted in misrepresenting my act of good will by saying that I had promised not to "conflate" KJV-Onlyism and CB.
I just couldn't bring myself to dispute his mischaracterization publicly, lest I appear to descend to what felt to me like fourth-grade schoolyard argumentation. =( This was the final straw, really, that led me to make this video bowing out of public debate. I held off saying anything from July to September while Dr. Riddle continued making this claim. But now I feel I've been forced to clarify by someone (you, Matthew!) who listened perceptively. If someone is motivated enough to dig this far into the issue, I've now explained my viewpoint-and offered what I hope to be the final public word I ever need to say about Confessional Bibliology! You asked a legitimate question for which some clarity was still needed.
I do believe that Confessional Bibliology is, in all points of substance minus appeals to WCF 1.8, identical to mainstream, IFB, "the-text-is-the-issue" KJV-Onlyism. But because enough of my brothers in the CB world just cannot seem to hear anything but "Ruckmanism" when I say "KJV-Onlyism" (this happened again the other day with a RUclips commenter: he literally seemed unable to understand my words), and because I want to focus on substance more than labels, I will continue to avoid using the label "KJV-Only" or "Reformed KJV-Onlyists" to describe Confessional Bibliology.
Can I take my ball and go home now? ;)
@@markwardonwords thank you very much for the clarification! I hope I didn't tax you too much, but (1) this keeps getting thrown in my face, and (2) Riddle (and others) have silenced dissent on this point by refusing to allow comments...which, he couldn't do with you because your platform is too large, and therefore he couldn't get away with such behavior. Even so, thanks again for your reply.
I was asked about the academy and it’s role in the CT/ translations and was told that somehow this is inappropriate and should be in the hands of the church , any thoughts / recommendations? I think you have addressed this somewhere, just can’t remember where .
I probably need to do a video. But one answer: ok, then use the Tyndale House Greek New Testament. It’s done by Christians for a non-profit Christian publisher. Another answer: in what world will non-academics have the skill and time necessary to do textual criticism?
@@markwardonwords
Great answer !
This question is often asked to silence me .
A thought has just occurred to me , has the text ever been in the hands of the church in that way? Brash writes about ordinary providence in his book .
@@michealferrell1677 Right. Weren't all/most of the KJV translators academicians? They may also have been churchmen-I think most/all were-but so are ALL of today's Bible translators and ALL of today's evangelical textual critics.
@@markwardonwords did not the church before the printing press make use of the scriptorium in many cases much like other books ?
This history would be fun to trace !
During the Old Covenant, the church under age was entrusted with the oracles of God (Romans 3:2). In the New Covenant, stewardship was transferred to the Christian church, that it might serve as the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).
Hey Mark, I've greatly enjoyed your content, specially the TCC series since I love textual criticism, however all this discussion about "Confessional Bibliology" is simply tiresome, since every smarter person amongst us knows (and this is abundantly clear) that it's simply another manifestation of KJVO no matter how they try to phrase or present it, and especifically for me (I'm not a native of an english speaking country) it's simply abhorrent how these people try to push this ancient translation as a "jot and tittle" perfect word of God by twisting and taking verses out of context to make them say whay they don't since their other arguments, in the best of cases, dwell on the dumb category. Thankfully in my own country we do have a few fanatics that import these ideas from the english speaking world (more especifically the USA) but they're laughed down very fast due to how obviously ridiculous their ideas are, so sanity prevails.
What is Confessional Bibliology?
I do believe indeed that there is huge overlap between CB and the form of IFB KJV-Onlyism that I was taught growing up. Both thankfully reject Ruckmanism. But both make the same substantive claims from the Bible and about the Bible. CB appeals to the Westminster Confession, however, in a way that my IFB pastors would not do.
@@syriacchristianity9007 It is similar to the Trinitarian Bible Society doctrinal statement. An example is the Russell Stendal Jubilee Bible which is based on reformation era hebrew and greek texts, reformation era translations like William Tyndale, kjv, casiodoro de reina spanish translation, etc., and it is mainly a Reformation Era Traditions Only belief. Some in the confessional bibliology believe in the variants chosen by the kjv translators as their TR and these are obviously KJV Only.
The undeniable gulf between positions that you describe Mark is, according to my years of thinking about these kinds of things, the gulf between personality types, between those who crave feelings of certainty more than anything and those who can be content with some lack of certainty. I perceive it in every kind of interaction I have had on every kind of topic you could name, with Christians and non-Christians alike.
I have been thinking about this all day. I am compelled to agree, in the absence of a better explanation. Not like I'm agreeing against my will-I just don't want to be uncharitable toward these brothers. It fills me with dread to see otherwise good brothers sweep away obvious, central questions. =(
I thank you for your response when someone is giving clear reasons for a position that a person may take. I do think you may be missing the method of reasoning that is happening in someone who chooses to believe that the KJV is inerrant. In the rules of logic there is the claim of god of the gaps and this is pointing to a god as the reason for a claim that one makes. This is what this would look like if I were to do it: "God has blessed the Bible and made sure that we have what he wants us to have." Notice how I put God as the main reason for the claim I typed this is what you are seeing on the KJV side mostly. There are a view people that would be classified as layette that put in the work to show that many of the verses that scholars choose for various reasons to not translate in the new versions are in the evidence and some of the early writings have claims that seem to come from these sentences that are in one manuscript but not in another. I myself have listened to many of these individuals that are actually responding and interacting with the evidential claims and these individuals make a strong case for including these sentences in a modern translation.
I myself understand the need for translation but my misgivings come when in the Hebrew and Greek their is the second person singular and second person plural but it is not always clear in the modern translations as to which is which. So, for me to account for this I use the KJV because this is covered by the use of the (thee, thin, and thou) (ye, you, and yours), and then I will read some passage in a more modern translation to double check my understanding of the text. This has been very helpful for in-depth Bible study for instance in the NASB in Genesis chapter 3 verse 1 it has this "You shall not eat" and in the KJV is this "Ye shall not eat". With the KJV I see the serpent is speaking to both Eve and Adam in the first verse of chapter three but I would not have thought this by reading the NASB because simply using you in all places were in the Hebrew it is from my understand a second person plural. Also there is no annotation as how to view that 'you' in the NASB that I have which is 1995 copyright. I personally would love to see a translation that handles these types of discrepancies and even possible listing the actual manuscripts that are used to justify the differences so that those of us that like to look into this information can do so.
I appreciate this. I urge you to wait in October on my channel for the release of the King James Bible Study Project. I will discuss in some detail the second person pronoun issue you raise.
Thank you for your effort on this issue. You have helped clarify the issues with confessional bibliology. CB sounds good and right however when CB is examined it falls apart and I think your challenge of CB has helped show just that. Blessings to you in your future projects.
Thank you!
Well said Mark
Many thanks!
Yes !!
I hope it lived up to your expectations!
@@markwardonwords
Without your book and all of the videos posted along with the TCC I would have had next to nothing besides Dr whites book and a few other guys on this subject.
Although not an issue in my church , for you could find on any given Sunday multiple English translations being used , all three of our Elders are persuaded by the CB . Now two of the three use the NKJB but the one uses only the KJB and has in the past given a spill on textual criticism , he also had me reading Letis , hills .
I’ve tried to understand the reasons for their position but with nearly all of its leading proponents disagreeing amongst themselves, it’s kinda hard for me to follow.
For the question how to choose the perfect TR or the perfect KJV printing, this usually requires revelation and some christians do believe the gods are telepathically communicating with them and maybe even revealing some new bibles (some christians maybe rely on presuppositions or fideism). There is at least 1 person who claims to have received revelation about which particular KJV printing is the perfect one and I am very much interested in what other messages the gods have communicated to this same person, and maybe I can also learn how to receive telepathic messages from the gods. My christian mother used to claim telepathic messages from the gods and these messages seemed about as fake as the messages received by scam spirit mediums.
Thank you!
You're welcome!
If evangelicals are trying to convert fundamentalists into evangelicals, this can sometimes result in name calling like fundamentalists will just call evangelicals as Satan. Some fundamentalists will call catholics as Satan. I remember my mother's chinese fundamentalist baptist church did not believe catholics were saved and maybe also did not believe non baptists were saved.
Some in confessional bibliology use evangelical translations like nkjv, niv, esv so these TR only believers might actually be evangelical similar to Arthur Farstad who was majority text only believer.
I Enjoy your videos!
Glad you like them!
So as I noted in private, I think your comments here are too weak, not to strong. To call a translation of God's Word Satanic is blasphemous, hedging into the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
It seems to me on this point, those editors who refuse to repudiate this language should be under church discipline for this type of language, churches holding to this standard removed from fellowship and those in ministerial positions defrocked.
It is one thing to have substantive disagreements on inferences from the Scriptures, I think their Bibliology is based on bad inferences from the texts they cite. But, to move from that position to one which defamed the text in this manner is very serious.
I have good reason to believe that Myers’ words do not represent the opinions of all the rest of the contributors. It’s up to the RPCNA to decide on Myers’ doctrinal soundness. I know some very good men in that denomination-and one woman I think incredibly highly of, Rosaria Butterfield.
@@markwardonwords that may be, but they need to go on record. And of course, there is a process that takes time in all this. The PCA had a similar problem with Kinism a decade back, as well, it took time, but they did handle matters. I only note the seriousness of this particular line of reasoning.
And yes, Rosaria's books are well worth reading and contemplating.
It reminds me of the IFB, in a sense, they went after a few writers such as Schaeffer for being like Jehosaphat (whom God treats as a revival king), but strangely were late to the game when it became obvious that Jack Hyles had become involved in both immoral conduct and heretical doctrine. It is dangerous when we hold different standards for the theological leftist than for the theological pharisees, using the latter term cautiously due to its history of misuse.
We tend to either err by treating every issue as if it were a fundamental of the faith or we err in thinking there are no fundamentals.
My dear friend, no disservice to what you have done here is implied.
@@kevinshort2230 I'm with you, Kevin! No offense taken whatsoever!
TBS and most in the confessional bibliology probably admit that archaic kjv is as archaic as shakespeare plays and TBS does have the TBS Westminster bible which has some definitions for archaic words similar to an Arden Shakespeare Hamlet. There are some KJV Only who reject reality and claim that archaic kjv is not archaic at all and is as outrageous as somebody claiming Shakespeare Hamlet play is not archaic at all, and even 2 year olds can easily understand Hamlet.
Ahhh… could those whom cannot see their own ‘illogical gulf’ in their perception of a perfect text that allows variants, be laying hold of other mysteries of the faith; ie Jesus being FULLY God; yet, at the same time; FULLY man… and other unexplainable mysteries?
Maybe they are subconsciously guided by such mysteries, yet do not realise it; hence their inability to explain their stance.
I am constantly reminded of Galatians, chapter 3.
For the riddle about which TR has the perfect jots and tittles, some KJV Only will simply say KJV is the TR, that is, the variants chosen by the kjv translators is the TR they believe in.
So they are KJVO
@@alexjessalexjess864 Those who believe only in the TR behind the KJV can be called KJVO. Other examples are spanish readers who only believe in the TR behind the casiodoro de reina translation and these can be called casiodoro de reina bible only, german readers who only believe in the TR behind the martin luther translation and these can be called martin luther bible only.
@@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175 and this is the reason why they do not answer the "which TR?". Cause if they do... The answer is "the one of the KJV".
They are KJVO cause in the end their standard is not the greek text but the text of the KJV.
@@alexjessalexjess864 some kjvo do say kjv is the TR but they do not like to be called kjvo bec kjvo is a label invented by their evangelical enemies (fundamentalists and evangelicals split in the 1950s when john rice split with billy graham over ecumenism).
maybe can do a video about the wives of TR Only (most of them are actually KJV Only since the kjv determines the TR).
That’s a particularly difficult ask, as those of us whose wives have left KJV-only circles are not interested in becoming lightning rods of controversy themselves.
Saying other believers are Satan or anti christs is probably an influence of the reformation era when such language was normal, catholics called protestants heretics, protestants called catholics anti christs. In the 1950s, fundamentalists and evangelicals split mainly over ecumenism, since evangelicals prefer to be friendly with other christians such as catholics, to be friendly with other religions such as Parliament Of The World's Religions, and to be friendly with atheists as seen in the example of Billy Graham. Fundamentalists prefer separation and prefer to call other believers as Satan. I just thank the gods that catholics are now more evangelical and more liberal and have stopped burning atheists altho some fundamentalist muslims still burn atheists like in the good old days.
The book that should be the best of CB guys is, in the end, the one that make them a joke before all
I don't mean to nitpick, but I don't think of them all as a joke. I think responsibility for the "Satan's Bible" comment lies with those who knew it was coming and have not distanced themselves from it. I have reason to believe that not every contributor to the volume is happy that the line made it into the final draft.
I showed a JkV-onlyist Hebrews 10:23. His response: “Are you smarter than those who translated the KJV?’”.
There is no winning with such a person unless God opens his eyes. I pray God does!
@@markwardonwords He has a RUclips channel "New Life Albany", and his name Pastor Steve Aldrin. Many of his arguments or rebuttals are fallacious, cursory, and ad-hominem. His responses or rebuttals are embarrassing, off-putting, and condescending. He uses straw-man arguments, and when you expose his inconsistencies, he shames you for attacking God's word.
There is probably no need to want calvinists to be more calvinist since many protestants are not calvinists, and being a calvinist seems like just following the opinions of 1 dead person named John Calvin.
I confess the 1689 Baptist Confession, though not slavishly. Yet I do not feel a TR only or textual absolutist position is implied by the confession and if someone can prove to me it is then I would simply defer with the confession. This extremism is a denial of objective reality and is a dangerous mindset. Just as postmodernism today denying the objective fact of there existing only two genders so denying the variations amongst manuscripts even the various TRs is ridiculous. It’s unbecoming of a Christian to show such a lack of intellectual integrity. Extremism that deny clear empirical facts must always resist to name calling and ad hominem arguments which is often KJV only defenders primary arguments.
I’m prepared to go with God’s word over my five senses; but I’m not prepared to refuse to try to try to harmonize them first. I expect God’s word and God’s world to cohere.
@@markwardonwords
Indeed, both are God’s revelation though often God’s special revelation is more clear or adds to clarity to general revelation. This is something the Church has discussed and affirmed from its beginning.
Here’s something ironic Mark: I’ve actually been inspired watching your videos more to read and respect the KJV than any KJV onlyist I’ve ever seen. Because in places I thought the KJV was primitive or just wrong. Yet you’ve often have shown me that I misjudged them because of a false friend. So I think you’re the one who is in the tradition of the KJV translators and are showing their work honor.
@@ejwoods2457 YES! You see what I see! I really am the same way. I wasn't ever invested in a view which saw the KJV translators as dummies or frequently in error. But I kind of thought of them as behind the times. There is some truth there: we do know more now than we used to. But not a ton. I frequently find that the KJV makes a viable decision, and I frequently think of what one of my favorite KJVO friends said to me: that he doesn't count the major modern versions as ten votes but as one-as the modern against the premodern. Scholarly opinion could swing back toward the KJV in individual places. It's frustrating, honestly, to be told repeatedly that I hate the KJV when my own work has increased and not decreased my respect for its quality.
@@markwardonwords
No they were not. I’ve spent some time in the Bishop’s Bible, Matthew’s Bible and the Geneva (and they all had good qualities) but I definitely do see a superiority in the KJV. On the surface, it seems that the English is more easier to read and I tend to think their translation choices are better as well. So it really was a special production and has served God’s people well. But now it’s time to move forward and keep the tradition of quality vulgar translations. Yet I totally understand the temptation in holding on to tradition or seeing an update as bad. I did the same with the NASB 95 update recently. As soon as I seen ‘brothers and sisters’ and a few other changes I wrote off the NASB 2020. Thankfully I did a reassessment of that opinion and now I must admit that I’ve really appreciated the updated language of the NASB 2020. It really adds clarity and I can see how it’s more understandable to today’s English speaker. And it’s still just as accurate as before. Perhaps, even more so. Only update I’d still like is editions without italics! They can be annoying to me and probably defeat their own purpose for many readers who are unaware of what they’re doing because in modern English we know italics is for emphasis! But I’m sure others value them. It’s not my world but unfortunately. Or is it?
“More easier” lol
Questions not properly answered don't go away but at some point, you have recognize when people are not teachable.
Right. And at a certain point, if the leaders don’t provide answers and yet the followers still follow, I can’t help the followers either.
Can we call the ardent KJV onlyists a cult? Or is that the kind of extreme, over the top, rhetoric you are purposely avoiding?
The Ruckmanites are cultish. But even they I wouldn’t call a cult. I do purposefully avoid that rhetoric. And I can’t imagine a situation in which I would apply it to genuine brothers, as nearly all KJV-Onlyists, except the most extreme ones, are.
@@markwardonwords Very well, thanks for answering my question.
KJV-onlyist are afraid. They fear their Christian foundation will crumble if they admit that anything that they hold as precious might have error.
And I get that! I really do! I feel the same about the Bible itself. And I won't admit an error in inspired Scripture for that reason. But they are placing the locus authority in what humans did, not what God did-as the KJV translators make perfectly clear in their preface.
@@markwardonwords I love the KJV, and I read the KJV. However, I read and preach from the ESV. I also love the CSB. My denomination was predominately KJV, but they started to include the KJV with the NIV (parallel) in their Sunday School literature about 30 years ago.
It seems to me that you have tired of doing what you have counselled us not to do: engage the KJV Only people in discussions on textual criticism. That is a good idea, because: Dunning/Kruger. But I guess these people you have tired of engaging with are knowledgeable enough that they are being deliberately obtuse. There is no virtue in trying to teach those who will not be taught. SImply trying to get the Word of God in front of those who need it, i.e. those who are struggling with a translation beyond their simple understanding, is a more worthy cause, IMO.
I have had this very thought. I have wondered recently if this was all the most foolish of mistakes. I told myself that these men do NOT insist on the exclusive use of the KJV, and therefore I can dialogue about text with them (I wouldn't be breaking my vow). And that is technically true. I also told myself that these men are better trained than the IFB KJV-Onlyists and could have an intelligent conversation. They definitely are better trained, so we were able to get some clarity I don't get in the IFB. But we ran into the same walls I run into with our IFB brothers, as I discuss in the video.
Another motivation I had getting into textual-critical issues was that I get a lot of questions from young IFB men-got this yesterday-who really seem ready to learn about NT textual criticism. They've heard my case on readability, and they accept it. They're ready to hear more. I hope between my few videos on CB and my seven videos for the TCC, I've met that need.