Видео

Our pleasure!

I'm glad you enjoyed it. (Pretty please, my name is Václav.)

ruclips.net/p/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc

@@markwardonwords Wow, do you honestly think I'm going to click a random link in this sespool called the internet? I was born at night. Not last night.

@@matthewstolmeier752 It's a playlist, my friend. 50 False Friends in the KJV.

@markwardonwords I believe you throw that word around way too easily. By doing that, you devalue it. I'm not your friend. I haven't earned that. To be honest, developing friends is way too much work, and the ROI is upside down. That being said, simply because some random person on the internet says a link is safe, doesn't make it so. Have a great weekend.

You're very welcome!

It was a pleasure.

Yeah, such a difficult and fascinating problem!

@@markwardonwordsI imagine it can be one of the most difficult jobs. I wish Canada and the USA were more strict about making us learn another language. You’re right we have it very easy here.

I find it interesting that there is no official language in the USA. People assume it is English, but that is not the case. Check out Kelly and Zetzsche's fascinating book "Found in Translation".

@AlienDad loved that book!

Conversation with Dr. Ward is very uplifting. I'm glad it carries over to the viewers.

Many thanks!

One of the reasons is the idealization of our safely dead, therefore easily mis-interpretable predecessors. If you know the guy or gal who translates the Bible personally, it is easy to criticise their work, once they're dead for at least few decades, you can start spreading legends about their chastity, character, purity of their faith etc. and then idealize them and idolize their work. Instead of blessing the name of the Lord for giving us His Word in languages we can understand.

In Czech. "Nekraď." (B21) In the classic old translation, it has 10 letters "Nepokradeš." (BKR)

Our pleasure!

Glad you enjoyed it!

The trouble is that the absolutist view exists outside the KJVO circles too. The problem is not solved after you dealt with KJVO questions. The problem is textual absolutism in general and it is addressed only by the confidence view. Just ask anyone who hears their favorite verse quoted in a different translation - it is hard not to think that the “other one” got it wrong.

Great comment, Václav! I completely agree.

After reading the KJV for decades and having English as my native language, I am still discovering places in scripture where I was misunderstanding the text. Not misunderstanding because the meaning was difficult, but because the older English was causing misunderstanding. And anyone who thinks people need to learn English to read the Bible is ripping that idea straight from the medieval Catholic playbook..... People gave their lives to get the world out of that horrid way of thinking.

​@@AlienDad I grew up thinking the KJV was perfect and an exactly literal translation. Now I am reading through the KJV and CSB side by side and using a KJV with all of the original translators notes. Something standing out to me, is actually how often the KJV is dynamic and not literally word for word in translation. Here's an example I came across a couple days ago... Psalm 35:14 KJV "I behaved myself as though he had been my friend...." CSB "I went about mourning as if for my friend...." The KJV has a note that says the Hebrew says, "walked" where they translate "I behaved myself." So "I behaved myself" is a dynamic and not word for word translation. Its thought for thought. And yet, the CSB includes both aspects of walking and the mourning, by translating it also dynamically as ""went about mourning." "Went about mourning" is closer to "walking" than "behaved" is. So, I realized that sometimes where the KJV is dynamic, there are other translations that are more literal in their dynamic translation than the KJV is. These sorts of discoveries destroyed my childhood ideas about Bible translation.

@@AlienDad There are 8 Hebrew words in Psalm 35:1. The KJV has 18 words. The CSB has 9 words. KJV - Plead my cause, O Lord, with them that strive with me: fight against them that fight against me. CSB - Oppose my opponents, Lord; fight those who fight me. The CSB may be a little more dynamic here, but it gets right to the point and means the same thing with a lot less words.

It was my pleasure.

That would be on me, I suggested the change :-)

And... Don't many US stores have this sign on the door?: NOTICE We do not accept checks. 😆

@@AlienDad hahaha good one 😂 This video title may be just fine. I'm from the Netherlands so I'm probably biased in favour of the word Czech. 😆 But you made a good appearance on Mark's show Václav! Fun fact: the Dutch "KJV variant" called "Statenvertaling" is the one and only in orthodox Reformed churches. Like the Bible you showed, this translation has the translators notes in the sidelines. I don't know about you, but I actually find these notes helpful when doing a Bible study 🤓

Wow I just read another comment about the KJV translators notes. I have never heard from this and have never seen a KJV Bible with these. Is it still in print? 😄

Okay I just found out "our" Bible has 69.183 translator notes, of which 9.781 are references to other Bible verses. The KJV has a mere 7.342 translator notes. Take that, KJV Onlyists! How about the Kralická Bible? 🤓

Fixed major audio problem. First upload wasn’t meant to go public.

An excellent AI summary!

Briefing Doc: The Textual Confidence Collective on the Textus Receptus and the King James Version Main Themes: I. The Textus Receptus (TR) is not a perfectly preserved text, but rather a product of ongoing textual criticism and revision by editors like Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza. II. The King James Version (KJV) translators were themselves textual critics, relying on various TR editions and making their own decisions about readings. III. Textual absolutism, which claims a single, perfectly preserved text form, is historically untenable and ultimately undermines biblical authority by equating it with textual certainty. IV. The emphasis should be on textual confidence, acknowledging uncertainties inherent in textual transmission while affirming the overall reliability of the biblical text. Important Ideas/Facts: Erasmus: 1. His primary goal was to produce a revised Latin Vulgate, with the Greek text serving as a supporting element. 2. He acknowledged textual variations and made editorial decisions, sometimes prioritizing the Latin Vulgate over Greek manuscripts. 3. He did not believe in a perfect text, recognizing the ongoing need for textual work. Stephanus and Beza: 1. They continued Erasmus's legacy, revising the text while exhibiting a conservative approach. 2. Their editions incorporated readings from the Latin Vulgate that were not present in Byzantine manuscripts. 3. Like Erasmus, they engaged in textual criticism and acknowledged textual uncertainties in their annotations. King James Version Translators: 1. They used various TR editions, demonstrating their engagement with existing textual criticism. 2. They made their own textual decisions, as evidenced by their marginal notes and the final KJV text not adhering strictly to any single TR edition. 3. Their preface, particularly Miles Smith's section on "differences of readings," acknowledges uncertainties in both translation and textual transmission. Scrivener: 1. His Greek New Testament, often mistaken as the standard TR by KJV-only proponents, reflects the textual decisions of the KJV translators. 2. He was not a textual absolutist, employing similar canons of textual criticism as Westcott and Hort while holding different views on specific manuscripts. 3. His work demonstrates the ongoing nature of textual criticism and the impossibility of reconstructing a single, definitive TR edition. Key Quotes: Erasmus: On revising the Latin Vulgate: "In the first edition I made changes sparingly… afterwards I… made more quickly changes… that all the language of the New Testament might be straightforward, but still truly Latin with the exception of some words and expressions that are too widely received to admit of change." On the importance of ongoing textual work: "Sad indeed is the plight of sacred scripture if its authority depends on uneducated scribes… or drunken printers." Samuel Ward (KJV Translator): "When a Hebrew or Greek word admits two meanings of a suitable kind, the one was to be expressed in the text, the other in the margin… the same to be done where a different reading was found in good copies." Miles Smith (KJV Preface): "Now in such a case doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that preemptory… they that are wise had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings than to be captivated to one when it may be the other." Conclusion: The historical evidence clearly demonstrates that the TR and KJV are not products of a "two streams" theory of perfect preservation, but rather milestones in the ongoing process of textual criticism. Textual absolutism, therefore, is a modern construct with no historical basis. The Textual Confidence Collective advocates for a more nuanced approach, embracing the complexities of textual transmission while affirming the overall reliability and authority of Scripture.

Glad you enjoyed it!

Totally with you. I met Doug many years ago. We probably need to connect.

The KJV I use is the best I've seen. Thomas Nelson sent it to me. www.amazon.com/dp/0785295143?tag=3755-20 But it just gives glosses; it doesn't really explain-there isn't space. There's no replacement for using the OED. And if you're studying English lit, your college will have online access to the OED-or they should! You need to familiarize yourself with it. It's legendary; I use it practically every single day.

@@markwardonwords Thank you Dr. Ward I'll look into that.

@@markwardonwords I would use the OED but it's like 20 volumes, and cost close to 2,000 dollars.

Ask your school library if they have a digital subscription! Or get the two-volume edition, which is much cheaper.

You might have gotten the wrong impression from the title! The ESV is indeed my main squeeze, but I use tons of others!

@@markwardonwords In the video you said that You have thought of changing translations before but it would be to hard because that's what your church uses. So I was trying to ask what would you change to if your church didn't use ESV or would you still use the ESV.

@@user-me358 Ah, I see. Hmm. My circumstances have changed since then. My old church voted to close after COVID, and my new church uses the NASB-but I still use the ESV when I preach or teach there, and it causes no problems.

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.

Great question. I made a video that will probably answer it better than a comment could. In short, I'm all for Bible study helps, and I could see the YLT helping certain folks. I just wonder whether the folks the YLT helps are really the majority of the actual users of the YLT. Here's the video: ruclips.net/video/reBR7di1Nr8/видео.html

Right! If you have to use a dictionary to read your Bible, why use an English one? Why not Greek and Hebrew?

I know!

I was such an one for a number of years. It's not a bad approach at all!

So have I, my friend! But you don't have to adopt divisive false teaching-like seeing the KJV as itself inspired and perfect-to appreciate the KJV.

I really don’t have enough experience with it to give a careful assessment.

Open to your thoughts!

@@markwardonwords To cut to the chase. You have clearly studied a wide range of material. If you have read Burgon, Hills, Letis , Jack Moorman and perhaps even Benjamin Wilkinson and, on the whole rejected their data and fundamental conclusions, there is nothing I can add. On this matter your position and mine are irreconcilable. In the past, my own attitude towards critics of the KJV has been wanting and the Lord has dealt with me about that. As to the facts that led me to keep to the KJV, they remain unshaken.

@@colintyler1405 I get that. Now take the next step and leave that topic behind. I only talk about text on my channel a tiny bit, and NEVER to promote the critical text or even put down the TR. I am fine with whatever TR you and Burgon, Hills, Letis, and Moorman produce. I just want you to make or use a translation of it into fully intelligible contemporary English. And if you (collectively-people who believe the text is the issue) need some time to do that because you don't trust existing offerings, then at least use my work to understand the KJV better. The KJV is an excellent translation-but it was translated into a form of English no one quite speaks or writes anymore. So there are going to be some places where you think you understand but, because of language change, you're going to miss the intent of the KJV translators. For help discerning when this is the case, I encourage you to check out my "Fifty False Friends in the KJV" series on RUclips for help reading the KJV! ruclips.net/p/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc

But modern translations do not include words that, because of language change, we don’t know we don’t know. That’s my point, my friend!

Liam, I’m asking you to answer with complete honesty: where did I say that the KJV was wrong or included a mistranslation? If I said this, I need to pull the video and redo it. I do not believe the KJV was wrong here. I’ve posited precisely one error in it, and that’s at a very obscure place in Job.

@@markwardonwords You said it in a comment. Are you really going to completely side step the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ never once criticized the authenticity or accuracy of the written Word of God? Is His example not one we should follow? Here’s Matthew 5:18: “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” That’s very specific and detailed. Here’s Galatians 3:16: “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” The apostle Paul who was one of the most, if not the most zealous and educated among the Jews shows us through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost that even the individual letters of Scripture have significance. At the heart of this issue today concerning Bible translations, is a heart issue of faith. Where is your faith? Is it in God or man? I could give you more Scriptures but if your faith and trust is in yourself, or your own knowledge, and extra-biblical sources and research, then I’m not certain what good it would do. We ought to believe God rather than men. I’m not saying that research isn’t good, obviously. As Christians, we should be as sharp as possible. I mean well. And I have to ask. Do you believe that there is a perfect written Word of God for the English language among us today? I don’t know your heart, but the whole theme of this channel just grieves me. If you don’t believe in a perfectly preserved Word of God today, then tell me how a corrupted, imperfect, and inaccurate written Word of God accurately portrays and reflects our pure and perfect, incorruptible God? How can God be perfect and His Word not be? Psalm 138:2 God says he has magnified His word above all His name. There’s just no way He would allow His word to be tainted. One of our Bible’s for the English language HAS to be perfectly preserved by God.

@@markwardonwords Well, I’ve commented at least two comments now that wont show up in the comment section so I don’t know if there’s something technical on my end or if they’re being deleted.

@@liamhenson7146 Did the comment include a link? I did not delete your comments. RUclips does eliminate some.

How would your point about "casting doubt on the Scriptures" apply to the KJV specifically and not to any widely-used translation of the Bible? In the Gospels, we see the authors relying upon the Septuagint for their Biblical citations. In the original preface to the KJV, the translators note that the Septuagint was hardly flawless, but the inspired writers used it anyway: *It is certain, that that Translation was not so sound and so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or Apostolic men? Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found, (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather than by making a new, in that new world and green age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations, as though they made a Translation to serve their own turn, and therefore bearing witness to themselves, their witness not to be regarded. This may be supposed to be some cause, why the Translation of the Seventy was allowed to pass for current.* At the same time, they note that others went on to publish their own translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, which addressed some of the Septuagint's faults: *Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not fully content the learned, no not of the Jews. For not long after Christ, Aquila fell in hand with a new Translation, and after him Theodotion, and after him Symmachus; yea, there was a fifth and a sixth edition, the Authors whereof were not known. These with the Seventy made up the Hexapla and were worthily and to great purpose compiled together by Origen.* The KJV translators go on to say that in spite of these improved newer versions, some Christians still insisted on holding to the Septuagint as if it were faultless and possibly even inspired in its own right: *Howbeit the Edition of the Seventy went away with the credit, and therefore not only was placed in the midst by Origen (for the worth and excellency thereof above the rest, as Epiphanius gathered) but also was used by the Greek fathers for the ground and foundation of their Commentaries. Yea, Epiphanius above named doth attribute so much unto it, that he holdeth the Authors thereof not only for Interpreters, but also for Prophets in some respect; and Justinian the Emperor enjoining the Jews his subjects to use especially the Translation of the Seventy, rendereth this reason thereof, because they were as it were enlightened with prophetical grace.* They go on to criticize this mindset, taking issue with the idea that mere translators could be infallible prophets rather than faulty interpreters: *Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the Prophet to be men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit [Isa 31:3]; so it is evident, (and Saint Jerome affirmeth as much) that the Seventy were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the Original, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the spirit gave them utterance.* So there you go. Jesus may not have criticized the faults in the Septuagint, but the KJV translators did. And in doing so, they declared that a translation can faithfully serve the needs of believers while still being woefully flawed in places. Beyond that, they claimed that an old translation should not be unduly venerated just because of its track record of service in the church, and they touted the value of the Hexapla, which presented the Hebrew text and a number of Greek translations in parallel for comparison. In other words, the KJV translators were a gaggle of Mark Wards.

My friend, how are you supposed to look up words you don't realize you're misunderstanding?

@@markwardonwords for me, the context generally dictates understanding. I do admit to reading and rereading a verse for years with no understanding, then all of a sudden I read a different verse which immediately sheds light on the whole concept. For example Heb 13:8, does "same" mean Jesus Christ has always been the "same" as I see/know Him today? Or does it mean something else? Then I read Rom 3:30 and wow, the KJ Bible defined for me how to understand the "sameness" of the Godhead. Every time a certain group of folks is being dealt with, they are treated the "same" every time. Personally I don't think folks read the Bible enough to appreciate what they're holding in they're hand. And then there's the little difference between "in" and "of," as in our personal faith in Christ vs the gift of the Faith of Christ. I'm happy to take my chances not knowing when I do not understand a word rather than have the world not told they are justified through the Faith of Christ. PS: I do admit to a certain level of knowledge which may put me in the position of not understanding a word, but to lower me to a level of not even knowing when I don't understand is taking it a bit far. Perhaps a suggestion for you. Your comprehension might improve if you used the same font at 1:26 as used at 3:59. I do use the KJB, however it is printed in a modern font. Very tricky though, but not very respectful.

No pressure, brother. Feel free not to use it, truly!