Відео

I made her wear shoes during the fireworks last night. She didn't fight me too hard. ;)

Pray for me, my friend. If I haven't persuaded you after many hours of your watching my content, then further conversation will not be fruitful. And if I am indeed wrong, I need the mercy of God. (I need it if I'm right, too!)

@@markwardonwords We all need to walk circumspectly. Everything we believe comes to a conclusion. Right? faith in the end has a consequence or an end. It is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen. Have you produced Bible readers? How many of the men you talk to and assemble with have you asked how much or how many times they have read any version through and how often. Much of this is not encouraging Bible reading…And whether we understand all the Bible or very little of it. I have listened to you and the learned men you regard. I stand with Paul and say, but of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person;) for they who seem to be somewhat in conference, added nothing to me. hebrews is pretty clear in chapter 5 as to how we grow in faith and are exercised in the discernment of good and evil. So, I ask you this: Of the people you have affected Gal. 4:17. How many of them have become Bible readers/believers? How many have fervent ministries that have born new believers? How many of which have children that are chaste and pure? How many of them quote more Bible than when reached? This is a measure of a man’s labor. I am sure Paul would agree and Jesus himself would not condemn, but rather would be glorified in this. So, I use this as a modern version would…Of the men you have set free, how many of them are spending more time reading the Bible and sharing what God has revealed to them and truly with charity are edifying the body of Christ? I definitely believe Paul’s admonition to Timothy can be greatly applied here. Please, read from whatever well you would like draw from 2 Timothy 2:14-20 and then do not stop there and read his closing remarks 2:21-26. Tragically you have traded the more sure word of prophecy for a variant here or a MANuscript there, a grammatical correction here, an original rendering here, and amongst all your study and every wind of doctrine you have not recognized the cunning craftiness, the sleight of men(which is key to the deception) the lying in wait to deceive. [I often ponder the tragedy of the young prophet and the old one in 1 Kings 13]. In proverbs 5 we are also Hebrew’s. Back to the NT-BUT speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ and you can read verses 4:16-32 if you would. Again I will never lead you to something outside of scripture, only to that which is presented. You can read in Ephesians 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: and look at the result! And enjoy the rest of this chapter as well…Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord…Friend, I just keep reading and I cannot believe how pertinent this whole chapter is as I continue therein-And have no fellowship with UNFRUITFUL works of darkness. So as we agree to glorify God as either of us believes he has been directed, I implore you to spend time reading the Bible through and allow it to commentary on itself. It is truly amazing what the Father reveals to those that love him and continue in his word. You truly enjoy sitting at the feet of men, and they are most elated that they have a young firecracker to perpetuate their doctrine. I will not say you are a heretic, you are very zealous, I have not heard you blaspheme the Holy Ghost or deny the doctrine of Christ. I will not speak ill of you, your methodology I oppose, but as you believe that KJV only believes have been beguiled, the same could be said of you. I guess the only difference is KJVers believe God is gracious enough to give us every word in one place. It is silly to me that you think of the 1362 times archaic words…(I give you credit you sure know a lot of labels and cool phrases) are used in the KJV that is easier to reference Hebrew, Greek, and a plethora of other versions to give clarity and understanding rather than allowing context, patience, comparison, and contrast all in the frame of context can do. And you don’t even need college. Which is also funny, we see how productive the school of the prophets were in the OT🤣 and let’s not forget the altar of Ed by the Reubenites. Good sandwich though😇 We have seen the deviation of scholars all through time. We have seen the greatest of these: Pharisees and Sadducees, through their much study and learning condemn Jesus for not knowing letters, yet through all their study they rejected him. Mind you, if they kept with the commandment of God to copy his word they would have never been tripped up by their own devices the Talmud being a huge example. I am not a smart man or very well educated, but I have seen men at the feet of Jesus and those accepted by men. I will stick with the unlearned and ignorant men. Love in Christ and we will meet together in glory soon. I can’t wait to see the culmination of our work🙏Read your Bible pray everyday and you will grow grow grow. 🥰 Also, I am not an engrish major and I type this on my phone. I am sure you mind has exploded multiple times with my abuse of language and punctuation. Forgive me.

It's Ward. And if I'm going to get an ism named after me, I request instead "Edification-Requires-Intelligibilityism."

@@markwardonwords I'm sure Ruckman or Calvin may have liked to have a personal choice as well.

You nailed it.

Glad you enjoyed it! It is a fascinating field.

Thanks for listening!

Right! I remember being so surprised when I saw one of those ligatures in a printed text!

Please interact with the arguments made in the video. Show you can listen, and then I will listen!

Couldn't agree more!

Takes one to know one! ;) And I know a lot of them.

My friend, I’ve always been a good reader and was educated by KJV-Onlyists-and yet I’m still regularly tripped up by KJV archaisms. I don’t think my education can be blamed! Nor are the KJV translators at fault. Their English isn’t high so much as old. It’s the way English speakers used to talk or write. And therefore it’s no one’s fault that today we regularly can’t quite understand.

@@markwardonwords I would not say I am a KJVO. I have looked at and studied from modern translations, and have a collection for study as needed, but based on my research and prayer for "the truth" of the matter, the God I serve shown me what I was looking for in the KJV. And by reading, hearing, and studying it, I have been shown deeper truths that are not taught anywhere.

@@backtoschool1611 Then, my friend, the KJV has a special blessing from God and is, in effect, inspired?

@@markwardonwords For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.

Glad you enjoyed it!

Good point. I long ago decided not to cast my pearls before everyone.

That would be AWESOME.

Thank you!

Our pleasure!

Our pleasure!

Enjoy!

I actually know the answer to your supposition. The thee's and ye's do NOT have meaning for most KJV-Onlyists. Their pastors, at least, did poorly when tested. Check out kjbstudyproject.com.

@@markwardonwords can't tell from your answer for sure, but it seems you probably knew the value of the "thee's & Ye's." Rather than teach the value of the pronouns you propose getting rid of them? Once I was in the Doctor's office who gave me a long explanation of my problem. I asked for the explanation in plain English. Perhaps I should have also insisted all the medical journals should have been re-written? I still feel our differences are that you feel the KJV is/was a great translation for it's time, but now it needs an upgrade, whereas I feel the KJV is exactly worded as God wanted for the English speaking world. There is indeed a definite wording for a medical journal to make a definite point. I really think it would be beneficial to your position in our eternal future if you would concentrate your efforts of read-ability to the works of Shakespeare. PS: did that KJV website delve into the doctrines found in the KJV concerning our salvation today? For some strange reason I doubt it did. There is one thing you have said to which I strongly agree,,,,,we need better teachers!

​@@olegig5166 I'll give you the last word, friend. I still hope to get to your Hebrews question. Bizzy bizzy!

@@markwardonwords the only last words I might have is that from years and years of visiting with various folks through this medium, everyone has their own "ism's." One of mine is the only real judge of what is truly the word of God is the combined thoughts of each and every member of the Body of Christ. Certainly we should measure each "ism" against scripture, but that's the rub, maintaining the scriptures just to have something with which to measure.

@@markwardonwords just another thought......Dan 7:10 indicates only 1% of all folks ever born will be eternally with the Lord, we simply must stick together and not let the 99% influence us with the ways of the world.

I appear to be a minority! It's ok!

It really is!

Exactly right.

Anti-KJV-Only, not anti-KJV. Huge difference. I love the KJV.

I would not at all say that about these reviewers. That is very harsh to the point of slander. I assume they were sincerely wrong.

Sure thing! ua-cam.com/video/_2T5B4JRwe8/v-deo.html

@@markwardonwords thank you sir

@@markwardonwords Do you have a video on the KJV saying the person born of GOD does not commit sin vs the NKJV saying does not practice sin?

@USMCBornAgainChristian I don’t think so. Why do YOU think they differ? It’s not the underlying Greek text.

@@markwardonwords I just don’t understand why the KJV says the person born of GOD can’t not sin but these modern bibles put practice sin. Like can’t commit and doesn’t practice sinning is two different things and I really would appreciate clarity on this verse sir please as a brother in Christ to another please help and educate us you are very educated and don’t shy away from hard topics at least to me it’s difficult to understand. I’m a country boy and veteran don’t have a good high education background

My friend, it is not right to bind other Christians' consciences to rules God has not given. God has not told us to make or use only one Bible translation. There was a time in my life-from ages 14-18-when I was afraid that your argument was correct, when I thought it most safe to stick with just the KJV. But careful teaching unbound my conscience most of the way, and actual experience unbound it all the way. Starting at age 18, I began to regularly read and study from multiple translations. It started with the KJV, NASB, NIV, and Amplified, because I had a parallel study Bible with those translations. I LOVED it. I learned so much! So many passages became more clear to me. Having some more literal and one less literal translation brought me repeated insight into God's word. I am immune to your argument in large part because I know I cannot give up the good food that has fed me so much over half my life.

@@markwardonwords You love the taste of your pottage. Your tongue is set on the fire of hell. You have purposed to get people to lean on their own understanding and conceits. Tragic really…You do not understand the perfect law of liberty.

Ronin, don't be so harsh bro. I'm probably closer to your position than Mark's but that doesn't mean we should be like that. Let's disagree in a respectful way.

Right! I love this, Michael. Thank you for this kind comment. I have poured thousands of hours into this channel over the course of more than four years, and my purpose has been precisely to edify the church. If you think to pray for me, I would much appreciate it!

The KJV *is* the Word of God. "We do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the King’s speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere." David Norton, ed., The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible with the Apocrypha: King James Version, Revised edition., vol. 1 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011), xxviii.

@@markwardonwords ok, but the problem I'm having is deciding which or who's "ism" is the truth. Ruckman says the KJV corrects the Greek lexicons and I'm sure some folks would deem this a Ruckmanism. I've heard folks say the modern versions have all the same doctrines as the KJV. Is this a Wardism? Seems everyone has an opinion, but why do we attempt to shed a bad light on the opinions to which we disagree? I don't know if the above statement of Ruckman is correct or not, but I do have strong opinion of the second "ism." However if a "Ruchmanism" is his interpretation of scripture as demonstrated by his view on dispensational salvation, it should be easily proved only an "ism" with scripture. I see very few Ruckmanism scriptural interpretations defeated, however seems if folks don't like the message, they attach the messenger.

@@olegig5166 In the case of Ruckman vs. Ward (both of whom have PhDs from Bob Jones University, as it happens), and if you can't judge based on the arguments, I suggest you use another scriptural test: character. Whose character most seems like that of Christ? Who meets the qualifications for elders in the pastoral epsitles?

@@markwardonwords nope, I can't speak to Ruckman vs Wade, I'm quiet sure both are good God fearing saved Christians. All I can address is their "isms." The Ruckmanism in question is does the KJV correct the Greek? The Wardism in question is do the modern versions maintain all doctrines found in the KJV and are the Greek manuscripts we have today inspired? We should remember the manuscripts have been copied numerous times. We also understand the KJV as well as all modern versions are derived from copies of copies of copies,,,,etc. When God's messengers to the world spoke Hebrew, the word came in Hebrew. When God's messengers spoke Greek, the word came in Greek. I feel God is indeed great enough to pass His word in English when English speaking folks were to be His messengers. That may very well be an olegigism. So on that account no points to Ruckmanism. However the doctrine of the Faith of Christ makes perfect sense to me and there are numerous verses showing the same. Sense Ward had no comment when presented with the doctrine, it leads me to feel Ward had never been exposed to the doctrine thus making me question to which doctrines is he indeed familiar. So on the question of the new versions containing all the doctrines found in the KJV, I give Wardism a minus. Now to character..... Ruckman made his Ruckmanism in the face of harsh criticism from contemporaries while Ward's Wardism seems to follow the crowd. A plus for Ruckman and minus for Ward. Now to compare their character to Christ........ Christ hailed down many "woes" on the leadership. So did Ruckman, not so much Wade.... Christ tore up the Temple money changers to make a point. I can see Ruckman doing the same, again not so with Wade. Christ died for me. In the heat of actual battle I can see Ruckman taking a bullet for me. Not so with Wade, but I don't know him well enough to judge. So the final tally.....I cannot say yes or no to the Ruckmanism in question, however I do feel the Wadeism is false most likely because of ignorance of the book he is correcting.

My friend, I just want to understand God's word, and I want others to understand it. The KJV is an excellent translation-but if you're going to read it exclusively, you need to understand that 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 UA-cam for help reading the KJV! ua-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html

I am aware of your videos and book concerning this issue. However, I maintain that if these so-called “false friends” do not impair doctrine than it is disingenuous for you to attack and label the KJV text as problematic or deficient for not addressing cultural or societal changes. It makes better sense to write a dictionary to address these issues than to throw the baby out with the bath water! With love and respect

@@michaelwashington3873 This is a fair response. And if this is all KJV-Onlyists ever said, I'm not sure I'd be doing this work. If they said clearly, "Yes, there are a hundred or so words in the KJV that, because of language change, today's readers are misunderstanding without knowing it; and there are another umpteen dozen that they don't know at all. But given the amount of trust people already have in the KJV, given the fact that few of these false friends affect doctrine, and given the confusion that does seem to result for so many people when a language's main translation is superseded, it's not time yet to change away from the old standard." In other words, make a pragmatic argument. Instead what I hear is that God has chosen the KJV and inspired it, that the modern versions are all corrupted, that I'm in this for the money, that I'm making things up, that I am *trying* to misunderstand the KJV, that everybody in a given pastor's rural church-down to the four-year-olds-understands the KJV just fine and that it takes a PhD to misunderstand it. I don't get a clear acknowledgment of the problem. No KJV-Only leaders have ever publicly acknowledged learning a single false friend from me (minus my friend Bryan Ross). It seems to me that it's the KJV-Onlyists who are causing most of the confusion (and misinformation) and then turning around and citing that confusion as a reason to stick with the KJV.

The question is not a matter of "Is the Bible perfectly preserved?" As much as it is "How is the Bible perfectly preserved?" The Muslim religion holds that the Word of Allah cannot even have a jot or a tittle changed or it is no longer perfect. That is why it is only the true Quran in Arabic, because to even translate the Word of Allah will necessarily corrupt it. The Christian Word of God, however, cannot be corrupted by scribal errors or translation because perfect preservation in the Christian understanding is NOT the same as Muslim perfect preservation. In Christian thought, it is NOT the letter of the law (or the book) that gives life, but the Spirit. This does NOT mean we are DETACHED from the Scriptures by the Spirit. In fact, the Word of God is God-breathed, and is living and active, and is perfect, converting the soul. But how can there be multiple translations and it still be "The Word of God"? Consider again the Muslim claim that the Quran is only perfect in Arabic. This means that there is only one tribe or tongue that can truly worship Allah, which all others must learn, at least by memorization of the Quran. But we know that the Scriptures say that Yahweh will be worshiped in EVERY tongue, tribe, and nation. Thus, translation is a part of God's perfect preserving plan. But it is simply, and I truly mean this, simply impossible to "perfectly" (jot by jot, tittle by tittle) translate between ANY language to ANY other language. But if by "perfectly" you instead mean the transmission of God's PERFECT truth by IMPERFECT means, then the concern about translation, even differences in translation, goes away. What we are trying to say, simply, is that God's Word is true and reliable EVEN IF a translation or a manuscript has a disagreement or mistake. We determine the truth of God's Word BY His word, in fact. The scriptures even tell us "By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established." It is OK to find a human error in a manuscript or translation, because we have other witnesses to compare those manuscripts to. Here is the conclusion: you can trust God's Word WHEREVER it is found, ESPECIALLY since there is a great multitude of witnesses (translations/texts) to confirm any questions we may have with the Word of God. A last objection you may have: "How can I trust Scripture if man can mess it up?" The answer is simply: Will God preserve His Word? If yes, then he can do it IN SPITE of human error.

I am a firm biblical inerrantist. Therefore I stand with Scripture and the King James translators against anmy view of the perfection of the King James. Let me quote from the KJV preface: “[There is] no cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current [that is, circulated], notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For [we ask:] whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?” Summarized (and shortened) in contemporary English: “There is no reason why the word of God stops being the word of God when it’s translated, simply because some imperfections and blemishes occur in that translation. Was there ever anything perfect in this world aside from those things that were done by apostles?” The KJV translators go on to argue that we still call a man handsome even if he has some warts on his hand. They say that we judge things-and ought to judge things-by their predominant character, not their exceptions. This means that other translations can be good besides the KJV, and it means that the KJV translators did not regard their work as perfect. Now, this is talking about *translations,* not originals. The original Hebrew and Greek were perfect, inspired by God. But translations require human judgment-as the KJV translators knew all too well. The KJV translators were not KJV-Only. They believed their work was good, but they admitted that there were some Hebrew words they weren’t sure of the meaning of. When someone treats the KJV (or any translation) as perfect, they stand against Scripture and the KJV translators.

@@markwardonwords That is also interesting. You have the humility of the men who truly yielded themselves in faith and the fear of God acknowledge their frailty and their dependence on God in the process. On the other hand you have arrogant “linguists” who are not even half as literate in the languages they say we need as the actual group of men who submitted to the task of copying the word of God into English. And where in scripture is there ever given a precedence to a multitude of versions for understanding and study? That is confusion and definitely not consistent with God or his nature. You cannot extrapolate anywhere in the Bible, Old or New, that they studied or taught in that matter. And the true irony is of many of the words that are used in current contemporary Bibles are either have more syllables and are just as hard to understand as any of the archiac words that are rejected by modern scholars of our laodicean day.

That's a fair question, and I do think that there are several major modern evangelical English Bible translations that are suitable all around for preaching, evangelism, and study. I don't think the the KJV is in the middle of the spectrum, though. It's more literal, for sure. And it's on a different spectrum, because it's not translated into contemporary English. I'd say that the ESV, NIV, NASB, CSB, and NKJV (I'm sure there are others) are suitable for general use. I prefer the ESV-and I did so long before I worked at Crossway-because it stays close to the KJV tradition and comes in lots of beautiful, useful editions.

​@markwardonwords I agree that Crossway makes some fine bibles. How about we meet in the middle? Since you are on the inside now, do you think that you could get us a KJV/ESV Parallel bible? If something else was to take the place of reading the KJV in the church, I would greatly much prefer it to be the ESV or NASB95. I don't mind people reading dynamic or paraphrase "translations" on their own time, but please x3 don't bring it into the church.

I put this in my files. I'm seriously considering the possibility of turning to questions like this "full-time" (or close to it?) in 2025. Briefly: I don't think having one other use in the NT seals the meaning of this word. My presumption when I see multiple gifted and trained translators going different directions (perhaps even over the centuries) is that the word is genuinely ambiguous. That's my starting hypothesis for a word like this one. EXCELLENT question.

@@markwardonwords Oh thank you for responding brother Mark. I am humbled by and grateful for your response and consideration. I hope to see more of your thoughts on this subject in a future video. Thank you and may God bless you and yours richly my brother.

Thanks for sharing!! So interesting! I have a good friend of many years who is an ASL signer.