Rev 16:15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

You can think whatever you want about the survey. But I only got one question wrong. If I felt bad about my, "shortcomings" why would I make a public video? Because the video is about warning people about the divisive person and philosophy that are destroying churches and people's lives. If you watched the whole video you hear what I'm talking about.

@@RiversideBaptistChurchCT I find it ironic that you accuse the likes of Mark Ward of being divisive and destroying churches and people's lives. Most of the KJVO's I've engaged with for 25+ years have caused massive amounts of unnecessary division, doubt, heat and confusion over the Bible.

@@SEL65545 Thank you for sharing your experience. That hasn't been my experience. What I've seen is churches that have stood for only using the KJV since they were started be split by people changing to a different version which I believe has significant other downstream consequences in addition to the Bible version issue. I haven't seen it work the other way. Like many things, those that only use the KJV have a spectrum of reasons and perspectives so I can't speak for everyone but the Bible version issue is very significant to me and the purpose of this video was to encourage those who come from a KJV background to hold that position and not be moved with this wrong spirit. Just one example is Joshua Barzon who grew up in a KJV using ministry and went to a KJV using Bible college and then worked in a KJV using ministry after college. After being influenced by Ward and others he changed his beliefs. It caused division in his extended family, church where he was serving and friends from college. His isn't the only story like this. "Unnecessary division" sounds like you think the different Bible versions are all personal choice. If so, let those who believe in using the KJV alone as that is their choice.

I appreciate you sharing your experience. There are three sets of issues regarding Bible versions: 1. Underlying Text 2. Translation philosophy/ Type. 3. Practical Issues like notes, availability. Textual criticism runs through both of the first two sets even if you are not aware of it. Either the dozen whole verses plus the end of the book of Mark are missing or added depending on your view of the text. So for you, general readability is more important than reliability?

​@@RiversideBaptistChurchCTAnd we know they were added, because the earliest church fathers believe they were added and because whoever added them lifted wholesale from *later* gospels.

@@someone75413 Which church fathers believed which passages were added? It's free to look at scans of the Mark 16 passage and see where the verses were removed.

@@RiversideBaptistChurchCT Eusebius, Jerome, all of the Longer Ending. Other church fathers don't reference or quote from those passages, while they cite the rest of Mark often. We cannot do textual criticism by imagining that something 'should' go in what we think is a blank space. It's the textual dependence on the other three gospels that really does it for me, though - Mark's is clearly the earliest to be written by other internal evidence, so anything lifting phrasing from the other gospels must be inauthentic. *And* we have a clear motive for scribes to interpolate the longer ending; to ensure that Mark didn't lack a clear statement of the resurrection.

@@someone75413 The, "Clear Motive" of the scribes is all speculation on your and scholar's part. The issue with the blank space shows that the main two critical manuscripts are unreliable. Yet these are weighted above the received text because of personal preference and based on that personal preference are thought to be older. This skeptical textual criticism starts with an assumption of a lot of errors and focuses on errors based on personal opinion of the "scholars." This is very different from Jesus view that one jot and tittle would not fall from the law and the view of Bible-believing Christians through history. Textual criticism is the demonic Spirit of Error and only results in doubts and an undermined authority of the Word of God.

The KJV translators were all Calvinists. Were they trying to discredit true Christianity? KJV onlyism one of Satan's most subtle deceptions.

Ward says what he was trying to do with the pronouns in the following interview so I don't think you understand Ward: kzbin.info/www/bejne/b5XMYmiNjL2Wfacsi=pIDLI20eTRFERXT1

Yes, this is why readability can't be the most important criteria for a translation; you can't read a verse that isn't there!

Verse is also in MEV, NKJV, Simplified KJV, KJVer... It's a manuscript issue, not KJV vs ALL others

​@@brittneedejarnatt You are correct about it being a manuscript issue. However, almost every single Bible in the world that includes this verse places a note about it questioning its authenticity UNLESS it comes from the Textus Receptus manuscripts. Almost all Bibles come from a different textual source than the KJV including the NKJV. They do the same thing on other very important verses such as 1 John 5:7. The words ARE the INSPIRED WORDS of God and should not be questioned. I own, but do not use the NKJV that I purchased many years ago. Here is the note on Acts 8:37. I quote "NU, M OMIT v. 37. It is found in Western texts, including the Latin tradition." There are similar notes questioning the authenticity of numerous words and whole verses throughout that Bible. Almost all modern Bibles do the same thing.

@randyd9805 I grew up KJVo, I appreciate TR based texts without footnotes of textual basis and strive to share other versions that do exist along that criteria: MEV, simplified KJV, KJVer

Acts 8:37 is not in the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts, including Western ones, and absent from all before the tenth century. It was back-translated from the Latin and added to the TR.

Ward started with a purpose of persuading people that they should switch from KJV to modern versions. The singular/plural section was designed by his admission to see if people used the rule, not if they understood the passages. Then without any comparative data from any modern versions, he's tried to use the survey to say this shows we need to use modern versions. But I'm saying the whole survey isn't really about readability as advertised and is deceptively set up. It would be like taking a political survey but asking detailed trivia about one candidate and saying, see, you don't know your candidate therefore you should vote for this other one. That wouldn't be a survey. Political surveys are supposed to ask language neutral questions about both candidates to find what people think, not to sway voter opinion. Ward is trying to sway user opinions and call it a survey.

@@RiversideBaptistChurchCT Thank you for the clarity. As a TR person I don't feel he's making an argument to move from the TR as a base but that he wants consideration for an English update to the KJV or adoption of the NKJV or MEV. I have never heard him say he promotes dropping the KJV and adopting a CT based bible. Since one of the arguments is that the KJV English provides singular vs plural distinction that modern English does not those questions were there to determine if people even understand how to get that information. If people do not understand how to determine singular vs plural than it is not a benefit and cannot be used in a defensive argument. I think a better example would be if you backed a political candidate because they had a policy you liked so a survey was provided to see if you understood what the policy actually even was. I really appreciate your time in answering and helping me understand your pov.

@@jfb3415 if you watch any of Mark Ward's KZbin videos, you will understand that he defends modern versions, any modern version, as long as it is not the KJV. He says that each modern version is the best version of Bible, even though, the modern versions do not agree with each other in a number of ways. The question that might be asked is: How did the King James Bible bring the Received Text to the English speaking world? The versions issue is a real thing. The King James translators had a different standard for translation that the "translators" did in 1881. A study of that issue (both sides) is a worth while study. On a less time consuming level, sit down with a modern version and the KJV ... it is a comparative study, easily done by anyone curious or a layman. You do not have to know Hebrew or Greek. All you do is compare each version against the other one, verse by verse.

@@maryseaman312 Hi Mary, You said that Dr. Ward defends "any modern version, as long as it's not the KJV". This is not true. He has a video criticizing a few significant choices in the NRSVUE, two videos warning against TPT, and two more where he gives helpful categories for what makes a Bible translation bad. In various content I have heard him disagree with the RV's translation in Isaiah 7:14, NWT's translation of John 1:1, and Hebraisms inserted in the TLV.

I studied the NWT beside the KJV and the American Standard Version. The issue of versions was settled when I found the ASB to agree with the NWT against the KJV. I knew the situation was not going to be improved after that.

The New King James uses a different old Testament Text and has some unusual translation choices so I don't trust it. I don't know much about the MEV except some of the translators were Catholic or something like that but that has been more recently. In theory I would be open to a translation from the correct texts but there are also practical issues to consider such as, can you get VBS materials and study materials for the version plus it doesn't have a clear way to indicate singular or plural second person pronouns (You as in one person vs. Y'all/yous guys) so I'm just going to only use the King James.

​@RiversideBaptistChurchCT The NKJV is not really based on the TR. It departs from it and the KJV rendering thousands of times.

@@AthomBomb Yes, True.

Peter believed he had God's Word right then; Jesus believed the Old Testament was still written when tempted by the Devil. Mark Ward doesn't believe God has preserved His Word like this. 2Pe 1:19 We also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

@@RiversideBaptistChurchCT Mark Ward believes in preservation. His doctrine of preservation is different from yours. But the handful of passages that are cited to support preservation fit his doctrine as well as yours. He's also fastidiously avoided discussing textual criticism for the very reason that people find it divisive. You're moving goalpost anyway. The Apostles didn't teach that the KJV was God's perfectly preserved word. You can't accuse Mark of teaching "doctrines" contrary to your church's doctrines. All that does is admit that you've been teaching an idea as actual doctrine that isn't really taught by the Apostles, namely: the KJV is specifically, exclusively and uniquely, The Preserved Word of God.

@@PrimitiveChristian-m3p No, He doesn't believe that there is one Bible including original languages that is God's perfect word. He doesn't believe the Bible is preserved. Instead he has textual "confidence" where he is mostly sure the significant meaning is there. That is different than the apostles. He also basically said in the last debate that it was a sin to give a kid a KJB.

@@RiversideBaptistChurchCT I can't tell if you are misunderstanding 25% of what I wrote above (like you did the KJV passages in the survey) or if you just didn't read what I said. Is this a literacy problem or did you just not carefully read what I wrote?

I don't think you understand what Ward believes and teaches. If all he thought was that there are some challenging passages in the KJV I wouldn't have made this video.

I agree that God has preserved His Word! Thank you!

My biggest issue is with his conclusion to encourage people to go with other versions based on this, "study". You can't take, even 50 challenging passages and conclude that the KJV is generally unreadable, especially without doing a side-by-side comparison of modern version as they also have challenging wording in some places. And that is without getting into the underlying text differences.

@RiversideBaptistChurchCT Whether or not the KJV is readable doesn't depend on any other translation. Even if nothing better exists, the KJV is not necessarily perfect. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with Ward's advocacy of other translations, but the question stands - would a faithful translation of the Basiliensis codices into modern English be a proper Bible? Did Erasmus's use of the Vulgate corrupt the TR?

@@RiversideBaptistChurchCT 50 years ago when I became a Christian, I bought a very nice KJV! I read along with it in all the churches services throughout the week. Weeks went into months. I noticed a pattern. The preacher had to explain what this KJV was saying in the english we were speaking. Which sometimes took up 30% or more of the services. I went to Zondervan Book Store and read some more modern english bibles of that era. The NIV was very very good in comparison to what the preacher was teaching. I was ahead of the curve so to speak in the rendering of the greek into the modern english that was spoken in that era. I have stayed with the NIV. I am not an NIVonlyist though. That would be as wrong as people saying we should be KJVonlyists.

@@waynemccuen8213 Which NIV translation are you using? The NIV updates and discontinues older versions of the translation. This makes scripture memory and printed materials a challenge.

@RiversideBaptistChurchCT You've totally missed the point. I use the NIV because it is in English that is used in today's everyday speech. One does not have to explain what was meant in 1611 English or what ever translation of the KJV that you are trying to force on people. If you look at new testament writers, you'll see they don't quote every scripture, the o. t., the same way every time. Heck, some times the even quote it paraphratically. And as far as scripture memorization, Heb. 2:6, the writer doesn't have its location but says "It is written somewhere...". The majority of up-to-date english Bible users don't even care you use the KJV. It's a wonderful version. It's just offensive, or at least sad, that you try to jam your preferred version down their throats. Stop defending what doesn't need defended. We are to teach people God's word. Not why the KJV is the inspired English version. Which it is not. Spending time explaining what 414 year old English means instead of directly and clearly sharing the word of God in the up-to-date versions seems overly burdensome and a hindrance in teaching and witnessing. The person listening would naturally choose an up-to-date plainly spoken explanation of biblical text.

Who defines doctrine in Protestantism?

​@@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613 First, I'm not now nor ever was a "Protestant". The Bible is my sole authority for all doctrine and practice. Most Protestants claim that but don't really practice it. They might say they're "Sola Scriptura", but in practice, they are not. I do not look to "church fathers", reformation leaders such as Calvin or Luther, confessions, or creeds to define my doctrine. That is not to say that I disagree with all of them, but I don't depend on them for my doctrine. The Bible itself must be the sole source for doctrine or you are going to be in error beyond any question. I can easily prove from the Bible that things such as the perpetual virginity of Mary or the baptizing of infants are wrong. You cannot prove such things as purgatory directly from the Bible or the practice of indulgences because NEITHER of them is found in the Bible or even suggested. They are made-up doctrines with no scriptural support. Ultimately, I must decide what I believe based on the word of God and nothing else.

@@randyd9805 "They might say they're "Sola Scriptura", but in practice, they are not. I do not look to "church fathers", Popes, confessions, or creeds to define my doctrine." Standard Protestant doctrine, why deny it? "The Bible itself must be the sole source for doctrine or you are going to be in error beyond any question. I can easily prove from the Bible that things such as the perpetual virginity of Mary or the baptizing of infants are wrong." 1) Why should be the Bible be my only source of doctrine? I don't agree with you or any other Protestants. 2) Where in the Bible does it say Mary was not virgin after the birth of Jesus or that baptizing infants are wrong? 3) Do you accept deuterocanonical section of the Old Testament? "You cannot prove such things as purgatory directly from the Bible or the practice of indulgences because NEITHER of them is found in the Bible or even suggested." Your premise I accept sola scriptura but II Maccabees 12:39-46 does show, so you are wrong hear. "Ultimately, I must decide what I believe based on the word of God and nothing else." This is spirit of Protestantism, I am the final authority, how is that not Satanism?

​@@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613 I do not disagree with every detail that those who actually are Protestants believe. The problem is that like Catholics, they take the interpretations of men like Martin Luther and John Calvin and those become their official doctrines. To be a Protestant YOU MUST have come out of the Catholic Church. Some Baptists are really Protestant in doctrine and may call themselves "reformed Baptists" for example, but the Baptists did NOT come out of the Catholic Church. At no point in history were Baptists a part of the Catholic Church. No, I am not nor never was a Protestant. Yes, I deny I ever was or ever will be. 1. The Bible is the inspired word of God. If you don't believe that you are not a Christian. You have never come to Christ for salvation. It's clear you don't even know very basic Bible doctrine such as the VERBAL INSPIRATION of scripture. I suggest you look that up and study it for yourself. 2. That Mary was a perpetual virgin and never had another child after she bore Jesus by virgin birth is a made-up doctrine. Catholics LIE blatantly about this and refuse to acknowledge the clear scriptural evidence that Mary and Joseph had a normal marital relationship after the birth of their FIRSTBORN SON Jesus. Do you understand what the word "Firstborn" implies? It is very, very clear. Did you know that Mary and Joseph had at a minimum SIX more children AFTER the firstborn Son and that all of the other boys are NAMED in the Bible? Furthermore, two of them wrote part of the New Testament? Both James and Jude are the half-brothers of Jesus and are the sons of Mary and Joseph by natural birth. The 4 half brothers of Jesus are named in the Gospels. You may argue the point, but the Bible is crystal clear that Joseph and Mary had other children AFTER the virgin birth of Christ. Matthew 13:55, 56 "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren (literal brothers), James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56 And his SISTERS, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?" These are the literal children of Mary and Joseph by natural birth. Mark 6:3 "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James (the writer of the book of James), and Joses, and of Juda ( Jude, the writer of the epistle of Jude), and Simon? and are not his SISTERS here with us? And they were offended at him." (Mary and Joseph had a MINIMUM of 2 or more daughters whose names are not given.) The total family including Jesus would be at least SEVEN!!! Matthew 1:24, 25 " Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not TILL she had brought forth her FIRSTBORN son: and he called his name JESUS." Luke 2:7 "And she brought forth her FIRSTBORN son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn." You may argue some of my points, but you cannot argue and be truthful that Mary had no other children by natural relations with Joseph. You have to disregard abundant scriptural evidence to say that Mary was a perpetual virgin. She was a lost sinner like anyone else and had to be saved by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ like anyone else. Lastly, NONE of the Apocrypha including Maccabees is inspired scripture and that is why it is not and should not be included in most Bibles. Most Bible-believing Christians do not regard the apocryphal writings as inspired because God did NOT inspire those books. I read what was done in 2 Maccabees. They took up a sin offering for soldiers who had been slain in battle. That in no way teaches indulgences and even if it did, that is not inspired scripture.

I agree. You can't read what is not there. That's the definition of unreadable.

You're welcome!

@@waynemccuen8213 not like the poison of the no perfect bible crowd that denies preservation of God's pure words and therefore calls God a liar by their view.

@@johnword4775 No where in the bible will you find a verse stating that the KJV is Gods preserved word. Particularly a version that the translators said in the preface that they wished they had more information to help with. Where they intimated they didn't have enough information to solve difficulties on some words/phrase/etc.

@waynemccuen8213 where is the verse saying the KJB isn't? See the fault with your argument? God delivered his pure words perfectly through imperfect men in the originals. God promised to preserve his pure words. The originals are long gone. There are some 70+ differing editions of Greek texts and several differing editions of Hebrew texts as well. Where SPECIFICALLY do you think all God's pure words are today? If you don't know, are you honest enough to say so?

You have to prove your point, sir. Tell me the verse.....

@waynemccuen8213 I don't have a verse saying the KJB is God's pure words perfectly preserved in English and you don't have one saying the KJB is not God's pure words perfectly preserved in English. Can you answer my question to you? It leaves you open on where specifically you think all God's pure words are today. Do you believe we can have all God's pure words today? Yes or no? You haven't proven the KJB is not God's pure words perfectly preserved in English.

You can't conclude something else is better from this survey when the something else isn't part of the survey.

Amen! Thank you for your other thoughts in the comment section. The issue is much more than just the KJV with him. He doesn't believe in the doctrine of preservation which comes from the wrong spirit.

Protestantism is heretical

⁠@@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613 Protestants were born out of catholic heresy. That is the whole history of Protestants came to be. Catholics taught that you could not get your sins forgiven unless you pay money to the church. The same reason Jesus turned the tables over at the synagogue. They intentionally kept the Bible in Latin, a dead language, so the people would not know all the heretical things that they were doing. It was not until catholic priest read the Bible and notice all the heresies that the Catholics were doing.

Nope. You can't say you love the KJB then say it is a sin to give someone the KJB. Mark Ward will never answer a question concerning a final written authority. It is a question he will not answer. He does not want to discuss the underlying texts of the modern versions at all. He doesn't want to address the differing texts. Nor does he reveal that all bibles have difficult words.

Mark Ward is paid by Crossway who produces the ESV. He has a vested interest in getting rid of the KJB.

@JoshB882 Hey, did you write the forgotten preface of the KJV?

@@johnword4775 I don't think Dr.Ward ever said it was a sin to give someone a KJV. Where did he say that? Ahhhh, the final written authority? It would be the autographs of the 1st century......all we have are representitives of those translated into English, or whatever the target language is. There were a number of target languages prior to 1611. Today, none of us speaks the english of 413 years ago, hence the reason for up-to-date renderings of the manuscripts that are available now. I honestly dont know why one would want a bible that you needed to learn 413 year old english when you can have one accurately translated into the english we use today. But, if it is what you like, just use it! There's nothing wrong with the KJV. And btw, there is less than 5% difference between the KJV and the up-to-date versions.

@waynemccuen8213 better listen as he indeed did say that.

Protestantism is heretical

That last point is why I dislike the appellation "modern versions". There are many recently translated versions, but all by different groups with different motives. I like some, and I dislike some, and I despise some.

Right on!

The ratio of singular/plural shows that the goal of the "survey" was not readability, it was to see if pastors used the rule. If someone used the rule like I did, the ratio wouldn't matter. But if the true goal was readability then it would matter. On the lone singular question, the pastors averaged a score of 98% while on the plural they averaged 37.5% correct. It is possible someone could love both but Ward's primary goal in his more than 1,500 videos is his anti-KJV only belief so I don't believe that loves the KJB. I havn't read his false friends book but before I realized he was anti-KJB and pro nearly every other English version, I thought, "Perhaps this book might be helpful to understand more challenging passages." But I believe he has done much more harm than good and we'll be reaping his fruits for the next generation.

@ but if the the rule is so easy to remember, why did not pastors remember it? Are they just bad readers? Are they lazy?

@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever It's simple to remember if you remember. KJV users definitely should emphasized the rule more and make a bigger deal of it. But again, if it's challenging to get it right with a rule, getting rid of the rule in modern versions is no improvement.

@@RiversideBaptistChurchCT It's simple to remember if you remember... why didn't 100 PASTORS? I appreciate the brotherly dialogue and push back, sincerely!

18:06; 18:16. I don't think you watched the whole video.

So, I guess Paul wasted a lot of time writing...

No. Things that conflict are not the same. The issue is not how a Bible is worded, it is if there is a change in meaning.... which is what the modern Bible are full of.

​@casey1167 LOL, oy my goodness, what and where and how in the world do you come up with that whackerdoodle conclusion. The up-to-date english translations are 95-98% the same as the kjv. And vice versa. The only difference comes in the mountains of discoveries of information that happened after the kjv was translated in the years leading up to the 1611. Please read the introduction to the reader in the 1611. Those translators wished they had more info to answer where they knew they lacked full knowledge in their efforts. And they also stated that God's word is found in other translations. All doctrines in all modern English language translation are the same. Nothing has changed in that arena. Please, step outside the coterie of your kjvonlist cult. Please use your KJV, it's a very good version. Although dated. But, you are totally and fully incorrect in your uninformed ignorance as to how good the up-to-date english translations are.

@@waynemccuen8213 When the ESV and CSB conflict in a verse, is stating such a "KJVO Cult Idea"? I always find it interesting to hear how all Bible are the same, it is like a person has not actually read multiple Bibles.

@@waynemccuen8213 98%.... are you serious? what percent of the Bible would you need to change to destroy the Trinity and salvation by grace? Maybe .0001%?

@@waynemccuen8213 Your conclusion that "All doctrines in all modern English language translation are the same" is sadly inaccurate. There are a number of modern translations that are clearly bad (and more every few years at that). Sadly still, that just makes the issue harder to defend.

What is the difference in the belief of a KJVO person to that of James White and John MacArthur?

The Brethren are struggling enough already without your scorn.

@@casey1167 The difference is mainly that White and MacArthur mislead people about the Nature of God and the work of Christ. KJVO doesn't. It's mistaken, but innocent.

The Devil keeps running the same play all these years just with different players now.

@@RiversideBaptistChurchCT mark ward is a “player” of the devil. Terrible rationale, logical incoherence, historical ignorance, ad hominem argumentation and much more - all to argue that a 400 year old translation is something that its creators never intended.

Amen!

A true shepherd warns about the wolf, not warms up to him!

He gets some support from his books and KZbin channel. He worked and probably is still working for a Bible software company. For a time they allowed him to use their equipment to make his videos. Then he raised money from supporters to get some recording equipment. There is not a huge financial cost in what he is doing, just a lot of time so I admire his work ethic but not his conclusions. If you want to know more look on his personal website and it tells the story of how he was an assistant pastor at a church near his Alma Mater. When the head pastor resigned to take a teaching position at BJU, instead of him taking the church, the church voted to completely close. Perhaps that wasn't God's will but I found it striking he's trying to influence ministries worldwide without being in the ministry.

@@RiversideBaptistChurchCT I listened to a sermon he preached in the last year at the Church he goes to, so he does preach a bit. I think an issue he has is although a lot of Critical Text pastors will say all modern Bible are the same and non are 100% correct, Dr. Ward has stated this very publicly. I don't know how you would run a Church if all Bible were equal, and they all conflicted in places. I asked a local critical text pastor a while back if the Greek underlying John 3:16 was 100% the Word of God, as written in the originals. He could not say that it was. Once people realize their faith is based on the hope what is in the Bible they use might be right but might be wrong, I don't know how you maintain a religion.

@@casey1167 It is a strong point you make. I heard someone say something so simple that your initial thought might be that it is not complex or sophisticated enough to have much of substance to it, but it seems pretty on point to me: Two things that are different are not the same.

That's good, as long as you're not deceptively editing it. Also, if you look in the comments, there is a free pdf download of the text version. It's the Lord's Work!

@@RiversideBaptistChurchCT I am not editing it at all. I am posting it as is and including the free pdf download in the description. Thanks!!

That's Great. Praise the Lord!

What's your second channel? I liked the video on churchPhone1769

@@RiversideBaptistChurchCT this video was a lot of things. The Lords Work it is not. It’s the very opposite - slanderous, untruthful, divisive, and ignorant

Exactly!

​@@RiversideBaptistChurchCTI do not know how Mark Ward got into my YT feed, but I have watched enough of him to pick up on that spirit you identified. I can barely stand to listen at all, but sometimes I respond to comments.

Praise the Lord you could test the spirits behind the content on his videos.