Debate Retrospective with Dr. Mark Ward | Part 2

[@NeedAVacay-y5u]

Just putting this out there pastor Dwayne I decided to e-mail Dan Wallace. Such a personal able brother. Answered my questions in the same day. Maybe you should reach out.

[@Dwayne_Green]

I'd love to, how did you get in contact with him?

[@NeedAVacay-y5u]

​@@Dwayne_Green His e-mail on DTS website

[@NeedAVacay-y5u]

​@@Dwayne_Green DTS his professor page.

[@ShaunCKennedyAuthor]

I agree. Pastor Dwayne is a role model. That's why you almost had my vote last Tuesday.

[@rodneyjackson6181]

Great, mature, Christlike discussion. I love the KJV and go to a KJV church. However, I prefer the NLT, NKJV and the WEB.

[@Dwayne_Green]

Thanks Rodney!

[@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever]

@18:00 I would love to see Daniels on this channel!

[@JohnMiles117]

Do you think that Dan went into the debate underestimating Marks abilities? I as well felt like he was meandering in the beginning, and the only reason I could think of that he was doing that is if he thought the debate was either going to be on a different topic, or that he was just overconfident.

[@Dwayne_Green]

I think Dr. Haifley was more prepared for the textual discussion and not so much for the readability question.

[@JohnMiles117]

@Dwayne_Green makes sense

[@debras3806]

@@Dwayne_GreenWhich is a little goofy right cuz wasn’t the debate ON the readability issue? If i remember correctly…

[@USAP1776]

​@@debras3806imo the readability topic is kind of a sad excuse of not facing the textual criticism questions. The greater debate is held in the textual aspect and the readability is just minor considering an 8 year old can read the gospel of John and understand it

[@richiejourney1840]

@@USAP1776I want you to be aware that many “8” years olds stop reading it because of the language and style are very foreign to what they are learning. I find zero reason not to update the KJV to modern language. You don’t have to follow TC crap. In fact, they should note and make an argument for why they don’t. It’s an awesome opportunity to fight it. I would pay good money and willing to have such a massive tome on all of the differences. I don’t think I would find a single thing that would shake my faith to the core of disbelief and trust in God.

[@RobL194]

5:24 unfortunately so many times, either the pastors themselves are tripped up by false friends, they breeze over the text without explaining anything, or when they do explain it, it becomes quite evident they haven’t looked deeply enough into it to give a full and accurate explanation. Perhaps this is too anecdotal, but this is my experience of most boots-on-the-ground KJV preachers I’ve been under (who I love dearly). I think this whole discussion is much needed at least to bring greater awareness to those brothers, such that they at least realize they need to approach the text with greater care.

[@USAP1776]

That depends on the pastor but I would encourage you to pray for discernment that God will lead you to be under a well studied pastor . Maybe you are called to take that position. A pastor ought to know his king James Bible better then even lay man in his congregation

[@richiejourney1840]

@@USAP1776a pastor should know Gods word period. He should be very fluent in the original languages and the one he is going to preach in. I personally don’t care which formal Bible translation he wants to use.

[@richiejourney1840]

This debate and usage of the KJV only just reminds me of how many churches operate these days and days of old. Like the Lutheran church used to give a service for the German speakers and one for the English speakers which didn’t change until WW2. German translations and English translations. Did my German brothers and sisters not have Gods word? Many today hold a early service more tuned to the older generations while the later morning service was more tuned to the younger. Does not Paul say to become all things to all people? I wonder why…? Let this dumb debate end. Go your merry way. Be what God made you to be and stop the madness. But that’s the problem right? Self righteous family squabbling. Get on your knees and beg forgiveness-everyone. This IS causing sin among us. It causes many like me to not trust anyone of you (which I have to admit, I’ve always been a “Berean” and also, to learn and search the “original” languages and many things anyway). The “enemy” is TC being used and taught in a bad light. It is very good to know the rightful realities of the text because our enemies are very aware of it and we should be prepared just as much as they are. Personally, I find no reason to discard anything that was written and used. I want all of it at my finger tips and God leads the way as always! No major doctrine is in dispute and all those that have always been disputed are never put to bed anyway. Both Greene and Ward are champions of the entire cause. The KJV has never been my reader and never will be…sorry…but I don’t begrudge those who use it. But, it is no more superior a translation than the others and my deeper dives will involve all of them AND the original languages, etc. End of story. If I am to be declared anathema by any one of you…then so be it…I’m used to it and all this division and politics and unchristian crap…just keeps me from man’s churches…you heard me correctly…I can’t find a local church that speaks my language in my city that is TRUELY Gods church anymore.

[@murrydixon5221]

What is your original language and background? That is a lot of text and thoughts to take in.

[@keithfuson7694]

Mark is right. The big issue us readability. The antiquated outdated kjv is simply not clear enough, readable enough, understandable enough, intelligible enough. While the modern Bibles are very clear, readable, understandable and intelligible. The kjv fruitcakes need to stop this unnecessary controversy and the revilings and dissension and strife. We need biblical unity.

[@davegarciaofficial]

🤣🤣🤣

[@bibleprotector]

My thesis/argument is that the KJB has been designed for future English-speakers, and therefore cannot be dismissed today as being in yesteryear's language. I believe that the KJB speaks not only to today, but to a return to the Gospel into our culture. The entire modern version/translation movement, with its Post-Enlightenment based hermeneutics which are upheld throughout probably all the the various reformed/evangelical/pentecostal denominations, and ultimately various parts of doctrines/theology must be overcome and laid aside, as the Church advances forward in spirit and truth. Mark Ward's position of inviting people to accept the NKJV is to surrender to defeatism, because it is saying the enemy has won. Saying we must yet mess about in the Greek is saying God has failed to properly/fully speak unto this people.

[@debras3806]

Huh? Every Bible translator ever esp those of the KJV would refute this!

[@debras3806]

Actually, good point. No messing around in the Greek needed, i demand you use exclusively the Vulgate. It’s designed for future Latin-speakers, and to use English us to surrender to defeatism. You don’t have the gift of languages? Where’s your faith? What a defeatist! Have you ever heard of a DICTIONARY?!?

[@USAP1776]

​@debras3806 not even close. His point is valid. God's word is supposed to prompt us to slow down and study his word. The kjv is brilliant and beautiful

[@bibleprotector]

​@@debras3806 Every Bible translator who is in heaven would refute your statement.

[@hewziheng4587]

Appreciate your position brother. This is coming from a ESV user myself - just stating that to disclose any possible biases I might have here. Do you not believe that yours is a position that's formed on opinion rather than on hard, demonstrable facts (especially that all post-enlightenment hermeneutics = bad)? If that's the case, do you think it's better to not bind a brother's conscience to using the KJB when a clear, demonstrable argument has not been posited? Just food for thought, cheers!

[@christopheryetzer]

You should interview Dr. Haifley. I think Ward should be more honest about his view of language. It is not that he wants everything in English, he is more on a gradient. However the way it comes across is that every word needs to be the plowboy's common English. That is a smokescreen and not true of any translation. Possibly if he approached the subject in a more honest tone it would help. He says that people on the other side are calling his Bible corrupt, but at the same time he is using language not fitting to the context. I wish you would have pushed back on his use of 1 Corinthians 14 misapplication. It is not referring in any way to quoting or reading Scripture in church. I know you guys both disagree a bit about what it might mean, but can we agree on what it doesn't mean? Lastly it should be noted that he has blocked good cordial conversation from several people I know of. Then he complains that nobody listens to him. It isn't true. We listen, but we have reasons why we disagree. Him not liking an answer does not permit him to say "Nobody is listening". It is a martyrs complex in an echo chamber he has put himself in.

[@Dwayne_Green]

It will happen!

[@Sandppy]

Sorry, but I whether or not it is Marks intention he is divisive. The majority of KJV only are not going after other people’s sheep, but Mark is doing just that. The majority of KJV only spend the vast majority of their time and effort in witnessing and building the church. But when you attack someone else’s text you undermine their faith in the Bible. The KJV is the windmill to his Don Q

[@hewziheng4587]

@@Sandppy Unfortunately my experience is that KJVO people are indeed going after other people’s sheep, hence I think the need for Mark to speak up. After all if there are all these loud KJVO-supporting institutions (e.g. Trinitarian Bible Society, KJB Research Council) then there should also be someone to supply the counter point

[@Sandppy]

@ calling them loud is only poisoning the well, I know these institutions and while they have an on line presence, their primary purpose is to arm Bible believers against those like Mark who try to take it.

[@salvadaXgracia]

KJV only pastors and institutions attack the Bibles of all other Christians far more than the other way around. Mark Ward wants people to understand God's word so they can believe the truth and put it into practice.

[@murrydixon5221]

If this was only about using a contemporary language bible, as an ex King James man Mark would be using the NKJV, the WEB, MEV, or another appropriate Byzantine or TR based translation. At some point, he was convinced the Critical Text is more accurate and is actively promoting that.

[@ST52655]

Therein lies the problem.

[@richiejourney1840]

Do you REALLY think TC has no place? Do you really think that the Johanan Coma is legit? I mean…only 5 very late manuscripts 3 of which are marginal notes…

[@richiejourney1840]

Does “young woman” vs “virgin” bother you that much-especially when “young woman” is the correct translation? How does that destroy your theology? Personally I would ultimately translate it to be “virgin” simply because that is what it really meant to the culture of that day.

[@stevenhayes1611]

I am a TR guy, but I resist efforts to move to modern English versions that are TR-based for an important reason that I think rarely gets addressed. That is, Tyndale reintroduced the archaic pronouns and inflected verb endings (which had largely passed out of common usage even in his day, and certainly by 1611) into his early modern English translation for the sake of capturing the precision/accuracy that is present in the Hebrew and Greek. To me, that accuracy in English is important, especially for those who don’t have an ability to deal with the Biblical text in the original languages. Ward is worried about modern English readers misunderstanding a very small number of so-called false friends, but I would assert that readers of modern English versions are far more likely to misunderstand the thousands of times “you” occurs without an ability to discern between singular and plural in modern English. Since all modern versions based on the TR drop these grammatical features, they suffer from the same deficiency as modern versions in this regard.

[@MAMoreno]

It's rare that the number of addressees isn't clear from context. And even then, there are options other than reverting to a form of English that was merely old hat by Tyndale's time but truly archaic by our time. Let's look at, for instance, Luke 22.31-32. These verses can be translated with a thou/you distinction, but that's not the only option... NIV: “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” NLT: “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift each of you like wheat. But I have pleaded in prayer for you, Simon, that your faith should not fail. So when you have repented and turned to me again, strengthen your brothers.” NET: “Simon, Simon, pay attention! Satan has demanded to have you all, to sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. When you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” NABRE: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”

[@murrydixon5221]

"99.99 % of TR defenders that I have met insist on exclusive use of the King James." - Mark Ward I will call him out once again: This is blatantly false. I know you Wardites are going to say it is hyperbole, so save that one and come with a better excuse.

[@ST52655]

How much should the English language be dumbed down?

[@richiejourney1840]

I don’t know…guess you should be sticking with Wycliffe with that attitude. Perhaps you SHOULD be reading the KJV’s as originally written. I don’t understand why you are speaking modern English. Does not seem to fit your belief’s. If I said, “fag” or “faggot” to you today…just what am I referring to? How many would take it offensively?

[@richiejourney1840]

Why do I have to keep telling people “unicorns” are real and spend so much valuable time explaining it?

[@richiejourney1840]

Why, when I was a child and young adult, was I continuously given the KJV which I would not read? Why did it take 29 years of my life away until I was given a NKJV? Almost every child that I knew that was given a KJV just set it aside to collect dust. Why?

[@betbapt]

A mind reader, who could judge motives amazingly without a crystal ball, declared that he knows King James Version men do not take their position because of the underlying text. Is this true? Those with the underlying text position believe that all new translations of the Bible in any language should come through the same underlying text, the identical words, as that translated into the King James Version, which preceded the KJV for 1500 years. They say the issue is presuppositional, believing God's promise of perfect, providential preservation of His Words in the original biblical languages.

[@MAMoreno]

If it were about the underlying text, then they wouldn't need be KJV Only. The NKJV, MEV, and a number of other TR versions are out there.

[@betbapt]

@@MAMoreno Essentially, you're calling these men liars. You don't know they're lying so it is slander or false accusation. There is no defense for that, and it's definitely not love, good tone, charitable rhetoric, all of these hallmarks of Christian living. The NKJV is not the identical text. That's an issue based on doctrinal reasons. You should at least understand that. They would not say text is the only reason, but it is the primary one. The MEV is lacking. And it doesn't seem the occasion or reason to a change that wants a standard Bible. Again, you should be able to understand that. It doesn't seem loving, and I mean love in a biblical sense, not sentimentalism. I don't personally have a problem with someone using another English translation from an identical text. That is essentially what I preach, because I'm preaching from the original languages. Everyone that listens to me knows that. I never hear you guys comment at all about the insistence we have for translating from the original languages and studying the original languages. I don't think the King James Version is a perfect translation. It is an accurate one.

[@bibleprotector]

It is right to say that Haifley was more pastoral and Ward more academic, so there was a mismatch there. This has happened before, when James White debated Jack Moorman, where White ran rings around Moorman in much the same way. The Scripture says, "... for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light." (Luke 16:8b). Those who are adepts in academia are going to outmaneuver these fatherly figures.

[@richiejourney1840]

Should not a pastor be highly academic as well? If not, then a preacher should just preach and not debate.

[@richiejourney1840]

So you are saying Ward is not a child of light? I think you are eisogeting instead of exegeting that passage you quoted.

[@richiejourney1840]

I’ve seen many a preacher blow away academic opposition. This is no legit excuse.

[@bibleprotector]

@@richiejourney1840 A pastor is a calling, an academic is an inclination (and a profession too). Of course a pastor could be academic.

[@bibleprotector]

@@richiejourney1840 I am using the analogy of what is currency of the world (e.g. academic prowess) and comparing with the homespun simplicity of a preacher who is not able to function on that level. Look at Paul here: "And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God." (Acts 19:8). Christianity suffers a lot from not being able to dispute or persuade, especially among the genuine, simple disciples. Because Ward is philosophically aligned with erroneous teachings which pass as currency in this world, and his interlocutor is more rustic and simple in his style, there is a mismatch, as the Scripture says, "... for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light." (Luke 16:8b). And again, by analogy only, "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." (Matt. 10:16). Was Haifley wise as a serpent, as Jesus commanded us to be? (Rhetorical question.)

[@michaelsinger2921]

Dr. Ward apparently wishes to rule textual arguments out of bounds due to his focus on "intelligibility". I used to agree largely with his position, until studying the matter in more detail led me to a Byzantine priority position. This is partly due to Dr. Maurice Robinson's proof that so many verses and sequences of verses in editions of the Critical Text do not match any Greek manuscript! Thus, I find Mark Ward's argument to the effect that the Bible does not address textual criticism to be disingenuous. When the textual critics who put together the CT basically "make up" their own verses, does that not violate such admonitions as we see in Proverbs 30:6, or principles like the permanency of God's Word, Psa. 119:89? Thus, to dismiss text-critical issues as merely one of a host of "Christian liberty" issues is a mistake. The integrity of God's Word in the original autographs is just as vital as efforts to make it intelligible, if not more so.

[@richiejourney1840]

What proof? I would like to see this proof of them adding to the Bible what is not found in ANY mss which is clearly not their goal.

[@michaelsinger2921]

@ Please check out Dr. Robinson's Appendix to the Greek New Testament, Byzantine Text form, byzantinetext.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/editions-rp-11-appendix.pdf; or his discussion with Dwayne Green on this channel regarding the so-called "Frankentext.". From a TR perspective, the work of Dean Burgeon also addresses this issue, though with more bombast, to be sure. The editors of the Critical Text doubtless have no intention of adding to or modifying God's Word, but the work of scholars like Robinson, Burgeon and others can support the proposition that the CT does so.

[@MAMoreno]

You can agree with his position on intelligibility and still disagree with the Critical Text. The NKJV solves the problem. It's intelligible, and it's mostly similar to the Byzantine text (just like the KJV before it).

[@michaelsinger2921]

@ Yes, I like the NKJV as well. Though it doesn't have the same literary quality as the King James, it is reliable, and the notes also offer good insight to the differences in the New Testament between the Textus Receptus and the Majority and Critical Text. And, yes, it essentially takes care of the issues with Dead Words and False Friends.

[@richiejourney1840]

@ yep. Or you can agree with some of it or use it as God leads you. If you have a bunch saying this and a bunch saying something a bit different…well…which is it? Just like I think other translations translate some passages better than another version. Textual criticism is not new to the Bible at all…ever.