Do KJV-Only Pastors Understand the KJV? (NATIONAL SURVEY Part 1)

[@kienanmaxfield6288]

I have personally been very familiar with this rule regarding plural and singular, I’ve known it very well and if asked I would’ve always given the right answer……………………. But it’s one thing to know when you’re asked and it’s another to notice it while you’re reading. I have never noticed that some of these references were written with the plural you. Wow! That one about Satan has asked to sift you as wheat… I have always always always applied this to Peter and only to anyone else as a form of application by extension. So good, thank you!

[@KevinSavedByGrace]

I never knew the difference between “t” and “y” pronouns. That is pretty cool.

[@markwardonwords]

Useful knowledge! If you can remember to use it-as I did not.

[@jimyoung9262]

As one of the two fans of this channel, I've been waiting for this video since the premiere announcement dropped six months ago. Great video.

[@markwardonwords]

Hope you enjoyed it!

[@jimyoung9262]

Thought it was great. The usual measured tone, evidence and a clear off ramp as language change IS the issue. Also, great seeing the JM clips from the Dojo. It was cool seeing you over BTW Dr. Ward.

[@johnbreitmeier3268]

Except that he got the grammar rule completely wrong and was thus speaking out of the wrong bodily orifice. "You" was also ambiguous.. "You" could be 2nd person plural OR second person singular formal in King James' time. Thee was 2nd person familiar. Look it up. People who want to split hairs need a very sharp knofe or they end up looking like silly children.

[@markwardonwords]

@@johnbreitmeier3268The KJV doesn’t use second person pronouns in the way the Elizabeth and did. The matter is complex.

[@andrewbrowne5557]

@@johnbreitmeier3268 a lot of us think that failure to self edit also makes one look like a silly child…knofe?

[@joshwilliams3939]

I’ve used the KJV all my life-I never realized the plural in Luke even though I know the difference of thee, ye, etc.

[@markwardonwords]

I committed the same error.

[@CConn7567]

same

[@danwestonappliedword]

I have now subscribed and support your channel, brother. I grew up with the KJV and have read it all of my life. I have learned sooooo many things in the past few days of binging your videos! I bought my daughter a NKJV because I saw that it would be confusing for her to understand the KJV, and she loves it. I gave her other options, but she wanted something close to what I had always read and quoted. After watching these videos, I am going to expand what I read myself. How much have I been missing and didn’t even realize it? Ugh! I have another NKJV at home and will start with that. My daughter, BTW is now reading the NLT as her favorite devotional Bible. She says that she goes back and forth between the two. Thanks again for all the work you do!

[@markwardonwords]

Such an honor! And thank you for your support!

[@flamingrobin5957]

the best bible translation is the one you will read....reading is more important than perfect understanding. what you won't read you wont understand. i do think that reading the king james makes me want to read more because i have to pay attention more and think harder. raising the bar for me keeps my interest more

[@keithm1689]

Thanks Dr. Ward, I'm definitely one of those two fans of this channel!😅

[@markwardonwords]

Wow, thanks! You and my mom!

[@johnperekopsky3271]

The KJV was a monumental work that shaped and defined the English language, there is a beauty to it. However, the purpose of any Bible translation is to make the Word of God accessible and understandable to the common person, as languages evolve and change - the translations must be updated as well. It is important to remember that the Latin Vulgate translation was so called because it was translated into the vulgar (common) tongue. As time went on and Latin diverged into the Romance languages, the Vulgate continued to be used due to resistance to update "the most correct" translation. As a result, the reading and interpretation of the Bible was reserved to the priests - who themselves may not have been able to read and/or understand it. When translations are not updated as languages evolve, we run the risk of running into the same issue that the Vulgate did. Also, this is not just a KJV issue, translations of the Bible in other languages are running into the same problem.

[@kM-ij2ly]

The latin vulgate incorporated roman pagan heresies as part of the translation and must be avoided for the bible believer

[@CheriFields]

I remember learning the history of how we lost the singular 2nd person pronoun in a book on English in my early 20s (It’s particularly interesting to see how Shakespeare used the 2 forms during that era of transition). It was fascinating to spot these distinctions in the KJV, and I found its accuracy helpful in the days before access to Bible apps. But I have never once thought, let alone heard a sermon that recognized that Jesus was talking about more than just Peter with that “you.” And I’ve attended KJV churches my whole life. It is absolutely a false friend in that if we don’t question every 2nd person pronoun we’re likely to get it wrong over half the time.

[@markwardonwords]

Right!

[@dwightsaxton2409]

Nkjv and kjv are the same

[@dwightsaxton2409]

I use both the kjv and the nkjv

[@dwightsaxton2409]

What about the Lord prayer

[@DrGero15]

What book?

[@felipetejeda7545]

This is actually genuinely surprising, I am a layman, and I knew all of those answers. I did start on the KJV and it’s my preferred devotional translation, but I always regularly compare the NIV, NASB, and the ESV on my desk. I’m surprised that an actual Pastor wasn’t able to answer those questions. I wouldn’t be surprised if a regular person made those mistakes, but those are really low level questions.

[@markwardonwords]

✔

[@salvadaXgracia]

You probably understand better because you compare with other more current English translations as well.

[@justinjones2160]

I once attended a kjvo church. The pastor used a kjv study bible from the pulpit. He would correct each archiac word with the study bible helps and still profess kjvo.

[@AmosAAnderson]

At least he was teaching what scriptures actually said. That's more than I can say for 99.9% of KJVO preachers I've heard.

[@markwardonwords]

I'm really glad when I hear this! Truly glad!

[@DrGero15]

Which study Bible was he using?

[@justinjones2160]

@@DrGero15 thomas nelso kjv study bible

[@peterfettig8666]

Great video. Thank thee, thank thee very much.

[@markwardonwords]

Thou art welcome!

[@BrendaBoykin-qz5dj]

Thank you, Brother Mark🌹⭐🌹

[@markwardonwords]

You are so welcome!

[@jamest4659]

Hey Mark, make me fan number three for your channel! Seriously, thank you for all you do. God bless you (singular).

[@markwardonwords]

Wow, thanks! 50% growth in one day!!

[@katielouise3924]

LOL, here I am getting stuck on the ESV “Satan demanded …” Say what, Satan? Anyway, love your videos, Dr. Ward.

[@markwardonwords]

Right! “Desired” in 1611 in that context actually meant something more like “asked” or “demanded.”

[@rosslewchuk9286]

The transcript serves as a good study tool. Thanks for this session!😎👍🙏📖

[@markwardonwords]

Absolutely!

[@KildaltonTheologicalStudies]

If “thee” and “thou” etc are absolutely necessary in order to read and speak clearly, wouldn’t they also insist on speaking in King James English in ALL of their speech, especially in their prayers? Do they only use KJE in their hymnals and Psalters? I have collection of psalters and most contain a different translation than standard Bible translations in order to fit the arrangement of the music, Psalm 23 in particular has been translated in a multitude of ways and all of them true to the meaning of the Bible.

[@markwardonwords]

Right!

[@bradchymist5766]

I know many who do attempt to pray in KJE. They often prove their lack of understanding in their butchering of the language.

[@markwardonwords]

@@bradchymist5766 Right! It's been a while since I've heard anyone try that, but I heard it on a recording recently.

[@El.savedbyJesus]

I learned of your work from Doreen Virtue. I don't need to wait for a translation that translates to y'all. I love the teaching.

[@markwardonwords]

Wow, thank you!

[@michaeltravers3095]

Mark I rotate every year between the KJV and MEV. I have made my own footnotes in my KJV study bible every time the outdated score numbering system is used.

[@glenn1611]

Love the comment about “you" being the biggest "false friend" of them all in the ephemeral translations. That’s brilliant. But it’s no big deal apparently, because in those translations a simple footnote clarifies. So let’s extend the same largesse to the so-called “false friends” in the KJV and everyone’s happy. Praise God!

[@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever]

I caught the difference in the passage in Luke during sermon preparation & exegesis on that text. Probably missed it in my casual reading.

[@markwardonwords]

Appreciate this comment.

[@wesleybarley6405]

As a contrast, I think it would be great if you could take the same verses/questions from a modern English translation and ask people on the street who haven't been to Bible college. Since these aren't interpretive questions, I expect they would score higher.

[@markwardonwords]

Agreed. I would love to do this.

[@michealferrell1677]

This will be fun to share

[@markwardonwords]

I pray so!

[@nerdyyouthpastor8368]

I'm shocked that they didn't do better i really thought over of half of the pastors would know the rule.

[@StrategicGamesEtc]

Me too. I'm not KJV only (more CT only if anything, lol), but I have an interest in linguistics, and I've known about the singular-plural thee-you distinction for years. I do think "t" is an odd way to explain the rule, though; "th" seems much better as it's a digraph and it seems arbitrary and unnatural to split along graphs as opposed to phonemes.

[@williamragle1608]

I am SO glad this was a successful survey for you! Did you have a lot of unusable data? Such as pastors who weren't KJVO, or possibly issues where it was clear from the data that something was misunderstood or misapplied? Any strange outliers?

[@markwardonwords]

No. Good question, though. We preselected men we had good reason to believe were KJVO.

[@JosephAlanMeador]

JM spotted! 1:36 😄💪 @DiscipleDojo

[@markwardonwords]

Yes, that's him!

[@rodneyjackson6181]

Great video. So 93 percent of KJV only pastors don't know that they dont know how to apply singular and plural pronouns in the text. They also apparently are not aware of the modern translations that do apply these singular and plural pronouns in the correct way. I confess, I more than likely would not pass the test either.

[@markwardonwords]

Right!

[@kM-ij2ly]

How do you know? Have you interviewed them all? Most who loomk into this relaise the heresies brought in buy the Roman Catholic Church and Wescott and Horts in the modern translations. The NASB teaches works based salvation for example in John 3:36

[@reformed2019]

​@@kM-ij2ly Hello. Using your own argument, the KJV also teaches a works based salvation. " In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;" -2 Thessalonians chapter 1 verse 8 thru 9 (KJV) If your argument is that because: The NASB has added obey into John chapter 3 verse 36; using the same reasoning, 2 Thessalonians 1 verse 8 thru 9, also teaches a works based salvation. You need to obey to avoid wrath.

[@kM-ij2ly]

@@reformed2019 er your logic is flawed as this is talking about unsaved people who never believed whereas in John 3 Jesus preaches the gospel John 3:15 onwards and then according to the NASB Jesus contradicts himself by saying you need to obey him to be saved so no the KJV never teaches works (which is why the pope wanted to kill King James). The KJV does not teach works at all unless you of course are a calvnist and believe in works based salvation/peserverance of the saints. You are called reformed which suggests you believe in satanic calvinist doctrine. Do you follow Calvin?

[@kM-ij2ly]

@@reformed2019 This is the real vesr John 3:36 36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

[@ThecrosseyedTexan]

I checked the notes in the CSB Bible and it addresses this issue correctly as well this was the notes in the study Bible however

[@joebowers3636]

I think it was added to the actual footnotes in the 2020 revision. My 2017 version doesn’t have it, but my 2020 version has a footnote.

[@AmosAAnderson]

@@joebowers3636 I think the ESV has a footnote but for only some of them. I could be wrong. I'm curious of the CSB 2020 has a footnote for all.

[@markwardonwords]

I'm not sure what I missed. Will have to go check!

[@jeffdove6917]

Could you respond to the video from counsel and might by Dr. George Antonios. KJV VS Other Versions & why you're reading a Jehovah's Witness/Catholic Bible It makes many good points and is hard to refute for KJV only.

[@markwardonwords]

I watched through it on double speed during breakfast and getting ready this morning. I'm going to politely decline to engage.

[@jonhop11]

This is an amazing amount of effort to prove a point that seems secondary. I have read the KJV for the last 29 years since I was born again. I realize that I don't have the education to dispute the validity of Bible versions, but this entire argument seems to be more a point of contention and division in the body of Christ. I am not claiming to be a KJV onlyist, but the version works for me, I just don't see a point in changing??? I think at the core of the other translations, the point of producing them is to make money. I would love to see this much effort in taking the Gospel to a lost and dying world. The Christian world in social media and youtube seems to be more focused on winning debates and arguments, rather than proclaiming Christ. We are commanded to avoid these pointless strivings. Where, in any version, are we commanded to devote our lives to condemning english Bible versions?

[@jasonlamphier]

Absolutely right. If more effort were put into winning souls for Christ instead of video after video bashing the King James, it would be wonderful. But, alas, it is not to be so. How many videos has to be made trying to pull people away from the King James? The Bible tells us that God is not the author of confusion, but that's exactly what these videos are causing, confusion and division in the Body of Christ.

[@MAMoreno]

"I think at the core of the other translations, the point of producing them is to make money." Considering that the RSV and NRSV committees worked for free, that explanation simply doesn't pan out. If you want to be really cynical, you could say that some of the translations from the last 25 years have been made to _save_ money (because the licensing fees for the NIV are apparently a real problem), but generally, the motivations have been twofold: to update the scholarship and to make the text more readable. (In some cases, the drive was essentially the opposite: to react against the updated scholarship and the more readable text by offering a middle ground between the old and the new.)

[@jonhop11]

@MAMoreno I can appreciate that. And like I said, I dont know much about it. I just find it concerning that we are putting so much effort into this debate.

[@MAMoreno]

@@jonhop11 The only real issue is that you have whole congregations out there being scared into avoiding perfectly good translations that they could potentially understand and grow from if they were only permitted to read them without fear of being shunned. If this were an "I like the KJV the best and don't feel the need for a bookshelf full of translations" movement, there would be no controversy. To this day, I haven't seen a single comment from Mark Ward suggesting that a person is bringing harm to Christendom by holding to the view that the Byzantine text-type (which is more-or-less represented by the KJV, NKJV, and MEV) is preferable over the Alexandrian text-type. Nor has he harshly condemned anyone for preferring more literal translations over less literal ones. The issue he brings up again and again is not preference, but tribalism: waging war on people who don't agree with your side rather than being civil and understanding.

[@jonhop11]

@MAMoreno I totally get what you're saying. I have not experienced that mindset, nor have I been a victim of it, but I know that the KJV is elevated to idolatrous levels in some circles. I believe that everyone needs to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. I would not shun anyone for the Bible version they read or what school of theology they adhere to. I guess I just long for unity in the body. And I know that we will never have it. I guess it's just heartbreaking.

[@The_Wandering_Nerd]

Is the "thou" - "you" distinction in Elizabethan English purely a singular-plural difference, or is there also an informal-formal distinction like the second-person plurals in French, where "tu" is informal singular only, and "vous" is formal singular and both informal and formal plural? Bilingual speakers of both English and modern Romance languages might trip those up, but you'd think they'd cover this in King James Only Bible College.

[@markwardonwords]

Great question! No, the T-V distinction is not present in the Koine Greek of the New Testament.

[@Me2Lancer]

Thank you Mark for addressing the use of second person pronouns in the King James Bible. When I was growing up in the 1950s, the KJV was used almost exclusively during worship services, even to the extent of prayers being given in Elizabethan English. Today we use multiple modern translations during services and that for the better. That said, your presentation on second person pronouns in the KJV genuinely helps me recognize plural versus singular usage.

[@markwardonwords]

Yes! It's a valuable tool!

[@Aztshirts]

Thanks for this. I knew this was an issue but it’s still heartbreaking.

[@ryanaeby]

@discipledojo made an appearance. I like the dodge

[@markwardonwords]

He’s the best biblical studies martial artist!

[@dwmmx]

I've been a Christian for 32 years, and I am EMBARRASSED that I've missed this for all these years!

[@markwardonwords]

Join the club! Nearly all my false friends tripped me up before I became aware of them.

[@argerm57]

Both fans of this KZbin channel? Dinner roll, please? You are a very funny man! Seriously, though, you have very good content and are very pleasant to listen to. This is a very important subject, one which unnecessarily divides the Church. We humans are enslaved to a great many things, which is a tragedy.

[@markwardonwords]

Amen. God help us. (Glad someone else likes my nerdy jokes!)

[@alexshianda]

The aikido imagery 😂😂😂gold

[@markwardonwords]

Thank you, @discipledojo!

[@tony.biondi]

Brilliant! Thank you for all the hard work that went into this. Well presented research. Bless you.

[@markwardonwords]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@MAMoreno]

8:25 - Your copy of the Christian Standard Bible is apparently outdated: this problem was addressed in the 2020 edition. It now includes the following notes below Luke 22.31-32: - you is plural in Gk - you is singular in Gk Anyway, this issue of misunderstanding second-person pronouns demonstrates an important point: if the KJV Only colleges want to stay on their current path, it's not enough to dismiss these concerns. They must engage in a drastic counter-reformation, educating their priests to understand their Vulgate more precisely so that they may no longer leave themselves open to the barbs of the protestant voices. Subpar comprehension of Jacobean English will no longer cut it.

[@markwardonwords]

Right!

[@joshuabissey]

Oh, snap!

[@johnmcafee6140]

:10 "Dinner roll.."?? 🤣

[@markwardonwords]

I was hungry.

[@VinceOlson96]

For Luke's 22:31 the CSB actually has a footnote saying the you is plural there. At least in mine it does.

[@markwardonwords]

Yes, several have pointed this out to me-I was unknowingly using an older version of the CSB.

[@GJ-ek1pi]

It seems to me that I once read a bible that had a small p or s in parentheses next to you to distinguish them. I can’t remember which translation but thought it was a great idea and would eliminate any of the problems mentioned. When I read from modern versions I don’t always stop and read footnotes because it detracts from my reading. Again a small p or s would take care of this.

[@StrategicGamesEtc]

I'm a fan of consistently using "you" for singular and "you all" for plural. It hasn't grammaticalized for me yet, but I expect it will, and if some other 2p plural pronoun wins out, then obviously that should be used instead, but my money is on "you all", with a contraction to "y'all" possibly following, though probably spreading much more slowly.

[@AmosAAnderson]

@@StrategicGamesEtc As a northerner that has spent time in the south, I vote we all learn to use "y'all."

[@StrategicGamesEtc]

@@AmosAAnderson I've never been to the South for any appreciable length of time, but as someone from the northern midwest, I agree. Number distinction in the 2p pronouns is just too useful to pass up

[@kirbysmith4135]

Y'all is preferable to youse guys. 😂

[@ussconductor5433]

Kjver and the early editions of the NASB 1971 had them as well as the earlier New testament of said NASB.

[@calebschaaf1555]

As a martial arts practitioner myself, I gotta say, the references to Aikido (a largely fake and not combat effective art) didn’t land with me too well. 😄😉 I liked the video though! Been looking forward to this one for a while! I have a very close friend who has a degree in English and a masters in education, and she missed several examples. The pronoun rule an obscure rule that even people who’ve heard it have difficulty remembering.

[@seekingthekingdomfirst]

I've seen Aikido executed well. I dunno about the fake part...only bad teachers.

[@theydontknowmeson007]

BJJ might have been a better option, but the metaphor still works.

[@calebschaaf1555]

@@theydontknowmeson007 either works. BJJ or Muay Thai just works better. 😁😉

[@davidsandrock7826]

Considering I already knew that rule, I would have gotten a perfect score.

[@markwardonwords]

I "knew" the rule as a sixteen-year-old, but I found over time that I repeatedly forgot it, because it's so hard to make yourself rethink language you intuitively understand.

[@thedanielsturgeon]

Great work Mark and survey team :) Mark, a question - you frequently call the language of the KJV ‘Elizabethan English’. Shouldn’t it be ‘Jacobean English’ - the English of James VI’s era, not his predecessor Elizabeth I? (I suspect this is not an error on your part, given your position as a leading public philologist, but rather a deliberate choice for some reason I’m missing.)

[@markwardonwords]

There are indeed three big reasons I do this. 1.) The KJV translators all grew up in the Elizabethan era, and they did their work only at the very beginning of James’s reign. 2.) The KJV translators were revising the Bishop’s Bible, which belongs more to the Elizabethan era than, certainly, to the James era. 3.) Some of the specific features of KJV English that get the most press-the thees and thous and -eths on the ends of verbs-belong to the 16th century more than to the 17th. I’ve repeatedly read that these features had faded by the time the KJV translators did their work. It seems wrong, then, to call the KJV “Jacobean” when these major distinguishing features of its English are clearly not Jacobean. 4.) I don’t really hear people talk about “Jacobean English.” He didn’t reign as long as Elizabeth did, and Shakespeare and Spenser-some of our most famous writers-are associated with Elizabeth’s era and not with James’s. I (think I) usually say “KJV English,” though for these reasons. Open for pushback here!

[@thedanielsturgeon]

@@markwardonwords I knew it. Thanks :) I think it was in one of my seminary textbooks that the KJV was referred to as ‘a masterpiece of Jacobean prose’, which has stuck in my head ever since, clanging gently whenever I heard you call it ‘Elizabethan’.

[@boringbiblestudy1813]

My sister and I grew up in a KJV church. IFB. She’s continued in that tradition though she doesn’t believe the KJV-only part. She’s smart, pays attention, and studies the Bible a lot, and she just learned this year about the distinction between thees and thous in the KJV. I was pretty surprised she’s never heard or at least retained that.

[@markwardonwords]

Wow. One small sad thing. But so many positives in this story. May God bless her Bible study.

[@chris092283]

Im new to this channel and had a question. Do you not like the kjv bible or just kjv only individuals?

[@bensbab]

False dichotomy lol

[@kirbysmith4135]

He loves the KJV. He just wants people to understand what they are reading, and he is pointing out many of its difficulties.

[@jasonlamphier]

He hates the KJV and does everything in his power to pull people away from it, just watch any of his videos. Almost every one of them is trashing the KJV.

[@Philisnotretired]

@@jasonlamphier Exodus 20:16 (KJV) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

[@MAMoreno]

He doesn't like the King James Only movement, which keeps people shackled in ignorance as they try to decipher confusing grammar, obscure vocabulary, and a slew of words that no longer mean what they meant four centuries ago. By convincing their followers that it's a sin to even _check_ the modern versions for clarity on an obscure passage, these pastors effectively deny their congregations access to the Bible. Ward has no problems with the KJV itself. To put it in perspective, would you say that I hated William Shakespeare if I recommended that you buy a copy of Hamlet with a modernized text in a parallel column? Or would you just assume that I actually cared about whether or not you understood every last word in Hamlet? Or better yet, do you assume that I must necessarily hate Fred Whishaw's original 1885 translation of Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment if I recommend that the average person read David McDuff's 1991 translation instead? Or is it just that I prioritize accessibility over historical significance? (But hey, say the Whishaw-Onlyists: his translation is in the public domain, while McDuff's is stuck behind a copyright!) And those examples are mere secular literature. How much more important is clarity when it comes to the Bible!

[@flamingrobin5957]

the king james also uses parallelism in translation to make the context help us understand more words. lazy modern translations are training christians to breeze through the bible casually without caring about context. i think context is actually much more important than which translation you use. the habit of not defining terms in modern christianity is also a big problem . a reliable dictionary also then becomes neccesary in studying the bible. MORMONS twist every biblical term. word salad then becomes the norm in postmodernist thinking. since we also use "spellcheck" i am also loosing my ability to spell or the desire to care about spelling.

[@kevinohiggins3868]

at 4:30 you can see Bill's full name in the second message

[@markwardonwords]

Oh no!!!! I tried SO HARD to not let this happen! Sigh. I repeatedly checked. Bill has boldly staked out an extremist position and considers himself a leader in the KJV-Only world. I think he may consider this an honor.

[@toomanymarys7355]

I am absolutely shocked. It is so convenient to use thou for singular thst Im doing it for a modern translation of teh Qur'an (as there is no context at all in it). Definitely need notes!

[@simplicityinthecomplexity6988]

Thanks for this video and keep up this style of interaction. This does support a conclusion that I had to come to and that I and many Christians are simply Biblically illiterate. I have personally accepted that I needed to acknowledge and seek to increase my ability when it comes to Biblical literacy. Here is a question for you with out looking at the gospels and this can be answered from one of the gospels. How many times does Jesus go to Jerusalem? and which gospel contains that information?

[@makarov138]

In Luke 22:31, the word "you" is translated from the emphatically- expressed, first-person, personal pronoun "eg-o'. (Gr 1473) Strong's. How did the translators determine whether or not it is plural or singular. And also, we find it in several places where it is rendered "we", & "us" in 1 Thess 4 besides "you." Is it the context that determines how it is translated?

[@markwardonwords]

No. This is confused, I’m afraid. Ego is declined-it appears in specific forms that indicate number and person. Your dictionary was basically saying that “you” and “we” are the same word as “I.” Does that make sense?

[@makarov138]

@@markwardonwords I think I have answered my own question after coming back from the Eye Doc. WE, YOU, & US are all from the same root, but spelled slightly differently. And that is how they knew how to translate it. Different forms. Now into my 70s, I will not start to try and learn Greek. I am quiet comfortable with the label "Its Greek to me!" I don't see how I inferred it to be an "I" though, but I might have. That bit about "you" in the KJV being always plural is really interesting. Gonna watch part 2 later today. Thanks for your reply. Got me doing some close looking at those Greek letters.

[@brojohnmcd]

Thanks

[@markwardonwords]

No problem!

[@thebluefrog951]

Well, this ended up being a mini Bible study for me and some passages were made clearer by going over the survey results 😂

[@markwardonwords]

Excellent! That's the point!

[@CalebRichardson]

Love this!

[@jimyoung9262]

One of the cool things about this survey is that it is actually helpful to his "ideological opponents." Pretty magnanimous for a guy who is painted as an unsaved flaming liberal trying to lead the masses to hell with his ESV.

[@johnbreitmeier3268]

And exactly how were any of those verses made clearer by knowing whether the pronoun was singular or plural since the message was the same either way??? This is childish hairsplitting and NOT serious Bible study. Substance is important, not tricks of grammar which incidentally he got totally wrong. The KJV only crowd are silly children and so is he.

[@markwardonwords]

@@johnbreitmeier3268I agree. 100% I’m not the one saying that this matter is crucial for interpretation. I don’t think it is. Not at all.

[@honsville]

Hmmm, the 2nd gimme example, hard to believe 2 pastors didn't know "Thy" word is a lamp... was referring to God. Not sure they should be teaching. :)

[@markwardonwords]

I was surprised anyone got that wrong, too. But it was a tiny number.

[@danielfilan8056]

Why were the questions in this section weighted towards y-pronouns rather than t-pronouns? Is the hypothesis that people are more likely to be more careful when reading less familiar words?

[@CalebRichardson]

I think the answer is at 9:56 - examples were chosen where you probably had to know the t/y rule to be sure of getting the answer right.

[@MAMoreno]

Yes. We still use "you," so we're less likely to think about what "you" means.

[@markwardonwords]

Caleb is right. This was the only way to test knowledge of the rule.

[@karenduncan6004]

I grew up and went through a Christian high school using the KJV, back when it was sort of the only game in town. Then I went through grad school at a Christian university using it as a standard text. I never knew about this pronoun rule!

[@markwardonwords]

Join the club!

[@frankmckinley1254]

Trusting translators can be difficult. Or worse sadly.😢

[@ionutpaun9828]

Okay, why not use the ASV (American Standard Version)? The language is very similar to KJV.

[@MAMoreno]

That's a good answer for people who don't have an issue with Westcott and Hort (who were on the British committee of the translation that was modified into the ASV), but it's less satisfying for people who insist on using Reformation-era textual scholarship.

[@americanswan]

​@MAMoreno Isn't the ASV1901 legendary for its great translation? I like the World English Bible these days. It is based on the ASV1901.

[@dalebuchanan5851]

The results do not shock me. The churches in area that I'm from are probably 70% KJV-ONLY 25% not KJV-ONLY but afraid to talk about it and just about 5% publicly open to other translations (they are quickly labeled liberal and shunned). Im 52 years old and been in these churches my entire life and had never heard these things mentioned until being introduced to Mark's work. There is no place better to live, but its a shame that average church attendance of a population can be so high yet have a biblical illiteracy rate that is off the chart.

[@kM-ij2ly]

The other translations teach heresies for example John 3:36 in the NASB teaches works. Also if you believe the different conflicting translations are all correct then God must be an author of confusion. Note only the KJV has an only following in the English tongue. All the true revivals have had the KJV as the Bible

[@dalebuchanan5851]

@kM-ij2ly Thank you so much for responding to my comment! We desperately need to be able to talk about this with one another! @markwardonwords can do a better job at answering you than I can, but I will try. 1 - "The other translations teach heresies for example John 3:36 in the NASB teaches works" I can see what the NASB translators were doing when they went with “he who does not obey the Son” rather than “he that believeth not the Son”. The NASB is the most literal translation commonly used today and the Greek word there is Apeithōn which is “to be disobedient” (Definitely more Mark’s area than mine) but the KJV translators were leaning a little more toward “What was John trying to say to those hearing/reading these words” which is what many of the modern translations are doing when they translate it something like “the one who rejects the Son” (CSB) They are trying to get closer to the meaning but still make it easy to understand. The reverse of your argument here is one of the reasons why I am no longer KJV-Only. Did you know the KJV teaches us that we are not to be like Jesus when it comes to showing favoritism? “My brethren, HAVE NOT the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.” Now, as I was preparing to teach this, I knew that could not be what it was saying so I began to study it and realized that modern translations had already done the work if I was just willing to read them. 2 -"Also if you believe the different conflicting translations are all correct then God must be an author of confusion." Differences in languages and general difficulty in understanding one another was ushered in by man’s arrogance and pride at the Tower of Babel. God has been orchestrating ways for His Word to be delivered to the world ever since. From preservation of the manuscripts in various languages throughout history to providing Godly men who spend their entire lives making sure we have His Word in our hands in the most accurate and easy to understand or study version as possible. 3 -"Note only the KJV has an only following in the English tongue." Absolutely beautiful! (Mark has two chapters in his book talking about that very thing). It’s not “Get rid of the KJV” its “Cherish the KJV. Use the KJV. Just realize the benefits and usefulness of good modern translations.” 4 -"All the true revivals have had the KJV as the Bible" Depends on the “Revivals” you are talking about. If you’re talking about revivals like the First Great Awakening (1730s and 1740s) then yes the main text was the KJV but men like Johnathan Edwards would have been experts in all the biblical languages for use in their studies and probably still had access to a Geneva bible and others as well. But what about The Reformation? That was certainly a great revival and it was long before the KJV. Or one could go back to the revival that started them all. It began in an upper room with a few fisherman and God, through the Holy Spirit, made sure that everyone that heard them speak that day heard in their "own native language".

[@genewood9062]

Thank you. 1) I only learned the grammatical rule of "t" and "y" from one of your videos. Just recently. 2) Of course I knew that NT Greek can mix singular and plural verbs with plural and singular subjects or objects. 3) I like fairly literal translations. So I dislike adding in words which are not in the Greek. If only they would put them in italics! 4) In southern U.S. English, they say "y'all", but I do not know if it is a simple plural form of "you", or connotes more than that. In Ottawa Valley English, a few say "youse", and it seems to me like just a basic plural. 5) And now, Woke folk use "they" as a singular, meaning "he/she". Talk about confusion! :--}>

[@MAMoreno]

We have examples of "they" as a singular for many centuries. Even the KJV has a singular "they" in it: "Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves" (Philippians 2.3). "Each" is singular.

[@genewood9062]

@@MAMoreno Greetings: Them is interesting words. In Philippians 2:3, "each" is mistranslated in KJV. The Greek says, "allelous hegoumenoi" [both TR and Nestle]. Both words are PLURAL! A literal translation would be, "youse esteeming one anothers". Verse 2 has been addressing readers as plural, and this sentence continues doing the same in verse 3. Have a great day! :--}>

[@kyleolson1522]

Thank you (singular) for your efforts in identifying the obvious (to many of us) problems that come with adhering to (only) one particular centuries old Bible version. In this world of multiple ever-changing languages, it is imperative that all Christians have a Bible they can read and understand. This is true no matter what country or century they live in. Lord help us to use some common sense and discernment, and stop being so divisive over such issues. Division does not honor God, and is a poor testimony to an unbelieving and lost world. You may have three fans.

[@markwardonwords]

Awesome! Someone else also wanted to be my third fan. I’ve doubled in one day!

[@EricCouture315]

I am shocked that these pastors don't really know the KJV distinctives. And they expect their congregation to know why they should only use it. I shouldn't be so shocked. I taught this multiple times in my KJVO church and 98% of our congregation polled still got it wrong. If they don't use it, they lose it.

[@kM-ij2ly]

Some not all .KJV does not teach works based salavation like the NASB John 3:36 is a clear example

[@EricCouture315]

@kM-ij2ly not in context it doesn't. You cannot take a verse out of its context and then make it say something it's not intended to say. In John 3, John has just finished commanding that they receive the testimony of Christ. In that context you must obey that commandement, to receive the testimony of Christ, in order to be saved. That's true. If you disobey and reject the testimony of Christ, you will not be saved. Acts 17:30 all men are commanded to repent. If you don't obey, you will not be saved. Same as above.

[@kM-ij2ly]

@@EricCouture315 yes it does. It says John 3:36 New American Standard Bible 36 The one who believes in the Son has eternal life; but the one who does not [a]obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” If you do not obey the son you do not see life. If you do not fully obey Jesus you are unsaved. This is demonic doctrines

[@EricCouture315]

​@kM-ij2ly again... what in context does the Son command? You can't treat the verse like a proverb and make it say something it's not saying. You added "fully" that's not in the text or context. You are adding to what is being said in that verse. The command to obey in this context is to receive the testimony of Christ and repent. That's all in John 3. Read the whole chapter. Don't rip verses out of context. You want it to be sing so you are forcing an interpretation no one believes that verse to be teaching. Read any Protestant commentary on that verse and tell me which ones interpret it out of context the way you do. Catholics don't even use the NASB. They reject it.

[@kM-ij2ly]

@@EricCouture315 Salvation. Jesus preached the Gospel in john 3:15 onwards faith alone but in the false bibles Jesus contradicts himself in John 3:36 according to the NASB. Nah stick to the KJV which is consitent and correct

[@sethplace]

Someone call pastor Steven Anderson 😮

[@markwardonwords]

I’m sure they will.

[@frankmckinley1254]

That's why Texans say Y'All. 😁

[@markwardonwords]

Right! That’s true.

[@PreservedText]

Was the verse asked them in the KJV wording. We’re they asked is “ye are blessed” singular or plural, or were they asked “you are blessed”

[@markwardonwords]

The KJV was read to them verbatim.

[@PreservedText]

@@markwardonwords Thanks, it just seemed odd that the grammatical rule wasn’t discerned.

[@markwardonwords]

@@PreservedText I agree!

[@discipleintheword]

This further shows the ignorance of the KJV only camp. It's ironic the version they say is superior or the only accurate translation is one that they themselves don't really know neither interpret correctly in many places. Mark your ministry is so unique fascinating and enlightening, I'm so glad I found your channel. Keep up the great work. God bless!

[@markwardonwords]

These brothers have many gifts, but understanding the niceties of KJV English is not something I expect of anyone who speaks English.

[@kM-ij2ly]

Some not mall. Most KJV pastors know the difference and this generalisations are not of God

[@19king14]

Excellent video! Supplemental scriptures via NWT; The original NWT did have a printed way to distinguish singular “you” and plural “YOU” as demonstrated here (somewhat the same as "LORD" instead of the divine name). This was done in both the Old and New Testaments. The 2013 edition dropped this method, but for those that may have a need to know which one is plural or singular, is original edition is still readily available. In the original edition all cited ‘test’ scriptures had “YOU” to clearly indicate plural. The 2013 edition all have “you” in regular print. Only Luke 22:32 in the 2013 edition has; “Satan has demanded to have all of you to sift you as wheat.” and in Philippians has “keep working out” more in harmony with the Greek tenses but, otherwise, still “you.” In most of those examples, context does explain singular or plural. Since the 2013 edition of the NWT, I have fallen back on the original edition numerous times for more literal understandings on certain topics in my studies and preachings. It is noteworthy, in these past 10 years, I never had the need to fall back on the original edition to check on the singular/plural issue. There simply was no real need to do so.

[@KevC1111]

Why would you use the nwt? It's a corrupted wanna-be version of the Bible. It's what jehovas witnesses use. In case you didn't know, jehovas witnesses aren't Christians. They are lost and deceived.

[@MAMoreno]

@@KevC1111 19king14 is our resident Russellite. 😉 He may be a heretic by Athanasian standards, but he's a polite and well-mannered heretic who follows the channel's rules, so he hasn't found himself in the same ban bin as many of the hostile King James Onlyists who resort to nasty insults rather than coherent arguments. Plus, his comments are useful for anyone who's morbidly curious to see how many times the NWT actually does get it right. 😛

[@AndreaWhoGoesByAndrea]

I know I'm late to this video, but I just have to say... Mark, dude... you're so weird. In the best way! 😂

[@markwardonwords]

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

[@jimyoung9262]

2:40 you went all the way there 😂😂😂

[@markwardonwords]

Yup. ;)

[@randydodd9587]

Regarding the KJV-only stance-which is often bundled with hardline legalism-I highly recommend the novel Wisdom Hunter by Randall Arthur. It seems to be the premiere novel illustrating the destructiveness of the legalistic mindset. It's an international bestseller. Many call it a “classic.” I understand that the author was even fired from his Independent Baptist mission agency because of the novel. I think the book was even banned at Bob Jones University.

[@kM-ij2ly]

Some yes but many free grace churches use KJV but yes legalism is a point although the new translations such as NASB teach works based salvation John 3:36

[@kevinshort2230]

We do have a second person plural you in modern English--Ya'll, You'ins in PA, or you all amidst the "hold a pinky up while drinking your tea" crowd. Interesting thing is, I now hear ya'll occasionally being used for a singular individual, no idea why.

[@curtthegamer934]

The problem is, if you put that in the Bible, it makes it sound like a Western. I've simply suggested translating the plurals as "you all" or "you people."

[@kevinshort2230]

@@curtthegamer934 That was a bit of a joke.

[@markwardonwords]

I love it, Kevin! There's a y'all Bible somewhere online!

[@annagaiser5186]

Simple: "y'all" is singular. "all-y'all" is plural!😉

[@fraukeschmidt8364]

Am I right to assume that these pastors' mother tongue is English? If so, how can these shocking results be right? I blame the schools and the educational systems.

[@markwardonwords]

I don't blame the schools or the educational systems. I blame the impersonal force of language change. I don't expect contemporary English speakers to keep track of all the subtle twists and turns our language has taken.

[@MAMoreno]

Do most American adults need a strong grasp of Elizabethan English to do their jobs? No. Do teenagers need to be able to read the English of Shakespeare's time in order to communicate on social media? Certainly not. So good luck convincing those same teenagers, who already are resistant to learning the English skills they will need in the workforce, to get invested in Early Modern English enough to master it. You've won a small victory if you can get them through a unit of Romeo and Juliet by convincing them that 400-year-old adolescents are relatable.

[@auadisian]

Thank God I speak Arabic. We even have the dual like Hebrew!

[@markwardonwords]

Cool! I started Arabic in Duolingo. Fascinating similarities to Hebrew.

[@auadisian]

واو! الله يقوّيك!

[@josiahdennis2376]

All from KJV-only colleges???

[@markwardonwords]

I may have misspoken in that line. Nearly all were from KJVO colleges.

[@kevinshort2230]

​@markwardonwords That might be an issue, Hyles-Anderson in particular and the KJO IFB in general have general issues with Anti-Intellectualism. That might mean you aren't hitting the best in the movement--of course this would still mean this is an argument against going to a KJO school.

[@bensbab]

This is why the 93% number is so powerful. It’s not just one section or corner of KJVO pastors. This is a systemic problem.

[@Outrider74]

So these same people who will split hairs over the original use of second-person elizabethan pronouns will refuse to change words like "conversation" which have an ENTIRELY different meaning in modern English, despite the serious potential for misunderstanding? Addendum: Mark, I don't know how prevalent it has been with your experience, but a LOT of KJTO people I have met and heard will say that the English is to be subscribed to over the Greek. In other words, they will say (or at least imply) that, since we have the perfect English translation, the Greek is irrelevant. In fact, some will say that going to the Greek is a sign of liberalism (see the comic "Sabotage" by Chick Tracts).

[@markwardonwords]

Yes, this is all too common. =(

[@midimusicforever]

Cope incoming, I expect!

[@flamingrobin5957]

i prefer the king james because it reveals theological terms by which we have developed theology. new versions tend to erase or replace theological growth by confusing terms or obscuring things. "the mystery of the dispensation of Grace" for example reveals the "oikonomos"( lit. house law) or economy of grace which is developed into dispensational theology.. the king james also connects us to historical things such as "dinosaurs" as walking with men and NOT BEING MILLIONS OF YEARS old Leviathan, Behemoth, firey serpent, unicorn (single horn), dragons. DRAGONS THE HISTORICAL TERM has been mythologized because people abandon confidence in ancient words the kjv records. the king jakes also connects us to the developement of standardized english as developed in the great historical dictionaries. Not only did the kjv use historical terms for beasts/ types "dinosaurs" but HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS also record those terms in ancient non biblical writings. the revising of language RUNS THE RISK of making us believe we are smarter than ancient theologians, ancient historians, eye witnesses who were there. the fact that there is so much denominational and personal hatred for theological positions such as dispensationalism this makes bible translating with an agenda to erase language or words to erase the theological system based on that word. "Ephesians 4 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;" translators have personal agenda and personal bias to deconstruct christianity

[@garymoore1567]

I would like for KJV onlyists to explain the following discrepancy in the KJV text. KJV 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads “ Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.” I know that there are some really bad eight year olds, but I don’t think that there are any that you would truly describe as evil. 2 Kings KJV 24:8-9 reads “Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his father had done.” To its credit, the NKJV in its footnote on 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads “Heb. mss., LXX, Syr. eighteen and 2 Kin. 24:8.” Most critical text Bibles (NIV, ESV, NASB, NLT, NET, LEB, CSB, REB) use the Septuagint in 2 Chronicles 36:9, stating that Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and note in footnotes that the Masoretic text states that Jehoiachin was eight years old. So was Jehoiachin eight or eighteen when he began to reign? I think that the Septuagint males more sense in this case than the Masoretic text.

[@MAMoreno]

Three things should be considered when translating this verse: 1. What's the top priority: translating the Masoretic text as it stands (as the NKJV, NRSV, and LSB do here) or reconstructing the most likely original text reading with all the available evidence (as the MEV, NASB 2020 and ESV attempt to do)? 2. Which book is more likely to reflect the original reading (probably Kings, since it's older, but with the caveat that it has well-known transcription errors regarding numbers)? 3. What reasons would the other book have for emending it, assuming that it's not a copyist error (for instance, additional historical records available to the Chronicler)? The fourth consideration that could come up is really only applicable if you presuppose inerrancy when making choices as a translator: "Which option avoids a contradiction?" Normally, I'd say that this approach is bad scholarship, but considering that the KJVO movement often insists that their translation is itself inerrant, there's value in noting when a modern translation is "more inerrant," so to speak.

[@kM-ij2ly]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/q52Th398h7akp5o

[@WgB5]

You like fake martial arts? Please, do not pretend that you defeated some foe. I think Friar Rose has "flipped" you out the room. Read his perspective on Bible translation. But I have a question. Are word "rules" always exactly the same? Never an exemption? By the way. I like the KJV, the MEV, the SKJV, and even the LSB- but do I understand every statement in all of these versions? Heck no.

[@markwardonwords]

I'm glad you enjoy those translations! Keep reading them, friend!

[@kM-ij2ly]

Yes definitely most of them do. Next

[@markwardonwords]

I agree. But watch the video.

[@codymeredith8953]

You as in all Of you can read other bibles. The KJV Is there for us that want to use it. Read the NKJV.

[@Pilgrim-funj]

What an interesting "ministry" you have. Why you feel the need to attempt to kill people's faith in the bible they believe is the word of God because their conviction hurts your feelings is beyond me. I'd suggest you get to work winning people for Christ and quit wasting your time doing something for which God almighty will judge you harshly.

[@bensbab]

From someone who has been helped greatly by mark’s ministry, I fear you misunderstand his goals and intentions. Condemning his work is unwise and, if I may, a tad hypocritical. To take the time to condemn his work instead of focusing your own time reaching the lost goes against your own words. Mark and his ministry are not your enemies, friend.

[@Pilgrim-funj]

@@bensbab anybody that seeks to go against THE book is acting like an enemy. He has no authority on this earth higher than his own opinions and preferences. He has chose to fight against soul winning bible believing baptists and he chose the wrong enemy. I feel sorry for him. As a matter of fact, I feel sorry for anybody that chooses to go against THE text of the English protestant reformation and stand with the textual variants agreeing with the Douay Rheims and official Catholic Bible, NAB. That's guilt by association friend. Get on the right side of history. Have a good one.

[@kirbysmith4135]

He is trying to win people to Jesus by helping them understand what they are reading about him.

[@jamest4659]

I am sorry you (singular) are offended. I enjoy Mark Ward.

[@jasonlamphier]

Absolutely right, I agree with you @pilgrim-funj

[@stelthtrekker9445]

Why is there so much hatred for the KJV?

[@natefremont]

I constantly wonder why there is so much trolling on Mark's channel.

[@markwardonwords]

I love the KJV. I'm reading through it yet again this year. I hate the false and divisive doctrines of KJV-Onlyism. I stand with the KJV translators against KJV-Onlyism.

[@vixenrevitup]

The question you should be asking is why is there so much idolatry of the KJV? Because that is simply what it boils down to (and I would know, because I recently left a KJV-Only church that I was a member of for around 20 years). They idolized that version alone, demonizing even the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts simply for not being the “originals” written under the command of the Holy Spirit. Well, the same could be said for any KJV published after 1666, because the Great Fire of London destroyed ALL the English working papers and many of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that formed the KJV. Since the “original” KJV working papers no longer exist, no KJV revisions should have been allowed, per their own arguments. Granted, my old church is grotesquely Ruckmanite, so many of their doctrines originated from his crazy ideas. I do not know if all KJV-Only churches embrace Ruckmanism or not, but many of them do… There would be no intense so-called “hatred” for the KJV if there was not so much idolatry building it up first.

[@kellydunn7113]

@@vixenrevitup I will not discuss translations with kjvo people. 100% of my experience with them has been negative. un-Christlike, mean spirited, Name calling, questioning my salvation -- I could easily go on about all of the terrible experiences I have had. As I said EVERY conversation has been like this.

[@vixenrevitup]

@@kellydunn7113 I agree. My own brother had the gall to tell me straight to my face that the NASB and NASV were 2 completely different Bible versions! Why? Because he came over to my apartment (shortly after I decided to read/study using a 1977 NASB) with some Ruckman-produced worksheet, gave me verse after verse to “prove” my NASB was not capitalizing certain words, or was adding/omitting words, or was using supposedly inferior synonyms. Every verse he told me to turn to, the worksheet was proven incorrect, and my Strong’s Concordance could easily prove every synonym argument as incorrect. All he could do when he finished his diatribe was to lie and say the 1977 NASB in my hands and the NASV being argued as inferior are two separate versions. Then why did you come over to my apartment, brother, knowing I was reading an NASB, and use NASV arguments to prove your point? You wasted your time arguing with me! How can you profess to be a Christian, bear false witness (which is a transgression of God’s Law), then tell me my salvation is now in danger because I chose to read from the NASB? I love my brother very much, but his actions were incredibly heretical and anti-Christ. I pray he repents, same with all other KJV-Onlyists. Just the fact that they use Cabalistic Numerology to “prove” the divinity of their precious version is against God’s command to us to never practice divination. Numerology and Gematria are divination, and therefore are sinful to practice. Even though Revelation reveals the Mark of the Beast using Numerology, practicing Numerology in everyday life is still a sin. If you need Numerology to make your Bible “inerrant,” you are a heretic. Ruckman wrote a book on Numerology and supported it, therefore my brother is more than willing to use it in his everyday life. It saddens me so much. I praise the Lord for giving me discernment and guiding me to the Biblical truth on this doctrine, KJV-Onlyism, and many more false doctrines my church has deluded its followers into believing… I believe you 100% that your experience with KJV-onlyists has been negative! And I understand why you do not bother to debate them! They are dishonest, especially if their argument material comes from Ruckman. I remember watching his sermon about the Leviathan, and almost every verse he quoted from the NASB was purposely mistranslated! He knew his Pavlovian followers were not going to check each verse out themselves; they would just hear his voice and believe! So strong is the delusion that when I told my sister that she could literally borrow my NASB and look up pretty much every verse and see this dishonesty for herself, she said I was a liar and refused my offer! Scripture tells us we are to “test the spirits!” Yet my sister refused to test this spirit when given an open invitation to do so! Such a damnable shame…

[@williamrobertson3643]

What the people need is more education not a different Bible

[@markwardonwords]

Please interact with the arguments made in the video. Friend, you didn't listen.

[@williamrobertson3643]

I listen to the whole video

[@MAMoreno]

And the Judaizers thought that the Gentile converts needed more Judaism. These barriers to the faith are needless at best and spiritually harmful at worst. There's nothing wrong with having a translation that people can read and understand without needing to be fluent in Elizabethan English.

[@johnbreitmeier3268]

Here is the real aikido flip: The King James grammar rule you repeatedly gave is totally WRONG. Neither you nor the KJV only crowd really know King James' grammar rules. Thee and thine ARE unambiguously singular BUT "you" is STILL ambiguous in KJ English. " You" could be EITHER singular or plural. Thee or thine is 2nd person singular FAMILIAR (or informal). You or your can be EITHER 2nd person plural (both familiar or informal) OR 2nd person singular FORMAL! I know this both from an old John Wayne movie, the Angel and the Badman, that gave the Duke a Quaker girl friend AND my high school German (English is part German). Du or dine are 2nd person familiar used only with family, close friends and lovers. Sie and Sein are used, both singular and plural, with everyone else. Maybe that is the bodyslam you were saving BUT never bury the lead. It is tacky too do so. BTW, neither singular nor plural made any substanitial difference in understanding ANY of the 10 verses you used for your survey. Thee is a pompous ass. Or as we would say in German, Du bist ein Esel.

[@MAMoreno]

The use of "thou" for singular pronouns and "you" for plural pronouns is standardized in the early Tyndale translations, including the KJV (and remained so as late as the ASV of 1901). The flexibility of this rule outside of a translated text doesn't apply.

[@markwardonwords]

Right. M.A., I read somewhere that Blayney regularized this, catching just a few inconsistencies. Can’t recover that at the moment. May have been in Norton.

[@tedroybal5231]

First, it is no surprise that the majority of people in the 21st century cannot read 16th or 17th century English. Please note that ESV does not consistently translate these pronouns, Luke 22:31 for example.

[@MAMoreno]

The ESV uses modern second person pronouns consistently. It does identify the singular/plural distinction in a footnote here.

[@markwardonwords]

✔

[@Marchtozion]

Imagine devoting your entire ministry to discrediting the most impactful Bible translation in human history. Way to go, Mark. Hours and hours spent on this project...and who knows how much money. Yeah, I know ravenous KJVO Ruckmanites can be annoying, but I am sure God is more pleased with the humble preachers out there using a KJV to feed folks than He is with the wannabe guru, imitation lingual scholars who make a living peddling this vain jangling.

[@markwardonwords]

My friend, I just want people to have the Bible in their own language. If there were a Wycliffe-only movement, how would you argue against it? It is absolutely not a discrediting of Wycliffe’s Bible translation work to say that that work is no longer suitable for contemporary English speakers. That’s all I’m saying regarding the KJV. It is no longer fully intelligible, because language changes over time. This is not a criticism of the KJV or of its translators. It is actually a continuation of their work: the first many paragraphs of their beautiful preface are an extended defense of the need for Bible translation revision.

[@MAMoreno]

*Imagine devoting your entire ministry to discrediting the most impactful Bible translation in human history.* Wait: are you talking about the Septuagint or the Vulgate here? (Or are you going to throw me a curveball and say the Peshitta?) The world existed long before 1611, and so did the Bible.

[@Marchtozion]

@@MAMoreno The LXX is full of poorly translated passages (I consult it often) and Jews had access to, and the lingual ability to understand, the Hebrew scriptures. The vulgate was not accessible to the common man for hundreds of years. You can act the critic and play games all day but if you google "most impactful Bible translation in history" you'll even find articles by secularists about the impact of the KJV in human history. If you need to ask Mark or James White if that opinion is permitted, go ahead, but it's just the fact of the matter. Even the History Channel says it, for crying out loud.

[@MAMoreno]

@@Marchtozion *Even the History Channel says it, for crying out loud.* Does it also say that the KJV was written by ancient aliens? I wouldn't put it past them at this point.

[@deeman524]

so out of a million videos against the KJV , I guess we all should make toilet tissue out of our KJVs Ha Ha Ha , but you and these alleged pastors really should check out the KJVER, because it also is THE KJV, if of course Mark doesn't hate the TR

[@MAMoreno]

Mark has a video talking about his favorite editions of the KJV, so he obviously doesn't think it should be used as toilet paper. As far as I know, he has no major complaints with the KJVER.