Five False Friends Starting with "D"!

[@EricCouture315]

Making a difference: I decline to answer this one because I know I already know it because i, too, taught and preached that verse wrong for years. i thought I was making a difference but instead I should have been making a distinction. 😅

[@wardonwords]

Yes!

[@sbs8331]

The NKJV did.well with Jude 22 by making an ever so slight change that enhances accuracy while retaining the rhythm and cadence of its predecessor by correcting "making a difference" to "making a distinction". The MEV has the slightly clearer "using discernment".

[@Elevator2TheTop]

Thanks!

[@wardonwords]

Thank you so much!

[@joshpetit8298]

"Discover his father's skirt." This one is obvious, you're not supposed to go to that one drawer in your father's wardrobe where he keeps his ballet gear. Any sensible man understands this ofc.

[@JoWilliams-ud4eu]

It's obvious

[@Yesica1993]

HA!

[@gregb6469]

It's not just the English language that has changed over the centuries; so have clothing styles.

[@olddog173]

Mark Ward ! OK, I get it why you work so hard on helping others understand false friends, this video has helped me tremendously ! Though I disagree with you about the usefulness of a few postmodern bibles, your work & explanations of false friends is OUTSTANDING! Thank you , Sir ... I feel as though I'm rediscovering my KJV all over again. 👍👍👍

[@wardonwords]

That's awesome! This is the kind of response I hoped for decided KJV users!

[@DrGero15]

Which Bibles do you think are postmodern? Do you have a cutoff date?

[@olddog173]

@DrGero15 drive.google.com/file/d/1A6mbQblQ7CqXVwz8G0eKot4add9e7WKr/view?usp=drivesdk

[@debras3806]

Yes, and what about them makes them postmodern?

[@procop4063]

Im with you all the way brother. I use the NKJV ad my main bible and the NIV NASB 95 and KJV.

[@sbs8331]

The NKJV retains the rhythm and cadence of its predecessor by correcting "making a difference" to "making a distinction". The MEV rendering might be even better, "using discernment". Great video.

[@henrymalinowski5125]

So Discover in the KJV is like how “Discovery” is phase of a legal proceedings.

[@Gr3gar10us]

Ah, so Columbus didn’t “discover” America but he uncovered it (as far as the Spanish were concerned).

[@EricCouture315]

Debates: I've often heard this as a prohibition of debating in the modern sense. If such were the case then every KJVO debate has been sinful. But i think this is more akin to quarreling: angry unfettered arguing that divides those who were otherwise be unified. I was just looking up the word quarreling today so it's fresh on my mind.

[@wardonwords]

Right!

[@waynebean1521]

That was beautiful, Mark! I'm a faithful but reticent listener. I love the KJV but have realized that I have to put some work into reading it properly. I'm in the middle of an approach that I've never heard anyone mention...the immense amount of work done by stationers and printers (who were often translators like Caxton) in the era before, even, the Great Bible, to standardize English for "most" plowboys. One of the problems was the different DIALECTS of English at the time. I can't write an essay, here...I'll make a point by repeating a joke. My wife is Scottish. We're in our early 70's. When she was growing up, speaking Doric Scots was beaten out of kids and called "slang" so, she isn't a Scots speaker. However, we were folk musicians and acquired friends in Scotland who were speakers of Scots. Our friend, Jack, commonly uses the word "besom". Anyway, Jack made fun of Scots speakers in Northern Scotland: An owner of an estate had hired a local but wonderful male cook who thrilled him with a stew. The estate owner asked I'm what was "in" it. "I put tatties intil't, and neeps intil't...and... Estate owner: Whats intil't?" Cook: (exasperated) "I put tatties intil't, and neeps intil't......!!!!!! Go back to the 14th Century and read Richard Rolle...the word for "to" in Northern Middle English was "til". (BTW, Richard Rolle's writings had to be TRANSLATED into Southern English Dialect) Anyway, it's worth studying the Primers printed in the reign of Henry VIII...these are "protestant". Henry outlawed the reading of the Bible for people of the social rank of yeoman or below but, prayerbooks were exempted. This made a good many psalms freely available as well as scriptural excerpts. These people producing primers liberally "stole" from one another. Bishop John Hilsley of Rochester corrected Coverdale's "Northernisms" and was using George Joy's English translation of Martin Bucer's Latin translation of the Psalms from Hebrew. (Coverdale hadn't edited the Great Bible yet but you can bet your boots he paid attention to Hilsley). Dialect...I never hear it brought up. The KJV Translators stole from a "cloud of witnesses" and someone has to produce a pie-graph from Wycliffe through the Bishop's Bible to document the "inspiration".

[@wardonwords]

English is so amazing! Yes!

[@waynebean1521]

@markwardonwords , Yes! I live with it every day. My nephew lives in Runcorn, near Liverpool, and speaks Scouse (a relatively recent dialect). He writes, phonetically in Scouse. I love it and encourage it. I'm back in the saddle now, reading Middle English (which was equally phonetic). Sadly, there hasn't been as much academic attention paid to the dialects of Northern England as has been paid to Southern recensions of English manuscripts or Scottish manuscripts. A lot of important vernacular writing came from there (e.g. Rolle) as well as the implications of our grammar. A good but tedious read is Jay Gilbert's "Dilaect Variation in Northern Middle English". It focuses on "The Pricke of Conscience" which was a best seller in manuscript and print before the Reformation and is quite informative. I have a winter's worth of work ahead of me! God bless!

[@JoWilliams-ud4eu]

3:31 This debate one was fun to hear. It reminded me of my late brother, who was KJVO. He would always bring this verse up when I was trying to debate someone, which was quite often, and I still enjoy doing it. Then, I would debate the verse with him just to make him upset. It was a good time.

[@wardonwords]

Oh no! Sigh!

[@dustinburlet7249]

Love it - this is fantastic stuff Mark - I always learn something new when I listen to you including (no surprise) how to guard people's dignity and help save people's pride - well done 🙂

[@wardonwords]

A good way to put it, brother! Maybe they'll return the favor the next time they spot us making an error!

[@annakimborahpa]

Dr. Ward at 4:47 - 5:19: "And speaking of devotions, our third 'false friend' starting with 'D' is Devotions. This word occurs just once in the King James in Acts 17:23. Paul says to the Athenians, 'For as I passed by and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD, whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, Him I declare unto you.' What are devotions? Would you pause the video and make another comment, please? Tell me, when Paul saw the Athenians devotions, what do you think he saw? Thank you for doing that." Response: All right, Dr. Ward, you asked. 1. Paul saw pagan statues, but considered the 'unknown God' statue as one by which he could evangelize the Athenians. The results were mixed, but Paul did gain some new Christian converts: Acts 17: 32-34 (KJV): And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, "We will hear thee again of this matter." So Paul departed from among them. Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them. 2. However, since the word 'devotions' was used just once in the King James Bible, I'm convinced in this context that it was intended in a derogatory sense referring to what the KJV translators considered as idols. 3. As Dr. Ward later indicates, the word 'devotions' is understood in contemporary English in a positive sense in relationship to God. 4. Prior to the English Reformation, the word 'devotions' was also understood in a positive sense in relationship to God. 5. Consider the 13th century Latin hymn Adoro Te Devote composed by Thomas Aquinas containing the word 'devote' from which the word 'devotions' is derived. According to wikipedia org /wiki/Adoro_te_devote with references to Murray, Paul (2013). Aquinas at Prayer: The Bible, Mysticism, and Poetry. London: Bloomsbury. pp. 240-241. ISBN 9781441107558.: A. Latin: Adoro te devote, latens deitas, Quæ sub his figuris vere latitas; - translation - English: I devoutly adore you, hidden deity, Who are truly hidden beneath these appearances. B. "... it was not written for a liturgical function and appears in no liturgical texts of the period ..." C. "Thomas seems to have used it also as a private prayer, in daily adoration of the Blessed Sacrament." 6. Notice that "devoutly" is an adverb describing the verb "adore." In a nutshell, we see the subjectivity of the former and the objectivity of the latter that played itself out the medieval church. Devotions became characterized as private reverences and adoration became characterized as the public worship of God in the assembly. 7. It was this practice of private devotions apart from public worship that the KJV translators were aiming at when describing the objects of pagan worship as devotions in Acts 17:23. 8. The lengths that the iconoclasts including John Calvin and Thomas Cranmer went to in the 16th century Protestant Reformation and beyond, in order to stamp out devotions to what heretofore had been considered sacred objects of worship or veneration in the medieval church, requires a greater elucidation and can be provided upon request. 9. And if the King James Bible was good enough for St. Luke and St. Paul ...

[@natefremont]

Making a difference made my jaw drop. Amazing. Thank you.

[@wardonwords]

Yeah, that’s a good one!

[@BlessedLaymanNC]

I was good on discover, but you got me on debates and disputes. Devotion was iffy, I did pick up that it was a variety of gods they were worshiping, but I associated it with the different worships, one for each god. You clearly got me on difference. Thank you

[@miketisdell5138]

Skirt is also essentially a false friend in Deut. 22:30 (23:1 Hebrew) i.e. we think of clothing but it would refer to the edge of a blanket or sheet on a bed and while not quite common it is still used to day when we talk about "the skirt of the bed."

[@captainnolan5062]

THe HCSB translates that verse as "A man is not to marry his father's wife; he must not violate his father's marriage bed." The translator's note is: Lit not uncover the edge of his father's garment.

[@miketisdell5138]

@@captainnolan5062 The HCSB got the translation right but their explanation is a little off. The word doesn't literally mean "garment," it literally means "wing" (as in a bird's wing), and idiomatically is used to refer to the edge of something material (blanket, garment, etc...). Here (and in Ruth), it would refer to a blanket.

[@jonathanrector]

Hey, Mark. Will you ever (apologies if you already have) make a video talking about why you prefer the critical text over the other? I'm curious, I love the way you break down your thoughts and it's all great stuff. Thanks so much.

[@wardonwords]

Boy, I don't know. Maybe! Maybe in 2025. I'd point you to this book: www.amazon.com/dp/1433564092?tag=3755-20

[@kienanmaxfield6288]

I didn’t comment on Discover… I’m so familiar with the passages in question from other translations that I just knew what it was talking about… I don’t know what I would think otherwise

[@wardonwords]

Right. I know how that is!

[@candicepierce5726]

Still amazes me so many still hold to the attitude that the KJV is the one and only translation one should use. I think you’ve well proven over and over this is a false idea.

[@cwilson0713]

Thank you for your determination and massive effort !!! Bravo Sir!

[@wardonwords]

Many thanks!

[@robpettifer1586]

Hi Mark, thanks for another great video. Apologies if you have already covered this on the channel (i have had a look but can't see anything) but I have what I think is a false friend in the kjv that I am curious about. The word is confusion. You could say confusion is causing confusion! I have noticed in Daniel 9:7-8 that we see the term 'Confusion of face', which means to be ashamed or shame of face. Now we just don't use that term anymore when talking about shame. For instance, I would never say 'confusion on you! Now, the reason I noticed this in Daniel is because of the phrase 'confusion of face', and because of this, it highlighted that something wasn't right here. However, confusion also appears elsewhere (on its own), for example in Jeremiah 3:25 and Isaiah 61:7 (translating a different hebrew word but with a similar meaning) and none of those instances carry the meaning of confusion as we use it today, as that of lack of understanding or bewilderment. I was wondering if you had come across this? Thanks again. Rob

[@wardonwords]

I think you got one. The word used to be able to carry a sense of "shaming." This is going on my list. Thank you!

[@sillyrabbi64]

This video will certainly make a difference in how I debate with the KJVO folks who I discover disputing on how to do devotions. 😃😃😮🥴

[@wardonwords]

Yes!!

[@socksthemusicalcat]

I'm going to guess that 'discover' is synonymous with 'uncover.'

[@PaulKruse-dd2xw]

I think a word to replace 'discover' in modern English or to translate the Hebrew would be 'uncover.'

[@captainnolan5062]

Your jokingly asked question "What giveth?" contains a false friend. Merriam-Webster's online: "What does the phrase "what gives" mean? informal. used to ask the reason for something." I imagine the OED would say something like "giveth" is the archaic third-person singular form of the verb "give" in Middle English. This is another good example of language change since 1611.

[@BipolarDistortion]

I'd add Steven Anderson as a KJVO pastor that needs to be rebuked sharply. For a MYRIAD number of reasons.

[@EricCouture315]

Idk why my discovering skirt one didn't post but: i suggested it was probably something like seeing his underwear while he's wearing it, not like finding it in the hamper.

[@CC-iu7sq]

Going out on a limb here, but I also argue “Modest” is a false friend, and is also present in most modern bibles. But it’s modern use with regard to clothing, it’s meant as non-revealing, non-fitting, with an emphasis on looseness and simplicity and absolutely non-provocative. This is a mostly modern concept of what it means to dress “modestly”. Simply put, that’s not what it meant in 1611, nor was it what the KJV translators meant in 1 Tim 2:9. “Modest” has most notably changed meaning over the last 75 years or so. Which is why many modern bibles also use it, because it’s such a modern concept for modesty to mean what the Mennonite, IFB, or the strictest of Apostolic and Nazarene congregations make it mean. Which is essentially anti-pants. Just a thought. Maybe there’s not enough evidence for Mark to officially add it to the FF list. But in my opinion, it’s up there.

[@umarae27]

I eagerly admit that i never ever understood why clarifying is considered arguing. (Between adults).

[@bpetersguitar]

False friends make a difference! Thanks Mark :)

[@wardonwords]

Absolutely! 😂

[@Gr3gar10us]

NKJV gets these right, though KJV-only adherents likely won’t appreciate it.

[@wardonwords]

Agreed on both counts.

[@BrendaBoykin-qz5dj]

WT HECK!!! Sounds like I'd be arrested for "discovering" my father's skirt. I'm experiencing anxiety,Brother Mark. NOW GIMME DAT ANSWER, MATE!!!😵‍💫🥴😵‍💫

[@kienanmaxfield6288]

Make a difference… I would have taken it exactly how he preached it…

[@wardonwords]

Me too.

[@MAMoreno]

And, to be fair, he actually made a positive point with the verse (even if he missed its actual point in the process), so he's at least ahead of those who lead people into falsehood with their misunderstanding of the KJV.

[@FollowerOfTheChrist1]

Hey Mark, I know your done with KJ-Onlyism by now, but I can't find out how to debunk this one thing at ALL. This one simple verse has basically stumped me and allowed the KJ-Onlyists to "prove" to my Bible study that the NIV is false. Its Micah 5:2 They claim that the NIVs use of "origins" claims Jesus is a creature. Which proves the NIV is false. I, like you, believe that there are many benefits to having so many easily understandable translations. But if I can't find a way to debate this specific verse, I dont know how I'll stop them from continuing to tell the kids KJV is the only way... I have been searching everywhere, I really hope you'll read and answer my message Mark🙏

[@MAMoreno]

Here is what the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges says about this verse: The meaning of the word rendered ‘goings forth’ is doubtful. If we keep this translation, we must explain it of the revelations of Jehovah to the early Israelites and to the patriarchs. In Isaiah 9.6 one part of the great compound name of the Messiah is ‘God the Mighty One’ (or, Hero), from which we may infer that the Messiah is the permanently visible manifestation of the delivering or punishing, or, in a word, world-governing aspect of the Deity. So too in Isaiah 63.9 we are told that in ‘the days of old’ (the same phrase which is here rendered ‘everlasting’) Jehovah, or the Angel which represented Him, sympathized with the trouble of His people, and delivered them; and in Micah 5.15 of the same chapter that the attributes of Jehovah, regarded under this aspect, are ‘jealousy’ and ‘heroism’ (Auth. Vers., loosely, ‘zeal’ and ‘strength’). We can hardly be wrong in inferring that in all these passages one and the same essential aspect of Jehovah is meant, and that the Messiah may be said, in harmony with prophetic teaching, to have been revealed at intervals from the patriarchal history onwards. In favour of this translation, it may be observed that it produces a striking antithesis between the former and the latter half of the verse; ‘he shall come forth’ being a part of the same verb from which the word rendered ‘goings forth’ is derived. But it is also permissible to render this word ‘origins,’ and to explain the plural as that of ‘excellence’ or extent, just as we find ‘dominions’ for ‘dominion’ in Psalm 114.2 (literally rendered), and ‘habitations’ for ‘habitation’ in Isaiah 54.2. The passage will then become a statement either of the pre-existence of the Messiah in the eternal purposes of God (comp. Isaiah 22.11; Isaiah 37.26); or, which is more obvious and perfectly suitable to the context, of his descent from the ancient Davidic family-comp. Amos 9.11, where ‘the days of old’ evidently refer to the reign of David. (David was already three centuries behind Micah.) In the latter case, we ought to render the passage before us, Whose origin hath been from aforetime, from the days of old. There is, in fact, properly speaking, no word in Hebrew exactly answering to ‘everlasting.’ See also Micah 7.14; Micah 7.20, where Auth. Vers. rightly has, ‘the days of old.’

[@FollowerOfTheChrist1]

Thanks a lot MaMoreno

[@kienanmaxfield6288]

Devotions, I wouldn’t think it was a time set apart for God (the modern sense) but rather just commenting on their loyalty, devotion, spiritualness or something like that…

[@wardonwords]

Good guess! What do you think now that you’ve watched the video?

[@kienanmaxfield6288]

So interesting… I love learning these old words!

[@webman̈1999]

Did I hear right? : #92 of your list of 50 false friends? That's OK. Your videos are always interesting and enlightening. Thank you for another great video!

[@wardonwords]

Yup! I'm hoping to reach 100 on Dec 31!

[@procop4063]

It is not wrong to have a reasoned debate.

[@820krx7]

Devotions, an object of worship. I guessed it because I use a "devotional" so... close. Also discover. Dis cover. Like discard, disrobe, etc. Neat. Love this stuff.

[@wardonwords]

You genuinely knew "devotions"? Cool! How!?

[@820krx7]

​@@wardonwords I am a Latin/Greek geek who loves this kinda stuff. And you prompted me to know it was a false friend. Its also possible devotion as a noun, as a physical object of worship, was used in a translation of Herodotus or some other classics book. Which was my major. So very possible I already "knew" it in the back from my Classics BA from 20 years ago. But again, you tagged it as a false friend, and so I knew it wasnt to be taken at face value. Which i wouldve done to all 5 of these examples.

[@stephenmoore2754]

I WAS a KJV onliest, partly because I love the sound of the language, HOWEVER, the important thing was the TR which seems to be less of a problem than I thought. In French, the faux amis (literally false friend) was made clear during my studies although my instructor called it a deceptive cognate (sounds cool) which is less apparent meaning than a “false friend”. After my long winded intro, can you point me out to the translation which makes the meaning of the ancient language more apparent. I know you have done many videos on translations and I would like to review your “best” choice. Thanks very much for your work in this area. I was aware of some of the false friends, but I didn’t realize that there were so many. Great information!

[@richardvoogd705]

Speaking of faux amis, it was my French teacher who first brought the idea of false friends to my attention in 1974.

[@wardonwords]

I'm not sure I follow your question, Stephen! Could you try once more? You want a TR-based English translation that is more intelligible than the KJV?

[@stephenmoore2754]

@@wardonwordsNo. It does not have to be a TR version. You might point me toward your video explaining which translation best allows one to understand the meaning of the original languages.

[@wardonwords]

@@stephenmoore2754 Ah, sure thing! Here you go: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nXfWgqltj5mdn9U

[@stephenmoore2754]

@@wardonwordsThank-You!

[@captainnolan5062]

You can divine the definition of "divers" by adding an "e" to the end of the word, i.e. "diverse."

[@richardvoogd705]

Divers creates an image in my mind of people indulging in diverse water based activities. 😊

[@michealferrell1677]

So it is clear that he misunderstood that passage because he was tripped up by the word

[@wardonwords]

I think so.

[@kienanmaxfield6288]

Debate… I wouldn’t know this one… I’d probably guess that he meant some kind of anger filled debate… argue… but it’s obvious that many such as Paul do engage in cool headed debate and we’re encouraged to do so!

[@wardonwords]

Right, in a way context demands that the word be a little more intense.

[@theydontknowmeson007]

Some of my thoughts (in rant from) For anyone who came here from reading JDH's "response" to this, as an ex IFB/Ruckmanite (Ruckmanites are their own internal circle of the IFB circle.. you also have Hylesites and the likes) I can confirm, Mark has already graciously answered the objections presented by the different crowds. Mark's big question is "Why did I misunderstand these words back then?" is a valid question. As he has echoed time and time again, words change meanings. Just because KJVonlyiests chose to ignore this fact doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anyone who has lived longer than 30 years has seen language change in their lifetime. Some 80's phrases rarely used today include: "totally tubular," "grody to the max," "buggin'," "psych!," "barf out," "wastoid," "scoshe," "no doy," "maxin' and relaxin'," "eat my shorts," "tight," "neato," "o-rama," "take a red," "bag your face," and "wicked". If you tell a kid today most of those words/phrases they may make sense of some, but for the most part, they will just give you a confused look. I was born in 1985 and I don't even recognize all the phrases above. This is an incredibly micro version of Dr. Ward's examples. When I was in the KJVO movement I was given a LIST of reasons why I "didn't understand my bible". Some recommended me get an 1828 dictionary, others told me all I needed was prayer and consistent reading. I believe Bro. Ward continues to ask people why he "didn't understand" the dead words and false friends is being he has been given similar treatment. What does it come down to? Consistency. Some (including myself) see the KJV in many spots as a totally different language. After 15 years, much of it was total jibberish. After reading the NLT I can see that now. Example: I used to read the book of James and was constantly under the impression I could lose my salvation. I've heard it explained "well that is to the jews so" but I could never totally buy that excuse. One time reading through with the NLT and I realized, it's not talking about your salvation being "dead... and no longer valid" it's actually saying "You're saved? Ok, so what? That's the easy part... where are your works? what has getting saved led you to do? What fruit has it yielded". That wasn't a lack of "spiritual discernment" but an inability of my brain to comprehend 400+ year-old English. Dr. Ward, I hope I don't come across and putting words in your mouth, but you asking "why didn't I understand it.." comes across to me as a thought exercise for them. To make them realize.. no amount of prayer, spiritual discernment, fasting, or bible reading on it's own will improve literacy. It's not a spiritual problem; it's a literacy one. Beating someone over the head with "you're just not right with God" is actually spiritual/emotional abuse and causes great harm. *deep breath

[@wardonwords]

Your last sentence is right. This never occurred to me until someone told me that he was told in KJV-Onlyism that he would understand the KJV if he was saved and had the Spirit-he struggled to understand KJV English, so he wondered if maybe he was not saved and didn't have the Spirit. It's terribly, terribly sad.

[@theydontknowmeson007]

@@wardonwords Sorry if I misrepresented you. It was never my intention.

[@theydontknowmeson007]

@@wardonwords side comment. It's very difficult to take someone seriously when actually make the claim that the dictionary can somehow contradict the bible. At that point, it's almost as if they are deciding what words mean and then there they decide what the bible says.

[@theydontknowmeson007]

@@wardonwords I actually often remember sitting in church filled with anxiety because I thought I was saved but had no idea what I was reading, often relying on commentaries and preachers to tell me what the bible was saying. It wasn't until thinking about a totally different topic that the wires connected and I thought "How catholic of me to rely on a pastor (priest/church) to tell me what the bible says." The realization makes more sense when you know I'm a former catholic and I was sold on the IFB KJVO route on the idea that "you don't need a priest to tell you what the bible says... you can just read it for yourself".

[@wardonwords]

@@theydontknowmeson007 You didn't misrepresent me that I can see! No worries. Yes, I'm with you in these other comments. It is bizarre and sad to me to see KJV-Onlyists insisting that dictionaries are wrong and yet showing no evidence that they understand how dictionaries are put together and no evidence for why they are right and the dictionaries wrong.

[@EricCouture315]

Disputing daily: this is what I would take as the modern sense of debate: Formal discussions, particularly with an audience.

[@wardonwords]

Yeah, it just hits the wrong note in modern English, doesn't it.

[@EricCouture315]

@@wardonwords it seems to have the opposite TONE intended in the 1611 vs modern English.

[@therealkillerb7643]

Ooh - cool correct pronunciation of the word "err." +20 points for being classy! :-) Edit; serious question; if words and phrases can change over time, how about pronunciations? IOW, I would guess 90% of people in my experience mispronounce this word - when does their pronunciation define the new norm?

[@captainnolan5062]

From the internet" “To err is human, to forgive divine” is a quote from Alexander Pope's poem An Essay on Criticism. It's often used to discuss the importance of forgiveness and the idea that people should be merciful. The quote has biblical roots, and is based on Ephesians 4:32, which says, “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you”. The quote can be used to reflect the idea that people are acting in a Godlike way when they forgive.

[@therealkillerb7643]

@@captainnolan5062 While I appreciate you providing the etiology of the phrase, how does this actually answer my question about the proper pronunciation of "err?"

[@captainnolan5062]

@@therealkillerb7643 You already awarded 20 classiness points, which is as much as is allowed under the circumstances; thus no further comment was necessary.

[@kienanmaxfield6288]

Disputing… well, I think the word reasoning rings in my mind, but only because I hear in my mind all the places where it says that he was reasoning daily in the synagogue. Otherwise, I would have guessed something similar to debating or arguing…

[@kienanmaxfield6288]

This is disputable… I love it

[@wardonwords]

✔

[@cloudx4541]

Glad to see I already knew these.

[@wardonwords]

Every one? Awesome!

[@BiblebelievingChristian1270]

Hi brother Mark, i wanted to know if there's a way i can reach you. I need to show you something i need help with.?? Let me know brother 🙏

[@wardonwords]

forwarddesigner.net/contact

[@MM-jf1me]

88. Discover: uncover? I think you may've touched on this one in another of your videos, if you haven't covered it before. Perhaps you used it as an example when explaining another word beginning with dis-. Edit after listening to your explanation: "Reveal" is way easier to parse in most of these examples. I didn't know that "discover" could also mean "see" -- puts a new spin on some discoveries, e.g., "they -discovered- saw a new way to...." 90. Devotions: offerings, such as votive candles? Is it more specifically pledged offerings? (What with the recent elections, I looked up the etymology of "vote" a few weeks ago, meaning vow/pledge/promise, otherwise I wouldn't guess that much.) If I'm wrong, I'm sure that my suppositions are how established words gain new meanings: misunderstandings based on context that make just enough sense to muddle the waters. Wait. Are votive candles a type of offering with a prayer, or are they just an outward symbol of a promise/prayer being made? They're not a part of my religious tradition, so I should probably look them up before making more assumptions.

[@wardonwords]

Great thoughts! What do you think now that you've seen the whole video?

[@TgWags69]

The suffix ence and ance are interesting, in that, they are noun suffixes for verb words. I.e. to differ, to remember....difference, rememberance. What this does is take a word from verb world (action) and bring it over and infuse it with noun world (person, place or thing.) I'm a geek and like to think of this in terms of the superman story where he comes from krypton, where he's normal, to earth, where he gets infused with his extra qualities and strength. Likewise a verb becoming a noun is not only action but gets infused with the qualities of the person place and/or thing. Take rememberance for example when applied to the Lord's supper. We do not merely remember that he died. We recall the person of Jesus, who was one with the Father, who created the world, who gave up his place in heaven and condescended into the creation to be found as a man who (borrowing from Shakespeare), grunted and sweat under a weary life, was tempted in all things, including to retake his powers of Godhood by the devil in the wilderness. To be brought to trial and undeservingly charged. To be taken to the whipping post to be scourged and beaten, to be marched up the road carrying that rough hewn cross on shredded skin and nerves. To be subjucted to the excruciating (out of the cross) pain of being nailed to the cross. To hang on the nails and worst of all, to become sin for us and have the Father turn away in that moment. Only to be raised to life and become the propitiation for for our sins and be seated at the right hand of the Father becoming the one and only way for our salvation......Remember and Rememberance differ greatly! Can you tell the difference?

[@captainnolan5062]

You moved on from the father's skirt (Deuteronomy 22:30 KJV) without explaining what the passage means. THe HCSB translates that verse as "A man is not to marry his father's wife; he must not violate his father's marriage bed." The translator's note is: Lit not uncover the edge of his father's garment.

[@geektome4781]

Pausing the video. Dis means the opposite of. Discover means to uncover.

[@JJFrance]

Have relations with one's father.

[@confidentfaith0]

Mark, I can’t help but notice, since your debate you seem less chipper, almost discouraged. I hope all is well, I know you’ve gotten much unfair treatment by kjv only groups etc, praying for your encouragement 😊

[@wardonwords]

Thank you. Honestly, I'm doing well! I probably shouldn't have let on that they were getting to me. That was only a brief time. I've been much encouraged since then! God is good!

[@confidentfaith0]

@ I’m glad to hear that! Don’t overthink it, just a thought I had, happy to hear you are in good spirits!

[@missinglink_eth]

Make a difference ❤

[@wardonwords]

I'm trying! ;)

[@dolanridgecommunitychurch7433]

Hey I only take 20 minutes after I say in closing. Lol

[@wardonwords]

Ha! Love it!

[@bman5257]

I’m going to guess discover meant uncover 😂

[@wardonwords]

Good call!

[@annamo6927]

His father is Scottish?

[@wardonwords]

That could be it!

[@RonnieSandifer]

Will your upcoming book 'words you dont know you dont know' include the definition of the words in 1611? Im still buying if it doesnt but if it does it can take the edge off when your explaining why its misunderstood. Folks can get upset if you say the KJV translators got it wrong, but when you say the word was the correct word in 1611 I think it smooths things out a bit. I know that sounds silly but its the truth. The reasoning goes "well if were gonna say the KJV translators got that word wrong then how can we believe they got any of them right!". Its a crazy argument but its out there im sure.

[@wardonwords]

Absolutely! My new book will not say the KJV got it wrong. Not once.

[@chippe999]

Do you mean Paul and Barhanbus didn't discover Crete??? I guessed this based upon the legal practice of 'discovery' to reveal what you've got. But seriously, isn't KJVonlyism really based on fear....fear of not having the word of God if we use modern translations, thus a fear driven faith that by choosing, or accepting, the KJV as being the right, or even perfect, translation, or even with Ruckmanites, that it, and it alone is the Word of God, then, despite not knowing Greek and Hebrew etc, then they know they have God's Word.

[@wardonwords]

Yes, I do feel they are driven by fear. And not without some reason.

[@chippe999]

@markwardonwords Yes. Now, I like your approach to look at this as a translation issue, rather than a text based issue. I like the fact that you encourage KJVo to entertain alternative TR translations, and I love the idea of a KJV update; I know plenty exist, and there are current projects on the go; but such an update would require acceptance and endorsement from some in the KJVo to gain traction, and make a difference, I pray this could happen.

[@wardonwords]

@@chippe999 Me too! The only way they will accept it is if they do it themselves. I'm convinced. They have to buy in before the work is done. Otherwise they will *always* find reasons to reject any potential KJV replacement.

[@thedanielsturgeon]

I always read ‘divers’ with the soft ‘s’ instead of the voiced ‘z’, having assumed that it’s an older spelling of ‘diverse’ - am I wrong here?

[@EricCouture315]

Devotions: unfortunately due to the nature of this content I know to be suspect. I would have guessed Devotions to mean something like their written prayers. But because Paul observed them in the market place, i would guess they are the things they devoted, set aside, for their gods.

[@wardonwords]

Excellent guess. Yes, that's the kind of thing I would've said, too.

[@mrstofu2]

This is great. I'm not sure what translation my Pastor used in the church that I went to. Then again I was only 15 when I started going to church. But my Dad let me buy an niv and then my husband bought me a KJV. So that was my first time reading that translation I think before I even knew what a Gideon's bible was. That being said we went to a KJV only church one time and I did not fully understand why the pastor kept mentioning it. We haven't been back since. But as I'm learning about translations in my own personal bible study I am still using the KJV as my main translation for memorization because I guess I'm afraid of using another one because of the fear of removing the word of God as it says so in revelation. Am I wrong for that or is it ok to memorize another translation that I can I guess relate to is what I'm saying?

[@wardonwords]

I appreciate this. I strongly encourage you to memorize out of a Bible translation in your own English. Modern evangelical Bible versions are *not* missing verses. That is a conspiracy theory invented by KJV-Onlyists. =(

[@jeremyhinken3365]

I've never heard of false friends before so I went and looked it up. Google says: false friend /ˌfôls ˈfrend/ noun noun: false friend; plural noun: false friends 1. a word or expression that has a similar form to one in a person’s native language, but a different meaning (for example English magazine and French magasin - "shop"). Dictionary says: false friend Noun Linguistics a word in one language that is similar in form or sound to a word in another language but has a different meaning and may or may not be etymologically related: for example, English gift - “present” and German Gift - “poison” are false friends. From my understanding a false friend applies when essentially the same "word" comes from different languages with vastly different meanings. So, how did your definition of false friend come about? King James English is still English. People don't know the definitions simply because they're not in common use, not because they can't actually understand the word. It seems that you've changed the definition to support your belief that the King James is basically garbage and we need to get rid of it.

[@wardonwords]

I use the term "false friends" following major linguists John McWhorter and David Crystal, who use the term to describe hidden differences between Elizabethan and contemporary Englishes. This video might help: kzbin.info/www/bejne/sJzEkKKcjbGpp8k I don't care a great deal what label is used; I care more about the phenomenon itself: KJV words that, because of language change, people don't know they don't know. In my experience, those who object to my terminology are unwilling to acknowledge specific instances of the phenomenon to which I apply it-so I'm left unsure why they pick on the label. Let's talk substance: are there KJV words people don't know they don't know? Not because they're not in common use but precisely because they *are* in common use but mean something different today?

[@jeremyhinken3365]

@markwardonwords Ya, that was a genuine question. I definitely agree that definitions have changed, but I don't believe that relegates the King James to the trash heap. When you were in college, did you learn the definitions of the technical jargon and language spoken by the experts, or did you work to overhaul the system and do away with Latin terms that are hundreds of years old?

[@wardonwords]

@@jeremyhinken3365 I agree: let's not relegate the KJV to the trash heep. I use it every day in some way or another, and I'm reading through it again this year (I just hit the NT). But I resist the parallel you're making between the technical jargon of the experts and the KJV. Why should the plowboy have to learn "besom"? Why can't the KJV be updated to "broom"? And when "so that" means "if only" (1 Kings 8:25)-is that higher English or just older English? People often confuse older for higher, because we treat older as higher: we use Elizabethan forms to convey solemnity and seriousness. But there's nothing intrinsic to "chambering" that makes it a better word than "sexual immorality." There's nothing divine or special or even literary about using "coasts" to mean "borders" or using "meat" to mean "food" the way the KJV and Shakespeare do.

[@jeremyhinken3365]

@markwardonwords *Chambering* takes things a whole step above sexual immorality. This is an only mention, so if you run all the cross-references for chamber/chambers/chamberlain, it's always that innermost private room. Sexual immorality can occur anywhere, but most people try to hide their deepest, darkest sins from outside eyes, especially in the Church. That *most holy place* is reserved for deep, relational intimacy. We see the layout of the Tabernacle in the books of Proverbs (inner court), Ecclesiastes (holy place), Song of Solomon (most holy place). It links up with *know/knew* - The *knowledge* of good and evil corrupts both spiritual and physical intimacy between husband and wife - *knew/know* - Gen. 3:7, 4:1,17,25, 38:26; Lev. 15:16-33; Jud. 11:39, 19:25; 1 Sam. 1:19. The second counterpart *knew/know* - spiritual - Deut. 8:3,16, 32:17, 33:9, 34:10; Jud. 2:10. This spiritual "knowing" of gods is adultery against God. The third counterpart *knew/know* - intellectual - this is the idolatry/adultery of scribes/ lawyers (in the Gospels) and scholars (Malachi 2:12) - iniquity is enthroning yourself in God's stead (Masters of our own destinies). If you look at the dimensions of the most holy place, it is a cube. I discovered a couple of months ago that a cube unfolds into a cross! Besom is fascinating! It's a brush made of sticks or twigs from the *broom* plant. He calls it the *besom of destruction* . It's stout and stiff, used in sandy areas but has little gaps that leave a remnant behind in the path. Perfectly lines up with both the judgment that already occurred and the big judgment that will occur. If you look at the rehearsal of that promise made to king David in 1 Kings 2:1-4, it is quoted in Psalm 132:11-12 and is conditional upon their obedience. The genealogy of Jesus is fascinating in Matthew 1. Coniah through Joseph - this is a cursed line, and can't be king - Jeremiah 22:28-30. Ahaziah, Joash and Jeconiah are NOT in Jesus's lineage, because God replaced them with WOMEN in Matthew 1! Marked by multiple mentions of the word *OF* in Matthew 1. The Devil is actively engaged in corrupting whatever God is doing. The Messiah can't exist (as prophesied in Genesis 3:15) if there is no "pure" bloodline. God bypassed Solomon entirely in the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3. The *so that* in 1 Kings 8:35 is no longer conditional because God outwitted the devil. As far as *coasts,* clearly the landmasses have changed. One such instance is the reference to what scientists now call "Pangea" in Genesis 10:25, with relocation of the people in Genesis 11:8-9. There are also other mentions of mountains moving and being laid flat, while valleys are raised, etc. *Border/borders* are used in various other places that are edges of landlocked places. Constellations are maps in the sky. One of my best friends was a satellite imagery expert and taught me how to do this. If you overlay the Pleiades with the locations of the Churches in Revelation 2-3 it matches perfectly. There is much going on in the spiritual world above our heads as alluded to in Daniel 10. Meat almost universally refers to bread because the initial design for life is vegetarian (Genesis 1:11-12,29-30), specifically those bearing Seed. It's connected to the herb yielding seed and fruit from trees, whose seed is in itself, which was created on the *third day* . Only those yielding seed were given to man for meat, every *green herb* were given to every beast of *the earth* , every fowl and everything that creepeth upon the earth. Seed - Christ's seed/Devil's seed - Gen. 4:1-2 - John 8:44 - Cain took out that seed Matthew 13:37-40; Luke 8:11 - the seed IS the word of God The Bible hides everything in plain sight. WHY?? [1 Corinthians 2:8] Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

[@wardonwords]

@@jeremyhinken3365 My friend, you are treating the KJV as itself inspired-and its words as magical. If even "broom" can't be updated to "besom," then you are deep into Ruckmanism. =( I urge you to study the KJV preface. I stand with the KJV translators against KJV-Onlyism. I am unwilling to continue this conversation, though you have not been nasty in any way and are free to continue to post.

[@genewood9062]

Brother Mark: May I make a suggestion? 1) BACKGROUND. I did of course know Athens had 35,000 idols on the streets, and thought that one Version translates this as "objects of your devotion" [though actually, it turns out to be, "worship"]. 2) OBSERVATION. In your screen shot of the O.E.D. citation of Acts 17:23, I saw something like, "or gods, marginal note". 3) RESEARCH. So I looked this up in the KJV. Sure enough, Marginal Note 6, says, "Or, gods that ye worship." 4) CONCLUSION / ADVICE. I recommend that, where the KJV Translators' Marginal Note gives an alternate translation which EXPLAINS the modern meaning of a word, you CANNOT classify that word as a "False Friend". 4.1) I know, of course, that modern KJV editions often REMOVE the marginal notes. But those are therefore NOT "truly preserved" KJV's!

[@wardonwords]

This is a worthy point. I don't deny, of course, that there are many helps for KJV readers. But, indeed, not all editions include them-and the Bible is often heard and memorized, not just read.

[@genewood9062]

@markwardonwords Hmm, I see you are right. I was going by the screen shot, (and my own emphasis on reading). I don't normally reply to replies, but I wanted others to see I accept your reasoning, which "discovers" a facet I had not considered. Thank you!

[@keithfuson7694]

The kjv contains literally thousands of words which in today's English are ambiguous, uncertain, misleading or wrong.

[@Matthew-307]

I wouldn’t classify discover as a false friend, it literally means what it says, to dis-cover. Not hard.

[@wardonwords]

And yet the etymology of a word is not the key to its meaning! How, then, would dis-cover and un-cover differ?

[@debras3806]

If it literally means what it says, dis-cover, can you give me two or three examples from the last 20 years in which dis-cover is used?

[@keithfuson7694]

Contend your cause rather than debate.

[@keithfuson7694]

Arguing, not disputing.

[@keithfuson7694]

Strife, not debate.

[@keithfuson7694]

Objects of your veneration, not devotions

[@bibleprotector]

The problem is that really the Greek and its definitions are being deferred to. Whereas, if we just stick with the English alone, we are going to easily know what a word like "disputing" means. I don't think most of these words are being misunderstood, and I am sure that going to the "Greek" is not the standard for us to understand words. I doubt that words like "debate" or "discover" are ones being so grossly misunderstood that they are producing wrong doctrine. In fact, I really think these are flimsy examples, and we really don't need the OED in these cases to determine meaning.

[@JohnDavidHowe1611]

"Discover"is NOT a false friend. The context in each verse Mr. Ward lists explains the word perfectly according to meaning that he himself provides. There was no need for the Oxford English Dictionary or any other study help for this word. This is a false claim by Mr. Ward. The same is true with "debate." The context is clear in the English text of the KJV. Not to sound like a broken record, but the same is true < sigh > yet again with "devotions." The same is true with "disputes" and "difference." In each case, Mr. Ward wants to transfer his OWN IGNORANCE of the KJV and project it on to us as KJVO believers. We reject this premise. The only "false friend" in connection with the KJV continues to be Mr. Ward himself since he pretends to be a friend of the KJV while being used by Satan (unwittingly?) by Satan to cast doubt on the words of the living God by being the hiss of the serpent ("yea, hath God said?") from Genesis 3. By the way, I didn't have to pause the video even one time to get the correct meaning. I have spoken with Mr. Ward and he seems like a nice person. It is sad to see how he fails to see how he is being used by the devil. However, he speaks of Peter Ruckman, Gail Ripplinger, and Sam Gipp as deserving "harsh rebukes." This is laughable. They told the TRUTH about the KJV, so if any "rebuke" is due, it is for YOU, Mr. Ward. This video is yet another EPIC FAILURE in dissuading Bible believers from using the Authorized (King James) Version. But keep trying if you must!

[@wardonwords]

John, if I were able to show that numerous KJV-Only pastors were misunderstanding this false friend, would you be persuaded? I’m asking: if my own misunderstanding (which you seem to believe) isn’t enough to convince you that a revision of "thy prophets … have not discovered thine iniquity" is warranted because of language change, what would persuade you? I’m seriously asking: how many people have to misunderstand before you’ll acknowledge there’s a problem? And on “difference,” Dan Haifley appears to be in the same boat I was in. Does that weigh anything with you? Would you be willing to poll the people in your church on this one-and perhaps five or ten more of my false friends?

[@losthylian]

The "YOU are a False Friend" retort may feel like a real zinger, but let's think it through. Using that term in language (the usage in foreign languages, or Mark's usage for archaic English) it means a word you think you recognize, but you are mistaken. The analogy is seeing a person you think is a friend of yours, but then realizing it is actually a stranger. That is not the way you use it against Mark. Instead, you are suggesting "you may *act* like a friend, but you are *false*, and are actually an enemy." You are declaring him to be dishonest, even malicious, an agent of Satan. However, if you have a true friend who is also clumsy, oafish, and bumbling, you would not in turn call him false. You would simply correct his mistakes. I urge you, make a difference!

[@mloy1915]

Debate fight beat down All of the examples are fairly obvious in context. I would enjoy a video on the Difficult Words that are in Newer translations and why they used words like “waterless places” instead of the easy clear KJV , “ Dry Places”. that one always makes me chuckle

[@MAMoreno]

The Greek word in Matt. 12.43 is the negated form of the word from which we get the prefix "hydro" in English. The word "dry" isn't wrong, per se, nor is "arid" (NIV, NABRE; cf. Vulgate).

[@mloy1915]

@ still chuckle

[@StevePs5289]

Are you aware that Dr. Ruckman passed away years ago? You speak as if you believe that he is still alive.

[@wardonwords]

Yes, I’m aware.

[@bubba1234xyz]

Every example here is easiest understood by biblical context. In fact, I feel a little let down by watching this video.

[@wardonwords]

And yet I misunderstood. And so did Dan Haifley. Why?

[@bubba1234xyz]

@ Dan did mention about biblical context in the debate. Though the word “difference” can be misunderstood, I just checked all my resources and everyone has it right. I don’t know Dan or why he would preach in error? However, I know that you are concerned about readability. I don’t think you’re some heretic or false believer, I just think we are two people that have come to different conclusions based on influences and evidence presented. Outside of the word “difference,” which may be the valid false friend, if there was one, I would say that our pulpits are filled with men who lack in the ability to properly prepare a sermon. I am not sure accuracy in translation in a formal equivalent can always be made easy to understand, this is why God gave pastors and teachers. However, those pastors and teacher must be qualified and willing to do the work required to teach. I have heard pastors preach all kinds of false things and use untrue illustration at a level that I now will not repeat anything, even from a trusted friend, unless researched. Is your argument about false friends valid, and does it require and the KJV to be updated. The first question I would ask is, what would be the impact on Christianity in its mission? If you talk to a Muslim, they will tell us that we don’t even know what your Bible is because of all the translation. Though the same argument can be made against them, they will refer you to the Aramaic. We cannot even do that. There must be a standard that says, Thus sayest the Lord. We have a canonized Bible because of that very reason. No one has tried to change the Canon, it is accepted. Marcionism was a driving factor there. I understand your argument for readability, but we can’t even agree on manuscripts, but as a whole we did at one time. What happened? A group of men decided that older was better. Reading itself, provides little in a real academic setting. Yes, understanding is required for edification, but God gave the church and it plays a major role in that process. Anyways, some of the videos you have posted have been good to help me understand a point of view that I seldom look at and to better understand a textual issue from another point of view.

[@wardonwords]

@@bubba1234xyz My friend, you say some important and true things here, things I wholeheartedly agree with. In particular, pastors and teachers ought to be qualified. Amen. But, my friend, I can't agree that we have to have a standard *translation* of the Bible. We already have a standard: it's the Hebrew and Greek. If God wanted us to have standard translations, wouldn't have have to tell us? A diagnostic question: if the KJV is our God-given standard in English, what do you make of the differences between the KJV and the Dutch Statenvertaling, their most obvious KJV equivalent from the 1630s? That translation made different textual and translational decisions.

[@bubba1234xyz]

@@wardonwords Hi Mark, we do not have a standard Greek and Hebrew agreement. You’re a critical Text, and I am a TR. I do not think we will ever come to a consensus there. We cannot compare variants in translations until the first is settled. Readability is more complex than your arguments tend to lead. Ease and readability is often associated with the complexity of the subject matter. Just as a university is established to train doctors, God developed the church to train His people. Luke was a doctor, Matthew a tax collector, Paul a scholar, and God omniscient, and you want a Bible that is easily read by all people where all words are dumbed downed to ensure readability by all? Good luck…. What do you have with the KJV? 1. A Hebrew and Greek text that is widely agreed upon by the majority of churches through time. 2. An English translation that has been basically accepted by most churches historically through time. Thus, for English speaking people we have a standard text. All these things you are well aware of. You have chosen a different path. It is one that ignores the historical positions of churches through time. Your arguments for readability have some merit, but the broadness of your position and acceptance of translations regardless of accuracy is a very dangerous position to take. I know that you do not like to talk about manuscript issue because you feel most cannot understand it, the wonderful thing is that they don’t have too. God has placed a system called the church to help and guide the common man in areas not easily understood. When the character of God is rejected (in my view) to accept that which was rejected by the majority of churches, it is a problem to many which cannot be overcome. Here would be the major difference between our positions. I would rely on the character of God in preservation and you have turned to intellectual diagnosis for your position. I throughly understand the complexity of the manuscript issue and complexity in translation. Thus, it is an act faith regardless of one’s position. You believe and stated older is better in relationship to manuscripts. That is an act of faith and unprovable. I hold to a historical position which I believe aligns with the clear character of God, preserved by His design. Unprovable, but an act of faith. This is an impasse. My question would be this, understanding this clear impasse, why the push for readability targeted at those who are clearly in a camp where there is little if any common ground? I believe it has a lot to due with the character of many churches in the IBF / KJV movement resulting in this argument. I too have a problem with many who fail to present godly character within my camp. I hold not my faith to an individual, and their character does not affect my work, or my relationships. Does KJB need to be updated. Maybe…. when society stops quoting it as the standard and the consensus of the churches with the proper view of preservation come to that consensus. I don’t see that in the near future.

[@debras3806]

@@bubba1234xyzWhen you use the word “Aramaic,” which is a Jewish language (and of course Jews are hated by Muslims!), do you mean Arabic-are you referring to the way many Muslims only “read/recite” the Quran in the original Arabic instead of their language? If you made such a basic and silly mistake confusing two languages that are similar in name but practically “opposites” in actuality, perhaps you ought to sit down with your head in your hands in shame and reconsider your “expert” status on such matters and sit at Dr. Ward’s feet and LEARN?!?

[@Pastor-Brettbyfaith]

Hello Mark, I would like to talk to you again. I only desire to interview you about your debate. I would also like to share my desire to help you with your update. You should have my number. Shoot me a text and let's figure out a time. I closed the Mark Ward file on my channel. You will be blessed by what I share with you. God's best to you my brother. May the Lord continue to use you a He sees fit. In Jesus always...

[@wardonwords]

I'm up for this, brother. I'll message you!