Responding to a KJV-Onlyist Who Did His Homework!

[@adkDinoB]

Such love for one's detractors. God bless you, Mark Ward. Your tireless work has been received by the church and eternity will reveal the many souls who have (and will) benefit from it.

[@markwardonwords]

Many thanks!

[@timtodd1764]

Mark your work has been a blessing for me. I feel I can read and study The Word of God in my translation with freedom and confidence. That is life changing 🙌. Thank you Mark. God-bless

[@johnmitten8309]

For years I thought that I was not personally able to interpret and understand God's Word. It stemmed from hearing sermons by preachers that just completely misunderstood the text and took the Scripture out of context, or quite possibly were just trying to make their own point with a random verse they found. I can still remember how fearful I was of reading the Bible and even trying to teach my kids from it because I just thought I would "get it wrong". I'm really so grateful for my husband, and the Holy Spirit on this journey. I love God's Word. Searching for the Truth has only given me a deeper love for His Word, and faith IN God's Word. We are grateful for you Bro. Mark.

[@markwardonwords]

Amen, sister! I'm trying to put the Bible back in the hands of the plowboy!

[@cwilson0713]

You are a true peacemaker Mark!! Prayers for you your family and missions.

[@markwardonwords]

Many thanks!

[@micahprice2807]

As an avid ESV user for study and conversation, I personally LOVE the language of the KJV and older translations. In some cases these are an interesting view into the thought process of those translators. In fact, my daily reading is usually done from a 1599 Geneva Bible!

[@williamragle1608]

I ran into Christopher once when I was a part of KJVO Facebook groups. We had a very involved discussion where I was truly challenged on some points. He even gave me access to some of the documents he was actively working on for input - but I confess that I never followed through with providing feedback. Bottom line, he is clearly a solid brother who does his homework and is listening to the other side.

[@Rimga21]

“So DO IT!” Yes and amen!

[@ThePeoplesWill]

As a stalwart KJVO for over 20 years I can tell you the reason is threefold. 1) They fear other KJVO people (because of how they persecute/exile/label you). 2) Their pride will not let them admit it. 3) They secretly believe the KJV is doubly inspired.

[@markwardonwords]

I pray you're wrong, and I pray for God's mercy on those about whom you are right.

[@reasonablefundie]

@thepeopleswill what made you leave KJVO? When did it "click" for you?

[@drawlins9]

The best arguments I have even considered for KJV only ism... Public domain, and familiarity with memory verses. My Grandma reads the NLT now, but her memory is of the KJV. When I was in school we all had NRSV Bibles. There was a famous preacher who, whenever he quoted Bible verses, would inadvertently give reference to a different book and verse. Just to keep his congregation on their toes, I guess?

[@bibleprotector]

All three of those "reasons" are not true, maybe they are true for the kinds of people that aren't KJBO any more.

[@blynkers1411]

Bad pastors LOVE creating dependencies on themselves, their church, and their legacy.

[@EricCouture315]

Christopher Yetzer is working on making the Defined KJV Bible marginal notes into one document instead of having to buy the KJV Defined. This is great. It is also a full acknowledgement of your point. It has also been done numerous times before like by the Trinitarian Bible Society. And every time the list gets bigger. And unfortunately, this will only help at the word level but not at the syntax level. Honestly, i think this needs to be the next push: syntax and punctuation. False Friends / Archaisms are only one prong of the Intelligibility argument. The next prong has to be syntax. I think at these two levels KJVO readers will be much more likely to understand their Bibles to the Glory of God.

[@markwardonwords]

I'm 100% with you. I'd love to see a KZbinr arise who has skill with syntax. I just don't. I can recognize archaic and contemporary syntax intuitively, of course, but I haven't mastered the descriptive labels for different patterns in Elizabethan vs. modern English.

[@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever]

@@markwardonwords To be honest, what we need is TBS to update the Westminster Reference Bible and put a whole lot more of the false friends that you have discovered Dr. Ward and others have discovered in the margin. They already have a base text and confidence in KJV-only readers: for TBS to make a revision of the Westminster Reference Bible with LOADS (hopefully all!) more of false friends defined in the margin would be monumental.

[@benjaminrandolph8972]

Bro. Yetzer definitely spends an impressive amount of time on this subject! I've commended him on his diligence in our limited interactions. I pray that he will devote some of that energy to truly hearing what our side is saying. Just "listening" enough to give a rebuttal isn't really listening.

[@markwardonwords]

Someday God can explain to me how the heart and mind interact. I don't understand how Christopher can understand so well but not accept where I'm going with it all. He may feel the same about me.

[@captainnolan5062]

@@markwardonwords Well, Christopher is about to step into your shoes* (unknowingly), and he will understand far more from (and about) your perspective when he does so. I expect he just may reach out to you after he has received the cold reception from his fellow KJV Onlyists that you prophesized in the video. * This is an idiomatic phrase(See final note below) which means: take control of a task or job from another person. Per the internet: "The phrase "step into one's shoes" originated in the 16th century and referred to the act of taking over someone else's job or position. The term "shoes" is used metaphorically to represent the role or responsibilities of the person being replaced." [This note is for those 25th Century ploughboys who read this comment (assuming the internet is still up and running, and that humans have survived on earth to that date.] Final note: An idiom is a phrase that has a metaphorical meaning that differs from its literal meaning. Idioms are a way to add flavor to a language and are not translatable between languages.

[@meredithsdg]

If it takes an “educated” preacher to explain the meaning of archaic words in the KJV to the “ignorant,” aren’t those preachers in effect translating the KJV to modern English? Then why not have a printed version of that translation for the reader to study on their own?

[@markwardonwords]

RIGHT!!

[@br.m]

Perhaps they would rather translate the KJV in to English for us, so that they don't have to learn Hebrew or Greek to translate that for us?

[@meredithsdg]

@@br.m Interestingly, as a college music major, I learned “Biblical Songs” by Antonin Dvorak. Written in Czech, they were transliterated into English. Based on Psalms, it was fascinating how different a :translation of a translation” was compared to a direct translation. Seems to me that I modern translation would be more accurate than translating archaic English.

[@TommyNitro]

I know a lady who used to complain about this in a Sunday school. She said they would spend the entire time translating the kjv into modern English when they could actually have gone on to the meat of the Word had they just used a modern translation.

[@reasonablefundie]

I'm kind of having trouble with this right now. If the King James Bible was meant for the plow boy and now the plow boy is telling you that they don't understand it, then maybe the NIV or the csb or even the NLT can be useful to the plow boy. It seems to fly directly in the face of the goal. I attend a KJV only church so I'm not bashing it. Just expressing something that I'm having trouble with lately that agrees with this sentiment.

[@triciamaddoxbehncke4191]

Seriously appreciate you, Mark, and the Christian brotherly love you show for all even who disagree. I've learned much through your content. I thank God for working through you.

[@markwardonwords]

Many thanks! So encouraging!

[@jonathanwilliamson1935]

So so so impressed with the righting in this script!!! I’m so thankful to see you finishing your work on this particular subject on this channel strongly!! What a wonderful and loving final sentence in this video. So thankful for your gracious and compassionate work on this topic, there seems to be no end to the hate and frustration seeping into the conversation from both sides. So thankful to have found your work a year ago! Excited to follow your work on other subjects after January first!!

[@markwardonwords]

Amen! Please stick around!

[@andrewbrowne5557]

My conscience is clear, raised on NASB, now include ESV for my daily reading/study…I follow Mark primarily for his godly example of rigorous debate in a loving manner…I have learned SO MUCH from him, about the KJV and about KJVOism, but mostly I have been given a great example to follow….God bless you Mark, and thank you!

[@chadwilham3942]

At my ordination, in a church that was fully HAC and lightly Ruckmanite, I was given a "Defined King James Bible." Ironically it is what started my path away from the KJVO position. I couldn't help but think, if we have to define these words, why are we just not putting them in the text? Why doesn't the Bible just say that? It wasn't too much longer before I stumbled upon James White's book and started to look into Greek through the tools I learned to use at HAC. This lead me to look at other versions out of curiosity, in secret, because I didn't want people to know of my "sin." As I did this, my "onlyism" fell apart as I saw that other versions largely said the same thing. Then your work came along as a gift from the Lord. The Defined King James was my "slippery slope" that began it all.

[@markwardonwords]

Wow. I love this.

[@kainech]

Yes, he did concede your points, and it would be nice if he produces such a document, and you sounded both tired and compassionate in this one. Also as someone who does enjoy the WEB, I'm glad to see it mentioned. :D I like that it went out and used a low register of English but stayed formal equivalence for the most part. I've some beefs, but I'll always have those.

[@therbulus]

Great ending, though. The offer to help answer angry KJO's seems genuine: "...leaving the job, but I have a lot of experience!"

[@Rod-Wheeler]

Give new Bible Translations at least 50 years before they update, unless something is found that will change doctrine which is unlikely.

[@markwardonwords]

That sounds about right to me.

[@KateGladstone]

@@markwardonwords I agree. However, KJV-only users aren’t coming to terms with the consequences of allowing only a translation which hasn’t been updated in FOUR HUNDRED years - so long that the language is halfway to being a different language from ours. If KJV users cared about keeping the KJV in use and understood, they’d not just be teaching the KJV, they’d be teaching the _language_ of the KJV: in actual classes on how to speak and understand Early Modern English.

[@ChristianityOntheBottomShelf]

18:08 In Southern English - or at least in rural Texas English - there's the phrase "hug your/his/her neck." It doesn't, of course, mean actually hugging someone's *neck.* Perhaps because of this phrase I have no trouble with the KJV's "fell on his neck." 🙂 I remember, in my KJV-only days, noticing that KJV-only preachers had to spend a lot of time "translating" from the KJV to modern American English. That was, eventually, one of the factors in my abandoning the KJV-only position (but not the KJV itself; I continued to use it for a few years as my primary translation, and I still have it on my shelf, though today my main version is the LSB).

[@markwardonwords]

Excellent comments.

[@KateGladstone]

@@markwardonwordsHow long will it be, I wonder, before KJV-Only pastors end up translating 30% of the words, then 50%, then 70%, then 90§? At some time, the incremental press of more and more words to translate will inevitably lead to one or more of three ends: /1/ either the pastors will have to translate more words than they leave untranslated (so that they cannot preach on any Bible text without constantly interrupting both the Bible and themselves), so that every preachment becomes increasingly an exercise in incoherent repetitions - and/or /2/ the pastors won’t be able to stand becoming so incoherent, so they will change to just translating the whole text after they read the whole text (at which point pm they HAVE BECOME new translators, and Early Modern English has become a liturgical language, just as happened to Hebrew and Greek and Latin in ages past, and/or /3/ the KGB only churches Institute, and perhaps require, classes in Kay J. English, much as the synagogues offer classes in Hebrew, and the Greek Orthodox churches offer classes in Greek - so that those who wish to understand the Bible can learn to understand it in a language that is not their own. One, or two, or all three of these things will happen, and I wonder which of them will happen first.

[@kawika3737]

Indeed I don't have red hair. I have brown hair now, but may later be bald, how about me!

[@RooshkyBear]

That is amazing to know the word nice means ignorance of the vulgate.

[@capnsalty0200]

Is this goodby if it is I want to say thank you. Just go Tim Wildsmith's book yesterday, and I am in the second reading of your book. Again I want to take this opportunity to say thank you and goodby.

[@jeremystrickland348]

From my understanding this isn't "goodbye" he is just moving away from the topic of the KJV readability issue.

[@markwardonwords]

Right! I'll still be around KZbin! And I will engage the KJV issue privately somewhat-and, possibly, in just a few public debates in coming years. Also, I have some more academic work to do on the topic.

[@BrockJamesStory]

Pastor Bryan Ross from Grace Life Bible church has done his homework too, he has over 200 hours on it.

[@markwardonwords]

Yes, I appreciate very much his attention to detail, especially historical detail. He’s really diligent at uncovering interesting historical sources.

[@BrockJamesStory]

@@markwardonwords I have enjoyed his lessons, I will say when in doubt I have at minimum been convinced of the "majority" position. However I think of that majority you would have to find the most consistent readings etc. However I enjoy my KJV and I believe it is without error as far as translation is concerned.

[@williamcowell6934]

I have always liked the King James version. But I’ve always used other versions to help me translate it. I enjoyed, for instance, the fact that the word “shambles“ meant a slaughterhouse I could see how my daughter’s messy might be akin to that. However, if you lean on KJV too heavily it can lead to confusion. I was writing a paper for myself so I could better understand the travels of Jesus. I became perplexed when the KJV said Jesus went to the coasts of Caesarea Philippi. When I looked on the map. there was no coast of Caesarea Phillipi fortunately I had other resources to explain that coast meant borders . Thanks for all your work, Mark. I will be diligent about showing myself approved.

[@TurtleTrackin]

Have you ever done a video addressing the KJV's use of the term "Easter" in Acts 12:4?

[@therealkillerb7643]

Thanks for the video. Genuine question, if you have the time/inclination to address. In a conversation with a group of godly, better educated scholars, the point was made that the Authorized Version's English, was not truly "Elizabethan" but rather a self-conscious attempt to create a translation that stood a bit outside of contemporary culture and that would reach across the ages. Granted, the translators allowed for revisions over time but the translation philosophy was to actually create a translation using the beauty of the English language to encapsulate the sacred word of God. I am not an expert in this area and during this conversation, I just smiled knowingly and nodded my head as if I understood exactly what everyone else was saying. Hence, I cannot really either explain or defend this view. However, everyone, even its critics, will note that the English of the Authorized Version is one of the most profoundly beautiful pieces of literature ever produced; a beauty that no modern translation comes even close to capturing. So, "false friends" apart, is there value in preserving the beauty of the language, albeit, without compromising its message? I suspect that in another hundred years, the AV will be regarded much as we regard Shakespeare; the pinnacles of the English language. How much of Shakespeare do we change to make it accessible to the "modern" audience? I say this as someone who has used the NASB since conversion, back when Nixon was still president! '-)

[@MAMoreno]

It's not hard to find a copy of a Shakespeare play that has his original text in the left column and a modernized text in the right column. You can appreciate the beautiful original words while having something that you can easily comprehend at the same time.

[@reasonablefundie]

Hi Mark, I want to start by saying how much I’ve enjoyed your channel over the years. We had a brief interaction in the past, and it was a very positive experience. I’m hoping that you or someone can help me with something I’ve been wrestling with. I How should we approach text differences that seem to affect the meaning of a passage? For example: Psalm 10:5 - Some translations say, “His ways are always prosperous,” while the KJV says, “His ways are grievous.” John 7:8 - Many versions seem to have Jesus saying, “I am not going up to this feast,” while the KJV says, “I am not yet going up to this feast.” The inclusion or exclusion of “yet” seems significant in understanding His intentions. 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12 - The KJV says it “lack nothing,” while others say, “You will not have to depend on anyone.” I’d love to hear your thoughts on how we should navigate these types of differences because it's the one thing that keeps me on the KJV. It feels like other modern versions leave things open to interpretation. I'm just not quite sure how to reconcile these differences sometimes without making assumptions in the text. It seems the KJV states things clearly and then the other translations while they may carry a similar meaning, tend to leave things open for interpretation. But maybe I'm thinking about that wrong. Thank you for your time and for all the great work you do! P.S. I'm asking a question to try to learn something. I learned the hard way that not everybody in KZbin comments is charitable in conversation.

[@MAMoreno]

The tricky thing about Psalm 10.5 is that the Hebrew word usually means "twist" in some sense (literal or metaphorical), but there's some evidence to suggest that it can alternatively mean "endure" (as in Job 20.21). The LXX and Vulgate would suggest that it means "profaned" or "polluted" in this psalm. The Medieval Jewish commentators did not agree on the matter: Rashi favored the "prospered" interpretation, and RaDaK favored "painful [to the poor]." So too, the early English translations are divided, with some following the Vulgate (Coverdale), some following the "grievous" interpretation (Bishops'), and some favoring Rashi's understanding (Geneva). In the case of John 7.8, the difference is between οὔπω and οὐκ. In the majority of Greek manuscripts, οὔπω appears twice in the verse (the second time being the "not yet" in the final clause). The Vulgate, however, has _non_ ("not") in the first case and _nondum_ ("not yet") in the second, agreeing with the oldest Greek manuscript readings. Considering that οὔπω appears near the end of the verse regardless of this variant, it's possible that a copyist decided to replace the more problematic οὐκ with a nearby word that removed even the possibility of taking the words of Jesus as misleading or deceitful. But the variant is still debated, and the LSB opted to revert to "not yet." In 1 Thessalonians 4.12, μηδενὸς could mean "no one" or "nothing." It's impossible to know which meaning is intended unless the context indicates a person or a thing: even the KJV translates it as "no man" in some verses and "nothing" in others. This particular verse doesn't offer much to indicate which option is correct, and the KJV's original translation notes offered this alternative: "Or, of no man." I know that's not a satisfying answer, but the Greek truly is ambiguous here.

[@reasonablefundie]

@MAMoreno WOW! Thank you so much for the thoughtful reply. Over the last year, I have learned as much about textual criticism as I could. I've probably seen every KZbinr talk about it and no one gives an answer like this. This type of explanation is so helpful because it goes past the same textual criticism talking points everyone uses. If you had a channel, talking about this kind of stuff, there is no doubt it would be a blessing to people like me. Two questions for you or anyone. 1. How do things like this affect your understanding of the doctrine of preservation or inerrancy. It always seemed to me like either one is right or none are right. They can't all be right. I've always thought that mattered to inerancy. 2. I've always believed in the perfectly preserved Word of God to mean every word on the page (like most KJV only people, although I'm not) whereas it seems modern versions of the Bible seem to take the approach that the Word of God is the message getting across. And that it's the ideas that are the word of God so things like the NLT or NIV are still getting the point across. Like the NET Bible will add words in places and they weren't in the original text but are helpful to get the message across. What do you think?

[@MAMoreno]

@@reasonablefundie I don't know how familiar you are with the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy from 1978, but it expresses the viewpoint of many who worked on the modern evangelical translations. The following is the position that it takes on the question you raised: *We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.* *We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.* (Article X)

[@MAMoreno]

Surely the NKJV still gives preachers as much archaic English to "teach" as the KJV would have provided circa 1653 (analogous to reading a 1982 translation in 2024). There's no need to add all of the outdated senses that the revisers managed to update on top of that. I'd think that anyone reading an NKJV beside a dynamic translation that's been updated in the last 15 years (NIV, NLT, CEB) would agree that the NKJV hardly feels "modern" by comparison.

[@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever]

You’re a great friend of all KJV readers and of the KJV itself.

[@cloudx4541]

How? He believes the KJV shouldn’t be read from, memorized, or preached from the pulpit.

[@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever]

​@@cloudx4541 I have asked this question of 20+ people now and I never get an answer: who in the world living or dead has done more to help KJV readers understand the KJV it ITS OWN English? He is constantly justifying the translators' translation choices by harmonizing the English word they used (with a sense that is now dead to us in our English) with what the original language meant. I never get an answer, because (honor to whom honor is due) Mark Ward is the only one on the field doing THIS LEVEL of work to make sure men and women UNDERSTAND their KJV's. You could say Pastor Bryan Ross with Easter in Acts 12.4 (you better go check him out) but he's far behind the amount of words and phrases Ward has produced. That's why Ward is an indispensable friend to all it's readers and to the KJV itself. I now know WHY the KJV translator's chose the words they chose, and can uphold and exalt the KJV's translation work better than ever before. I now understand the KJV better than ever before. Now for fairness: I assume you do not believe the Wycliffe 1382 or the Geneva 1599 Bibles shouldn’t be read from, memorized, or preached from the pulpit. Would it be just and "kindly affectioned" (Rom. 12:10) towards you to say then you are not a great friend to the Geneva Bible or the Wycliffe Bible? Of course I wouldn't. That's absurd. Simply because one believes a certain Bible shouldn’t be read from, memorized, or preached from the pulpit *today BECAUSE OF the natural process of LANGUAGE CHANGE* does not mean they do not adore and cherish it. Those two ideas do not logically negate each other. We need balance, balance and more balance in our thinking. Ward does NOT believe the KJV shouldn’t be read from or memorized, he'd say have at it and enjoy. He would simply say in *institutional contexts* the KJV should be set aside only for private study and reading where it CAN be read from or memorized and that a translation from the same base texts such as the NKJV should be preached from it in its stead. Nuance, nuance, nuance is key and accuracy is needed in representing our brothers.

[@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever]

@@cloudx4541 I have asked this question of 20+ people now and I never get an answer: who in the world living or dead has done more to help KJV readers understand the KJV it ITS OWN English? He is constantly justifying the translators' translation choices by harmonizing the English word they used (with a sense that is now dead to us in our English) with what the original language meant. I never get an answer, because (honor to whom honor is due) Mark Ward is the only one on the field doing THIS LEVEL of work to make sure men and women UNDERSTAND their KJV's. You could say Pastor Bryan Ross with Easter in Acts 12.4 (you better go check him out) but he's far behind the amount of words and phrases Ward has produced. That's why Ward is an indispensable friend to all it's readers and to the KJV itself. I now know WHY the KJV translator's chose the words they chose, and can uphold and exalt the KJV's translation work better than ever before. I now understand the KJV better than ever before. Now for fairness: I assume you do not believe the Wycliffe 1382 or the Geneva 1599 Bibles shouldn’t be read from, memorized, or preached from the pulpit. Would it be just and "kindly affectioned" (Rom. 12:10) towards you to say then you are not a great friend to the Geneva Bible or the Wycliffe Bible? Of course I wouldn't. That's absurd. Simply because one believes a certain Bible shouldn’t be read from, memorized, or preached from the pulpit *today BECAUSE OF the natural process of LANGUAGE CHANGE* does not mean they do not adore and cherish it. Those two ideas do not logically negate each other. We need balance, balance and more balance in our thinking. Ward does NOT believe the KJV shouldn’t be read from or memorized, he'd say have at it and enjoy. He would simply say in *institutional contexts* the KJV should be set aside only for private study and reading where it CAN be read from or memorized and that a translation from the same base texts such as the NKJV should be preached from it in its stead. Nuance, nuance, nuance is key and accuracy is needed in representing our brothers.

[@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever]

​@@cloudx4541 I have asked this question of 20+ people now and I never get an answer: who in the world living or dead has done more to help KJV readers understand the KJV it ITS OWN English? He is constantly justifying the translators' translation choices by harmonizing the English word they used (with a sense that is now dead to us in our English) with what the original language meant. I never get an answer, because (honor to whom honor is due) Mark Ward is the only one on the field doing THIS LEVEL of work to make sure men and women UNDERSTAND their KJV's. You could say Pastor Bryan Ross with Easter in Acts 12.4 (you better go check him out) but he's far behind the amount of words and phrases Ward has produced. That's why Ward is an indispensable friend to all it's readers and to the KJV itself. I now know WHY the KJV translator's chose the words they chose, and can uphold and exalt the KJV's translation work better than ever before. I now understand the KJV better than ever before. Now for fairness: I assume you do not believe the Wycliffe 1382 or the Geneva 1599 Bibles shouldn’t be read from, memorized, or preached from the pulpit. Would it be just and "kindly affectioned" (Rom. 12:10) towards you to say then you are not a great friend to the Geneva Bible or the Wycliffe Bible? Of course I wouldn't. That's absurd. Simply because one believes a certain Bible shouldn’t be read from, memorized, or preached from the pulpit today BECAUSE OF the natural process of LANGUAGE CHANGE does not mean they do not adore and cherish it. Those two ideas do not logically negate each other. We need balance, balance and more balance in our thinking. Ward does NOT believe the KJV shouldn’t be read from or memorized, he'd say have at it and enjoy. He would simply say in *institutional contexts* the KJV should be set aside only for private study and reading where it CAN be read from or memorized and that a translation from the same base texts such as the NKJV should be preached from it in its stead. Nuance, nuance, nuance is key and accuracy is needed in representing our brothers.

[@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever]

​@@cloudx4541 I have asked this question of 20+ people now and I never get an answer: who in the world living or dead has done more to help KJV readers understand the KJV it ITS OWN English? He is constantly justifying the translators' translation choices by harmonizing the English word they used (with a sense that is now dead to us in our English) with what the original language meant. I never get an answer, because (honor to whom honor is due) Mark Ward is the only one on the field doing THIS LEVEL of work to make sure men and women UNDERSTAND their KJV's. You could say Pastor Bryan Ross with Easter in Acts 12.4 (you better go check him out) but he's far behind the amount of words and phrases Ward has produced. That's why Ward is an indispensable friend to all it's readers and to the KJV itself. I now know WHY the KJV translator's chose the words they chose, and can uphold and exalt the KJV's translation work better than ever before. I now understand the KJV better than ever before. Now for fairness: I assume you do not believe the Wycliffe 1382 or the Geneva 1599 Bibles shouldn’t be read from, memorized, or preached from the pulpit.

[@hefinjones9051]

Trick Players update to the KJV NT is pretty decent in the parts where I've sampled it. There are places where there are matters of interpretation or translation philosophy where I'd differ from him. But it is a decent "conservative" revision of the KJV into both vocabulary and in places syntax that is current.

[@markwardonwords]

I’m glad to hear it! I truly am!

[@tricolour568]

Dark Sword, it's Trick Players.

[@therbulus]

"I wish he would use his strengths only for good." I get it, but we shouldn't border on snarky, right?

[@getgnomed6179]

Ward, what resources are there for defending the NKJV?

[@markwardonwords]

I have several NKJV videos!

[@BlisterBang]

Let me start by agreeing with you on your points. But there needs to be an exception to not disapproving of some changes in the English language. I am talking about words that have no synonym that are moving toward becoming a synonym for words that have synonyms already. My favorite (perhaps I should use "pet peeve" instead) is "gaslight". As you are probably aware, gaslight came about through the 1944 movie "Gaslight" in which the perpetrator is taking actions to deceive his victim into believing she was insane or otherwise mentally disturbed. It is not a synonym for lie; in fact, you don't have to speak at all to gaslight someone. A more recent example is the Hawaii Five-O S12E6 "Image of Fear" where a daughter takes deliberate actions to make her mother believe she is having a breakdown - without lying to her. This is the epitome of "Gaslighting". As far as I am aware, there is no other single word to describe this. And now we have celebrities, et al, using 'gaslighting' when the word 'lying' is correct. My thought is that they misuse 'gaslight' to sound sophisticated. If they succeed in changing 'gaslight' into a synonym for 'lie', they have damaged our vocabulary. They are certainly not improving it. ALSO: PLEASE reconsider abandoning your KJVO work! It is so important, I won't hold it against your for not stopping in 2025!

[@markwardonwords]

I talk about this in my next book, KJV Words You Don't Know You Don't Know. There is a lengthy intro discussing language change.

[@4jgarner]

26:52 yes we know James White is also in the KJVO discussion. 😅😅

[@ChristopherAlsruhe-si9ff]

Christopher doesn't go far enough. We need to go back to the Latin Vulgate and everyone should learn the language. Then they would have no excuse for not attending a Latin mass. Anyone unwilling to do this is just lazy. Or better yet, why don't we require all Christians to study Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? If they don't, it's their fault they can't understand God's word.

[@iblameabel]

@@ChristopherAlsruhe-si9ff this is what we need in Christian schools. They should excel at linguistics, literature, theology & philosophy more than any other school.

[@markwardonwords]

I do often wonder why our KJV-Only brothers don't see the argument you're making: if we all have to use dictionaries to look up "besom" because the KJV is perfect or truly accurate, why not go back to what is truly perfect and truly truly accurate, the inspired Hebrew and Greek?

[@travismoore7938]

@@markwardonwords Am I incorrect in thinking that many KJVO defenders do not believe in the original languages of the Bible or am I wrong? Some of the commentators on yours and other KZbinrs such as Dwayne Greens KZbin channel have seemed ( to me ) to suggest that they feel that the KJV has taken the place of the original languages since the Bible was written in English. I hope I am not putting words in anyone’s mouth.

[@markwardonwords]

@@travismoore7938 You're not wrong. But they're usually not clear on this point. They usually (and increasingly), in my experience, want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to say that the KJV is a perfect translation of perfect texts. But it's not inspired. In practice, however, they don't end up learning Hebrew hardly ever and they rarely know Greek well. =| This shows what they as a group really value.

[@travismoore7938]

@@markwardonwords Thanks! I appreciate your response.

[@JessicaB1982]

If you can understand Shakespeare, you can understand the KJV. It's not that hard. Shakespeare is one of my favorite historical people, which is why I can appreciate the KJV. But the translations I reach for the most are my ESV, and my NKJV.

[@antillious]

Here’s the thing, people don’t understand Shakespeare. They can read the words, and get the overall gist, but most of the humour, wordplay and insights are lost to the modern reader if left unassisted. They get the story but miss the brilliance.

[@JessicaB1982]

​​@@antilliousand that's too bad, but c'est la vie. I have other translations I use more often. My NKJV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible and my ESV Archaeology Study Bible are what I use the most.

[@fnjesusfreak]

Most people DON'T understand Shakespeare, though.

[@MAMoreno]

If people could easily understand Shakespeare, then no one would be out there releasing things like No Fear Shakespeare, right?

[@cloudx4541]

I like the KJVER, KJ21, and the KJ3 the most.

[@richardvoogd705]

I have a printed copy of the KJVER, which I sometimes consult. I used to have a KJ21, but it got lost in a move. No disrespect intended to those who provide KJVER, KJ22, and similar works, but I generally prefer an edition of the KJV with textual notes defining "troublesome" words.

[@danielfreeman9050]

Mark, would you see 'sound' as a false friend in most modern versions when used to translate forms of ὑγιαίνω "in good health", as in the phrase 'sound doctrine'? As I've tried to explain this the only contemporary use example of that sense of 'sound' is in the fossilized phrase 'safe and sound'.

[@markwardonwords]

Boy, I wouldn't say so. I still hear, "She gave sound reasons for her decision." Here's NOAD: 2 based on reason, sense, or judgment: sound advice for healthy living | the scientific content is sound. • competent, reliable, or holding acceptable views: he's a bit stuffy, but he's very sound on his law.

[@shockthetoast]

​@@markwardonwords"of sound mind" is also very commonly used. At least on legal procedural shows (he said, scholarly).

[@danielfreeman9050]

@@markwardonwords Hmm, I see what you're saying. I think what I, and others in my experience, tend to assume when reading 'sound doctrine' is the sense of 'firm, stable' rather than 'free from disease, healthy'. I would tend to read 'firm, stable' for 'sound' in your examples above as well, although 'healthy' would be possible also. Perhaps a nuanced distinction, but there is a difference nonetheless. So maybe that sense of 'sound' hasn't reached false friend territory yet but it seems to be on its way there.

[@SaneNoMore]

While I am no longer a KJVOist.. I think one actual good argument they bring up about the critical text is that of 'conjectural emendations". It is a very questionable practice. Thankfully it is used rarely, but it should not be used at all. When you use a variant not found in ANY manuscript you are in very dangerous waters. Still, the NKJV exists and is an excellent translation with excellent footnotes and I would suggest it for today's Christians over the KJV. That said, I think everyone should at some point in their walk read the KJV. It's is possibly the most impactful book ever printed in English and is without doubt an unsurpassed piece of majestic literature (though we know it is more than just literature).

[@markwardonwords]

Amen! Everyone in the English-speaking world should pick up the KJV at some point!

[@losthylian]

"You want to update the words of God? You think we should put our trust in men instead of God!" "You just need to study God's word more diligently. Here, trust these resources from men so that you can accurately understand." :JackieChanConfusedMeme: I've seen Yetzer's comments on other videos, where he says you "block those engaging in cordial discussions." He is not coarse or vulgar (which I commend), but that does not mean he had been "cordial". I think you are right, he has given away the argument. "Actually, this has already been a problem for 170 years, and it has worsened since then somewhat. So nyeh." I made a similar comment in your discussion with Haifley, but knowing you are carrying 200 stones along with you, then looking at a Bible that only has 20 and saying "no way" just does not make sense. Willingly saying "a moderate portion of you studying to show yourself approved to God needs to be in resources besides the Bible" does not make sense to me. And it all somehow makes one feel more pious, like sprinkling in Latin phrases.

[@mikefluech]

After several years of working on the mission field and dealing with a couple of different languages beyond the English of the KJV, my thoughts on this subject have broadened. Dr. Ward, I believe your heart in this matter to be genuine and your intentions honorable, but I think you might be looking at this subject too narrowly. I have dealt with the challenge of working with vernacular Bibles that are unintelligible in their present form. The KJV, in my opinion, is far from those vernacular issues. I respect the hard work you’ve put into this topic. I further believe that you have some important things to say about the concerns surrounding the KJV. I think there’s more to this topic than what I’ve heard in the handful of your videos that I’ve watched. My two cents probably aren’t worth much on the open market, but I figured I would at least make them available. Regardless of where we don’t agree, I’m confident that we’ll be in perfect agreement at the feet of our Savior one day - regardless of who was right or wrong about this issue.

[@tedwilliams7198]

Let me put it simply…Dr. Mark Ward is Right and does it in love and KJVO people are simply wrong……..The KJV is still a good usable Bible; However when you say it’s the “ONLY” Bible we should use--Body of Christ we have a problem.

[@BrendaBoykin-qz5dj]

🌹🌟🔥🌟🌹

[@confidentfaith0]

What is confessional Bibliology?

[@markwardonwords]

It’s Calvinists who make all the same arguments for (basically) exclusive use of the King James that are made in the IFB plus a few additional arguments from the history of the Reformed tradition.

[@receivedtext]

Confessional Bibliology = The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope. (WCF/2LBCF, I.8)

[@MrRiosRivers]

Are you attending ETS 2024?

[@markwardonwords]

I wish. =| I just couldn't justify the expense.

[@richardtite8469]

People are looking in the wrong place for solutions. This is neither a theological or a linguistic problem. It is a psychological problem. We need to understand why we accept certain patterns of thinking and reject others. Let's be humble and admit our own weaknesses and learn from the Lord, not from interpretation of our own. invention

[@derdeolifant]

"False friend" as used in this video is a false friend, by the definition applied in the video: the speaker thinks he knows what it means, but he has made an error. QOTD: "In linguistics, a false friend is a word in a different language that looks or sounds similar to a word in a given language, but differs significantly in meaning." English not a different language from English. English readers of the King James Bible are not searching for friends in the language and finding an abundance of apparently familiar words that mislead: instead they are finding an abundance of familiars, and a vanishingly small numbers of hard words. And yes, how nice it is to find a friend who is willing to engage with this abuse of the English language.

[@markwardonwords]

What label would you suggest for this phenomenon? I'm not alone in using the way I do: kzbin.info/www/bejne/sJzEkKKcjbGpp8k

[@RobL194]

@@markwardonwords To add to this thread - I agree with your usage of false friends. But clearly it inflames some people. Personally I’ve shifted to saying: English has shifted since the 1500s-1600s, and this includes obvious shifts and hidden shifts.” Instead of saying dead words and false friends. This also helps broaden the categories to include “dead” or “false friend” syntax.

[@derdeolifant]

@@markwardonwords it would be named, "you keep using that word, but it does not mean what you think it means", according to noted scholar Inego Montoya.

[@markwardonwords]

@@derdeolifant Yes!!! I would love that! What a great movie.

[@sillyrabbi64]

"Usage determines meaning." - M. Silva; Others besides Dr. Ward use 'false friends' the way he does (lost meaning/same language) so the meaning of the word has shifted to include same languages. Crazy to think...language changes. 🙄 "English is not a different language from English." Really? This sentence is in English- "Ealdspræca sind hefiġnessa hefiġnesse onġeat hīe sind swīþe earfoðe" How clear is that to someone without Google Translate? Where do we draw the line?

[@sbccave4015]

Readability and textual criticism is subjective at the end of the day and you are wasting your breath Mark.

[@markwardonwords]

They simply are not. There are objective measures for both. That doesn't mean there is nothing subjective in them; yes, there are subjective judgments to be made. But that's true of literally everything.

[@mloy1915]

Asking and answering questions no one is asking. Glad I am a Lutheran Christian in association with Brethren that allow for exclusive use of KJV, ESV,NASB,AV1901, we have them all and welcome them in the LCMS. I see thier might still be a little IFB in you when you respond to a short simple observation after viewing your material. Pax

[@markwardonwords]

Please interact with the arguments made in the video.

[@americanswan]

There is a crucial cancer in Christianity. Every denomination is warped by corrupt immature opinions on moral decision-making gained through parenting, society, and experience. These errors create false religion. J Warner Wallace sort of touches on this issue in one of his more recent books, but Dr. Timothy Jennings explains it best in his explanation of the phenomenon.

[@americanswan]

THE SEVEN LEVELS OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT, DECISION-MAKING, AND THEORIES OF ATONEMENT by Timothy R. Jennings, MD, DFAPA LEVEL 1 - Reward and punishment Right and wrong is determined by whoever holds the power to rule by threat of punishment and hope of reward. Mercy (failure to punish) is seen by others at this level as being weak, rather than being moral. This is the level ancient Israel operated at as slaves in Egypt. They did what the task masters said in order to avoid punishment. People at level one insist that God uses his power to torture and kill the unrepentant wicked, as evidenced when he first established his credentials to rule Israel by acts of punishment upon the Egyptian gods, and by mighty, spectacular miracles demonstrating the Egyptian gods were not gods at all. This level of thinking is so primitive that it doesn’t even require a brain; the mind is completely sidelined. Animals, plants, and even bacteria can be conditioned to avoid painful stimuli and grow toward rewarding stimuli. It is Satan’s goal to reduce mankind to “brute beasts and creatures of instinct” operating at level one. Satisfaction Theory of the atonement most closely matches Level One thinking, which is summarized as follows: God said don’t do something, but when we disobey and do what God said not to do, this dishonors and offends him. Therefore, in his justice, he responds with angry vengeance to execute the disobedient to satisfy his outrage. But then Jesus stepped in between God and man to become humanity’s substitute. Thus, instead of killing man, God killed his Son in our place and is now satisfied that his honor and justice are preserved. LEVEL 2 - Marketplace exchange Right and wrong is determined by an equitable agreement between two parties, also known as quid pro quo - “I’ll do something for you if you do something for me.” At this level vengeance is a moral duty. People who do evil must be paid back with an equal amount of pain and suffering, in other words, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” To not return pain and suffering is considered immoral. This was ancient Israel saying at Sinai, when the law was first read, “All the Lord has said, we will do." Ransom Theory of the atonement most closely matches Level Two thinking, which is summarized as follows: Because earth and humanity are now the legal property of Satan and under his control, the devil claimed legal rights to this earth and the lives of the descendants of Adam and Eve. Therefore, God struck a bargain with the devil to exchange the life of Christ for the lives of the rest of humanity. LEVEL 3 - Social conformity Right and wrong is determined by community consensus, for example, when a child says, “But everyone else is doing it.” Right is deemed right by the approval of peers. This was ancient Israel when they wanted kings. All the other nations had kings, so it must be right, thus Israel demanded to have kings. Governmental Theory of the atonement most closely matches Level Three thinking, which is summarized as follows: In order for everyone to be convinced that God is fair and right in dealing with sin and sinners by inflicting torturous punishment, somebody has to pay the price. That somebody is Jesus, because he’s the only one who could pay that price to get mankind off the hook. LEVEL 4 - Law and order Right and wrong is determined by a codified system of rules, impartial judges, imposed punishments, and respect for authority. Right is getting a proper pay or reward for good work, and proscribed and inflicted punishment for breaking the rules. Authority figures are rarely questioned, “He must be right, because he is the President, the Judge, the Pope, God, etc.” This was ancient Israel at the time of Christ - “we have a law!” they proclaimed, as they sought to stone Jesus for healing on the Sabbath. This is much of our modern world, with its codified laws, courts, prosecutors, judges, juries, and imposed rules. Authority at this level rests in the coercive pressure of the state to bring punishment upon those who deviate from the established laws. At this level, police agencies and law enforcers are required to monitor the population, searching for breaches in the law in order to impose standardized penalties. Penal Substitution Theory of the atonement most closely matches Level Four thinking, which is summarized as follows: Jesus died to pay the legal penalty the law demanded and the heavenly judge imposed. The law must be kept. Man broke the law, thus justice demands and requires the imposition of the proper punishment. Someone had to be executed to pay the legal penalty. Jesus became our substitute and was executed in our place by God the Father (as the righteous judge) to pay that penalty. In doing so, the integrity of the law is maintained and sinners can be pardoned, but only if they claim the legal payment made by Jesus. LEVEL 5 - Love for others Right is determined by doing what is in the best interest of others, realizing people have value in who they are irrespective of the rules. Wrong is determined, not by a checklist of rules, but by not doing what is actually helpful and beneficial for another. Jesus demonstrated this when he touched lepers, spoke to women, socialized with tax collectors, and healed on the Sabbath. The Pharisees, operating at level four and below, wanted to stone Him for breaking the law. Moral Influence Theory of the atonement most closely matches Level Five thinking, which is summarized as follows: Sin separated us from God and corrupted our hearts, so that we no longer trusted God, but God loved us too much to let us go, so Christ’s death was the means to reach us with his love and restore us to trust in him. LEVEL 6 - Principle based living Right is understanding the design protocols and principles upon which life is constructed to operate and intelligently choosing to live in harmony with them. Right is not doing something because a rule says to do so, but because it is understood to actually work this way. This was Jesus living out God’s character of love in all He did, and the Apostles after Pentecost. It is understood that God says what is right because it is right, because it is the way things actually are. It isn’t right simply because God said it. Recapitulation and Christus Victor Theories of the atonement most closely matches Level Six thinking, which is summarized as follows: Christ’s life, death, and resurrection is understood to be the only means to fix what sin had done to God’s creation. When mankind sinned, the condition of humankind was changed, placing it out of harmony with God and his design for life. Humankind was now held in bondage by their own condition of sinfulness (carnal nature), their terminal state (death), and the lies about God told by Satan. Christ came to break these three powers and fix what sin has done to this creation. Thus “he who knew no sin became sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God.” 2Cor 5:21. LEVEL 7 - Understanding Friend of God Those at this level not only have love for God and others (Level 5), not only understand God’s design protocols for life (Level 6), but also understand God’s purposes and intelligently choose to cooperate in fulfilling their role in His purposes. Jesus said to His disciples in John 15:15, “I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.” People at this level understand the truth about God’s character of love, His nature and design for life, the origin of evil, the nature of sin, the weapons of Satan, the original purpose for the creation of humanity, the fall of humanity into sin, God’s working through human history, the purpose of the Cross, and the ultimate cleansing of the universe from sin. Jesus operated at this level, as will all those who are ready for translation when Jesus comes again. Healing Substitution Reality most closely matches Level Seven thinking, which is summarized as follows: The plan of salvation is understood to have a deeper and broader intent than just the redemption of the human species. Both level five and six are true: God’s character of love has been misrepresented, His methods of truth, love, and freedom have not been fully understood, so God had a larger purpose than just the salvation of humankind; He was also solidifying the unfallen beings in loyalty to His design methods and character of love.

[@knappingrk]

All of this boils down to one thing where do these Corrections ultimately end language is continuously evolving and I do hate that word but needless to say things change but one thing that does not change is God neither does his word if you know the history of the King James Bible if you love it give this a thumbs up. The man trying to change it even though they have good intentions are being led of the wrong Spirit to change God into something that can adapt to man's ever sinful ways.

[@markwardonwords]

The KJV is an excellent translation-but if you're going to read it exclusively, you need to understand that it was translated into a form of English no one quite speaks or writes anymore. So there are going to be some places where you think you understand but, because of language change, you're going to miss the intent of the KJV translators. For help discerning when this is the case, I encourage you to check out my "Fifty False Friends in the KJV" series on KZbin for help reading the KJV! kzbin.info/aero/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc

[@drdfunk]

I'm happy to suggest our generation should ban the KJV entirely and remove it from circulation completely. It now causes more harm than good and turns away more than it attracts.

[@markwardonwords]

Believe it or not, I'm just not there. For one thing, who is going to enforce such a ban? But really, I don't see it as necessary. Just get rid of the "only" on "KJV-Only."

[@kwpctek9190]

Yes, now let's move on to *rightly dividing* ortho-tomeo and not a vague "correctly handling". The church is not, nor ever was, Israel 2.0

[@MAMoreno]

2 Timothy 2.15 is not about dispensationalism. Verse 18 gives us a clear idea of what the "word of truth" opposes: false teachings about the future resurrection. And as we see in Ephesians 1.13 and Colossians 1.5, the phrase "word of truth" means the gospel message in the epistles of Paul. (Cf. 2 Timothy 2.8-9, where "the word of God" is used as a synonym for "my gospel.")

[@bibleprotector]

I find it funny how Mark Ward positions himself as the "reality police" on the entire issue of the discussion of the language of the King James Bible, and thinks he can define who is acceptable and to what degree. I have some admiration for Mark Ward as he is an extremely talented propagandist. What's even more interesting is that Mark Ward has had the UNINTENDED but intended by God affect of actually 1. helping people understand KJB words and 2. motivating people to study and teach material to help understand God's word in English.

[@markwardonwords]

If that’s what happens as a result of my work, I’ll be overjoyed!

[@bibleprotector]

@@markwardonwords Even the wrong definitions have 1. made us think 2. excited a spirited reply/rebuttal so that the real meaning be made known more and more

[@knappingrk]

Your attack on the preservation, perfection and authority of the King James Bible , will be brought up at the judgement seat of Christ and you will regret trying to alter God's perfect preserved pure words. 2 Corinthians 5:9-11 (KJV) 9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. 11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.

[@losthylian]

When did the words of the King James Version become perfect, preserved, and pure?

[@knappingrk]

@@losthylian study 📖 and trust God.

[@knappingrk]

@@losthylian use whatever Bible version you want but if you want pure 100% perfection use the King James Bible if you do not believe that that is on you you will be judged for it do you have a wonderful day may God bless you richly and open your eyes to the truth

[@mattkaye6559]

I've critiqued, and rightfully so shown Mark wrong on a few things in the comments here on this channel before.. However it seems the audience was not really open enough to accept that Mark was wrong.. I do hope Mark repents and lives like a Christian after doing so, but the constant lies and also ignorance are a major issue which have to be addressed. To all reading, however much you dislike KJVo, it is not alright to follow this guy the way you guys have been.. Replacing a cultic community with a different cultic community is of course, not the right way to handle things for yourself.

[@markwardonwords]

This is a mere insult with no content in it.

[@mattkaye6559]

@@markwardonwords When I commented on your other videos, I had received mocking from you, and from your viewers I received what I have described on this thread. If you do give honest responses, then do so. It has not been the case so far. This is a double standard you play, acting the victim when receiving what you gave. Hopefully this message and the string does begin talk on things with viewers, and maybe even you, and primarily does somehow get the people who have been blinded by the falsities and ignorances you have purported to not push to maybe open up to reading what others say and listening.

[@johnneufeld6019]

Martin Luther's German Bible and The king James Bible contradict all your new age Bibles Hebrews 3 verse 16 .

[@getgnomed6179]

Name something new age in modern Bibles. Don't yap

[@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever]

Luther’s Bible 1545 doesn’t have 1 John 5:7 and agrees with modern versions in Rev. 16:5 against the modern versions. Dr. Ruckman has called Luther’s Bible the German KJV but it’s simply not the case. Now as to Hebrews 3:16 - τὶς some Tyndale-KJV, Rheims Pl. τινές some, a number of Arndt, William et al. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature 2000: 1008. Print. τίς who-ESV; NASB; CSB; NIV; etc. Do you see the difference? Stare at the iota. Accent marks, like on this iota are matters of interpretation, and the direction you put the accent mark on the iota changes what this word means, so this is the most perfect example where what the book of Hebrew says in Greek can go either way. The rendering of the modern versions can easily be justified by saying this is all without distinction and all without exception, we use the same argument when speaking to universalists who continuously quote verses that say all as if it is all without exception, and not all without distinction.

[@CC-iu7sq]

If we’re going to attack Bibles for textual variants, we might as well bring up John 1:18. Why does the KJV omit Theos in John 1:18, removing the rendering of Christ Deity that is found in Modern Versions? The CSB, the NIV, and the ESV all contain it. Why not the KJV? Or does the argument only go one way? I’m not deflecting your question. It is VALID to question textual variants. But you need to understand that there’s always a means to an end. Textual variants occur because of different senses, different methods of translations, and different underlying texts. You’re not giving any benefit of the doubt and you’re creating an assumption of corruption, thus creating a logically fallacious argument. Do you want to know why King James Onlyism is never debated on the scholarly stage? Because there’s not a single scholar or theologian that is in support of KJVoism.

[@cloudx4541]

I like the KJVER, KJ21, and the KJ3 the most.