Which TR Is the Perfectly Preserved One?

[@carolbarlow8896]

Please consider that many of your listeners including me won’t read your articles but we will listen to you talk us through this. The information, as you volunteered, is weedy but it wasn’t boring at all. Most importantly, putting in so much time and effort to put this in a digestible format for us plow boys and girls made it - available! And for that we thank you.

[@nobodyspecial1852]

Yep

[@Eddievilar]

Yep!

[@jimyoung9262]

Another yep

[@BioHazard74D]

Also yep.

[@HebrewGreekKnowledge]

Yep

[@hayfieldhermit9657]

I have thought about my KJV onlyism a lot. I asked myself if it was a doctrine, and I believe it was at a doctrine level. It was super important. So I asked myself if I time travel to 1610, does my doctrine still work, and it was a pretty quick and final, no.... So I concluded I would have to change how I approach text preservation and assurance of the text of scripture if I lived in 1610 or prior. That troubled me a lot. The good news is that the KJV translators, and William Tyndale, left us a lot of words on the topic of scripture and text. So I essentially adopted what I saw their view to be. It's not KJV only. It's scripture only. And you know what? It works.

[@JonHuhnMedical]

I like to listen to Mark's videos in public areas in the hopes that people will happen by and assume I'm smart enough to understand what I'm hearing.

[@4jgarner]

That's a big brain move. 🧠

[@wayneiis66]

😅

[@michealferrell1677]

This will go down as one of my all time favorite videos from our brother Dr Mark Ward . I do not think that the facts here can be reasonably argued against.

[@jesusnewcovenant]

You nailed this one so well. Appreciating your work and it gives the laymen a deeper understanding and argument to stand up for the Scriptures. Thanks.

[@nerdyyouthpastor8368]

That was phenomenal paper! I'm glad to see that you have finally made it into a publicly available video. This should expand your audience for such an important point. Pardon the tiny critique of a phenomenal video, but Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir were uncle and nephew rather than brothers.

[@mikelilley]

Outstanding video Mark! I found your article online and read that as well. Excellent presentation. Thank you and God bless you.

[@mikelilley]

Funny, I'm watching this video on our big screen using Roku. My wife says... "Hey, that's the dead words and false friends guy".

[@ojntk]

I was privileged to read this paper soon after it was first published and it had a huge impact on me! I think this is an incredibly powerful presentation and I hope this video version will have that same impact on many others!

[@markwardonwords]

Thank you, Omar! It’s been a long time coming!

[@ojntk]

@thomasbalzamo8919 definitely!

[@pastorcoreyadams]

Wow! Great video, Mark! I felt like I was back in Bible College soaking in this. I will need to watch it again and read the article you wrote, brother. Thank you for putting it together.

[@edwardgraham9443]

Finally competed watching this and this was brilliantly done. Thank you. If I've gotten anything from your videos since I started to watching your channel is that I can be confident that I have the word of God before me in any of the major Bible translations about today. While I read and use the ESV, it could have easily been the NIV, the NASB, the NKJV, the CSB or the NLT (although barring the NIV and NKJV, I couldn't get any of the others in hard copy in my country) and it would still be the word of God and I can read it and be saved. That is what is important to me. Thank you for all the hours you put into these videos and the interviews you've done. I particularly liked the one with Maurice Robinson.

[@JamesFranklin-hd4tm]

Mark, I've been asking this question for years. However, it seems that those who truly need to consider the question will not give it one second of thought, and those who will consider it are already in your camp. Well done!

[@ironnman67]

Excellent work, Dr. Ward, as always.

[@solidghus4799]

Your point is well taken and significant. In making your point you do demonstrate a strength of the TR(s), being that your research shows a traceable chain of custody that is preferable to documents that are discovered with no such evidence of a chain of custody. In the TR manuscripts we can, (and you did) trace and track changes. To answer your question, "Which TR?" My answer is "Yes." Caveot: I am TR preferred not TR "only."

[@tnairman83]

What an OUTSTANDING lecture!!! Thank you so much for sharing!

[@markwardonwords]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@tnairman83]

Does your book, Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible, cover the material you share in this video?

[@markwardonwords]

@@tnairman83 Decidedly no. In that book I spend no more than three pages explaining why I should not have to talk about textual criticism at all.

[@ZelosPhotizo]

Seriously one of your best videos IMO.

[@ShaunCKennedyAuthor]

This was awesome! Thank you! As an amateur translator, there's no love lost between me and KJOists. It's been a looooong time since someone asked me, "Hey, Shaun... why are you being so nice to the King James Onlyists today?" It always gives me a warm fuzzy feeling to see them put in their place by someone smarter and less... uh... prickly than me.

[@EricCouture315]

Finished it. Praise the Lord. That was so good. Thank you. Soli Deo Gloria!

[@markwardonwords]

Wow! I'm honored! This is quite a commitment!

[@oswaldumeh]

Your exhaustive research and delivery on this KJV-only issue has been and will continue to be a voice of moderation and caution the Lord, I believe, wants to sound out to the bigots who tend to almost glorify an imperfect translation and manuscript copy, and to the others who's consciences have be laden with the guilt of using "a corrupt" translation (Greek text). May the Lord continue to give you the enlightenment and encouragement your need in this endeavour. God bless you immensely.

[@schrock4ro]

Thank you for spending the time producing this kind of resource. Your service to the body of Christ is greatly appreciated

[@Alex-mg7yc]

This is the type of your videos I have to watch at least 5 times to get all what you are saying. But I love it!

[@luketaylor6878]

Thanks so much for this, super informative!

[@SoldierofChrist9]

Thank you Dr. Ward for such an informative video. We have a saying in the deep south.. "Y'all need to take your act right". I completely understand trying to preserve the Lord's Word to the best of our abilities, however, the malicious behavior that so many have incorporated in doing so has done more harm than good. Hence, they need to take their act right.. double dosage. :)

[@comfy8250]

This really is the nail on KJV-onlyism's coffin if we wanna pretend it's all about the TR rather than the KJV specifically. When I was younger I got confused by TR only people online. Never joined their rank, and after I went back to reading the bible and about the bible more a lot their claims of wilful corruption started to become suspicious, but this channel sealed the deal. Watching Dan Wallace's textual criticism vídeos next. This subject is actually quite interesting and appealing to me now that I see people dealing with it seriously rather than with conspiracy theories and calling everyone a heretic/corrupter

[@cdrompfw]

Well... this was impressive. I have struggled with this very topic for years and you have provided great examples and insight into the 'which bible is the right bible'... at least that is how I word the conflict I have had. Your video has made me sit up and reflect. Now I need to digest and rewatch this to ensure I have your points and counterpoints right in my mind. Thanks for the teaching.

[@markwardonwords]

My pleasure! Thanks for the kind comment.

[@wretchedpoet29]

Great video, brother!

[@BrendaBoykin-qz5dj]

Difficult but insightful. Thank you, Brother Mark.🌹🔥⭐🔥🌹

[@Dwayne_Green]

I'm surprised you didn't touch on 1 Tim 3:16! My only issue with this is that it doesn't really address the root of the KJV debate. The root isn't that there are variant readings in the TR, a number of KJV defenders are aware of this and have even addressed it to some degree (I'm thinking of Byran Ross with his discussion on Verbatim Identicality). With both sides having uncertainty with textual criticism in a number of places, each side is looking to some sort of authority to make those decisions MORE certain: The CT side looks to modern TC scholarship, that those scholars are God's providential way of preserving the Scriptures, the KJV/TR side looks to the KJV translators (and other scholars in the TR era) as God's providential way of preserving the Scriptures. I think the question really boils down to a theology. I think back to the debate between Kleeck and White, I would have loved to see white address the theology, but he continued to interact with manuscript evidence, I think this was the wrong approach. With that being said... I'm a Byzantine guy, so we tend to find the authority among the Byzantine Manuscripts (yes, some textual scholarship is needed too) suggesting that God had preserved the Wording amongst those. C'mon Mark, become a Byzantine guy :P

[@NikorouKitsunerou]

A light bulb went off in my head recently had me think maybe it's not impossible to think the original authors could have gone back and wanted better rendering than what they left in the first edition autographs. This could be why there are a variety of renderings. I don't think it's fair to poke at TR people for having renderings if that was baked in to begin with.

[@SherlockGnomes007]

​@@NikorouKitsunerou Interesting thought. If an inspired author, many years later, decides to revise his letter to add something further, explain something, or whatever, are both texts inspired or only the original? I can certainly see a few drafts getting out and becoming copied then later the revised edition coming out and soon nobody knows which is which, knowing how the world works! Thank God he has written his Law in our hearts, and the Gospel can be taught in a few sentences!

[@kirbysmith4135]

The KJV was the bible given to me at my first Christmas, by my Sunday School teacher when I turned six, at my baptism, and several other occasions. I never read any of them. THEN came the TEV (Good News for Modern Man), first paperback NT, and later the complete bible in hardback. THEN, I began reading the bible, even as my pastor preached from J.B. Phillips' translation. I went to seminary and the translation of choice was the RSV. I have preached (and still do) from the '84 NIV for 40 years. Having said all that, I had never even heard of KJVonlism until about two years ago. Wow!! Yes, I have read it through, along with 6 other translations, and boy am I glad we them. Just thought I'd share. Thanks Mark!

[@stormythelowcountrykitty7147]

Thank you for posting this.

[@amptown1]

Wow, this video was academic and demanding and complicated. Honestly, it was all Greek to me.😂

[@richardvoogd705]

😂

[@Matthew-307]

😑😑

[@MrLlamajockey]

I'm very grateful you took the time to do this video. This was very detailed and helpful . At the same time, I can't help but be sad for portions of believers to make such a dividing mountain over what is clearly a molehill. I can't fathom the bravery and arrogance it would take not to just disagree with certain translations, but to call them 'The Devil's Bible'. While I don't think that's Blaphemy of the Holy Spirit, it's gotta be on the road somewhere.

[@markwardonwords]

Right!

[@mike29shan25]

Thanks Mark for scholarly work that by my opinion is full of integrity!! I use the ESV the most and have come to appreciate the CSB. But…i also really enjoy reading the KJV in segments of 20 minutes or less. ROI here for listening to you for so long now 🤔…every translation has practiced textual criticism. I actually appreciate modern Bibles and KJV more now because you’ve magnified their similarities through pointing out there differences!!…many people don’t have the Word….so i appreciate the access we have to our translations…thanks again Mark!!..God Bless!

[@keithfuson7694]

Thanks for your scholarly intelligent work in this vital area..

[@kevinshort2230]

I recognize your copy of Scriveners, we used that as the collation base for Dr Schneider's class on text crit back in the day. Which does raise the question, which TR has been standardized as the collation base (that seems like pertinent information in places where TRs differ). Starting well. The differences between Erasmus's 2nd and 3rd editions on 1 John 5:7 was quite influential on my own thinking back in the day (it seemed that the theology I was taught was undercut by the actual history of the TR). Good work so far.

[@kevinshort2230]

Need note: have you or has anyone you know looked at Scrivener and the KJO, and the Vulgate's influence on Erasmus and the complutensian polyglot as a model for the influence of other versions on the so-called Western text-type or the Coptuc versions on the later Alexandrian mss.?

[@wayneiis66]

Very well laid out instruction to something that as you say is being used to divide believers - i thank you for all your efforts in this work and pray The Lord will use it .

[@rosslewchuk9286]

It is well-spoken. My favorite English Bible is the NKJV, followed by the WEB British Edition, especially for their New Testament. I favor the "Byzantine" textual stream, but consult many of the modern translations no matter their textual basis (e.g. BSB, CSB, NET, ESV, MEV, NIV, NASB, LSB, MKJV, KJ3). We all need to operate in the spirit of the KJ Preface and be gracious. Thanks!🙏📖 (P.S. I don't understand why the KJV translators chose Beza's conjectural emendation of Revelation 16: 5.)🤔😊

[@west]

This was an outstanding summary. Well done, (and thank you) Mark!

[@markwardonwords]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@shawngillogly6873]

Easily one of the best discussions of the KJVOnly issue I've ever seen in 35yrs of debating it.

[@markwardonwords]

Many thanks.

[@scripturial]

"Which version of the TR" is my favorite question to ask people. Not so much because I want to stir up and cause problems, but simply as a way to try and capture a persons interest, and encourage them to expand their understanding of the history of the Greek text we have today.

[@davemallinak1445]

I went through the 7th-9th section verse-by-verse and was interested to find that in about half of the examples, Scrivener matched Beza 1588/89. I John 2:23 matches Beza as well, so I assume the KJV italicized the 2nd half of the verse (my Bible is also italicized) to acknowledge that it isn't found in some editions of the TR.

[@MAMoreno]

Yes, that's exactly why the original 1611 KJV placed the second half of 1 John 2.23 in smaller, less ornate type (later replaced with italics). The 1539 Great Bible and the 1568 Bishops' Bible, the two translations that directly preceded the KJV in the Tyndale English Bible lineage, placed this text in smaller type and parentheses. It was absent from the 1535 Coverdale Bible and the 1537 Matthew Bible. (Side note: the Coverdale Bible, Matthew Bible, and Great Bible set off 1 John 5.7 in parentheses, as it had been absent from the first two editions of the TR. The 1873 Scrivener edition of the KJV tried to follow suit by placing the verse in italics, but this decision was dropped from subsequent editions.)

[@joshuamercer854]

Man I’m so busy I need the “Blinkist” version of these! But I do appreciate the amount of content.

[@TurretinFan]

Thanks for the favorable mention in the description! One minor comment about the video itself. Note that even Scrivener's 1881/94 does not completely align with "the KJV." The most frequently cited example is Ephesians 6:24 where Scrivener omits the terminal Amen, although both the Oxford and Cambridge editions have inserted it (the 1611 itself omitted it). There are other places where it is unclear whether the King James translators may have followed a different text from what Scrivener selected. Revelation 15:4 provides two examples: (1) contemporary King James edition have "thou" and "art" in italics and (2) the English word, "holy," could refer to at least two different Greek words. The Complutensian polyglot with its insertion of εἶ (thou art) was available to the KJ translators. The Complutensian polyglot also has a different (from Scrivener's choice) Greek synonym for holy. In the second case, it's unclear whether the King James translators would have even cared about this variant.

[@phillipschulz1565]

this is one of the best and by far most in depth but concise video on this subject. I am so thankful for this. I think this younger generation responds greater to truthfulness instead of absoluteness. When people act like this book is perfection, then just one small mistake, or the appearance of a mistake for most of the time, and it gives that person permission to leave as if they have slain a giant. More leave christianity by pushing absoluteness which eventually feels like we have been lied to. This presentation is provides answers and allows for common ground and more will follow the faith because of this approach.

[@oztheberean]

I guarantee with 100% certainty that at least 8 out of every 10 KJVonlyists would have zero clue on how to answer this question. I'm not against the KJV at all as I was saved with a copy of it in my native tongue of Spanish. I still have it. I'm against the embarrassing arrogance of that cult. Excellent video my brother.

[@scotwells7573]

@@oztheberean what is the question?

[@andyefting6680]

Another well-done video, Mark! In KJV-onlyism, textual criticism really amounts to -- does it agree with the KJV or does it not. That is basically the sole criteria for determining between TR readings. Two big problems with that are (1) there was no perfectly preserved text or translation available for God’s people until the KJV came into existence, and (2) which version of the KJV is definitive, because there are multiple KJV’s just like there are multiple TR’s. The answer I’ve heard is the 1769 Cambridge version, as opposed to the Oxford version (cf., Jer 34:16, “whom he” vs “whom ye”). Not sure which version Scrivener used. Also not sure how Christians are to know which one, based on what God has revealed to us in the Bible, other than bald assertion. Or how we know God wanted us to use an English version as the standard to judge the TR’s rather than a Dutch, German, or other translation.

[@patrickjames1492]

Thank you for this presentation of your research, @markwardonwords. You have left me wondering how Scrivener 1894 came to be published by TBS, apparently without the Preface, variants in the RV, and the Appendix of deviations from Beza (some, as you say, back to the Vulgate). Scrivener is still published by Cambridge University Press. What is the story? Why did TBS pick Scrivener if they had a choice but did not make their edition closer to the KJV (those non-Greeek Vulgate readings)?

[@patrickjames1492]

I think that the plural of textus receptus would be textūs recepti (a fourth-declension noun). This plural focuses the issue. Is any manuscript not text that was received? That is not what the Elzevirs meant, but nor is that the TR itself was handed down from antiquity.

[@markwardonwords]

@patrickjames1492 You’re technically right, but I think that in this circumstance we need to think of “Textus Receptus” as an English phrase operating on the Latin principles generally perceived to operate in such circumstances.

[@patrickjames1492]

@markwardonwords Thank you. I see your point. However, I wonder why any need is felt among the various parties to use this much abused piece of Latin. Textus receptus was not the title of any edition as far as I know (I do not have a TBS edition), but a rhetorical move. Why not fully anglicise as textus receptuses or Received Text editions, etc.?

[@markwardonwords]

@@patrickjames1492 Alas-likewise, the plural of "octopus" is often thought to be "octopi," because people don't realize that the -us was actually -ous-i.e., Greek and not Latin. I think we need to think of "Textus Receptus" as a special class of English word/phrase.

[@genewood9062]

Brother Mark: The original KJV contained, and a few KJV's still do have, the KJV Translators' study notes. These are in a narrow central column, in the ones I have. The TRANSLATORS' STUDY NOTES include: 1) CROSS-REFERENCES; 2) ALTERNATE TRANSLATIONS! QUERY: To be consistent, do any of our TR-only brethren say these alternate translations are ALSO "the perfectly preserved word of God"? :--}>

[@WilliamWatsonBirch]

Wow. Simply stunning. Thank you!

[@honsville]

Love the comparisons and the logic behind them. I occasionally read the 1611 marginal notes and make comparisons also. Much of the reason for men being harsh on other translations seems to be them having diverse weights and showing partiality. They use a different measuring tape. They will openly preach that often times fathers and mothers will do this with their child when the child gets caught up in sin, and they'll leave the church, but yet they do the same thing when they are proved wrong. Truth is truth, whether it's dealing with sin or textual criticism....Christians should stand for truth.

[@tinybibles]

It took me a long time to realize how the TR Only position really is KJVO not just in its similarity but in its foundational argument. An honest advocate would style himself as Scrivener TR Only; to wit, all variants are adjudicated by the King James Version. Culminating in 1611, God miraculously re-preserved the Greek text (and of course in a way that can never occur again).

[@dwmmx]

Very well put, sir! This makes a dent for me, for sure. I pray, pray, pray that King James Onlyists will get a hold of this essential information

[@geralddill2455]

Outstanding video. It is highly instructive. Thank you.

[@BioHazard74D]

Only 20min into the video but I am assuming this argument is where pastors (like in that viral clip) claim they can correct the Greek with the KJV? That actually makes sense from their perspective and in that context doesn't sound like quite as insane of a statement. (but it's still oozing with hubris.)

[@fnjesusfreak]

I have actually heard the KJV referred to as the _true_ Textus Receptus.

[@michaelroots6931]

Great information. You covered the range of differences. Maybe do a shorter one on the major ones. Only other thing I would suggest you actually have a copy of both, it would add extra credibility.

[@TheJesusNerd40]

Your best video to date, Mark!!!

[@AJMacDonaldJr]

Some people simply don't trust late modern and contemporary German critical text scholarship brother Mark. I would love to see a series of interviews done with the text scholars in Munster. Ask them about what they are doing with the text and why. Ask them what they believe about Christ and the Gospel. I think this would be enlightening. Perhaps this could eliminate distrust? Perhaps it would cause a total loss of trust? Anyway, it would be interesting to know what they believe.

[@grampysays]

question Mark, do you think the NT was spoken in Hebrew and translated to those in Greek so they would understand the all of the Hebrew ways of conversation, or did they (those who brought the message of Jesus) just translate in Greek what was the understanding of the message, and that's what was written. In other words was this NT written in Hebrew first by Hebrew speaking messengers, and written in a Greek translation to the Greek speaking audiences? How was the message delivered? Was a translator writing the message spoken? That would mean Paul understood Greek to effectually convey the understanding of Hebrew. Were these NT letters and script sent to churches as Greek written language as a translation of the Hebrew/Aramaic message of Jesus? Thanks for your study

[@ozrithclay6921]

Simply... awesome video. Somehow, you (and through God's providence) have me becoming a word nerd and excited about the uncertainty of such a massive and important subject. I've always been "bad with words and good with numbers" (a saying I've used since I was a teen in the 90s), a former KJVonlyist, and (due to abuse), someone who shies away from uncertainty for "solid" views. It feels so freeing to see how little textual variations actually matter to the important doctrines of Jesus. I would definitely love to see you do more videos on textual criticism (debating and philosophies), but I fully understand why you have a policy against it on this channel. Would you have any recommendations for channels that do that on KZbin? *edit: nvm, I see you have at least one video on it. But I'm still interested if you have any recommend channels.

[@chuckhortler2814]

thanks very much for this video. Also really enjoyed reading your paper. Would it be possible to point out some reasons that the critical text would be the de facto alternative to a TR text? Is it possible to have another session with Tim Berg (or Mr. Robinson) on the topic of why the source texts which became the critical text have authority? I hope I haven't overlooked this explanation in other videos or content you've shared. Please point out content to review on this topic if already there... it's hard to keep up with your prolific output but it's very much appreciated.

[@markwardonwords]

I have never on this channel argued for the superiority of the critical text, and I don’t think I’m going to start now. :-) That’s just not my concern. I just want peace; I want textual absolutists to recognize that we’re all in the same boat: nobody has warrant to claim absolute perfection of text. My far greater desire is that people will make or use a translation of whatever text they prefer into fully intelligible contemporary English because that’s what I think the Bible speaks clearly to.

[@chuckhortler2814]

@@markwardonwords as always appreciate your responses. this question was prompted by your statement at 31 minutes into the parallel KJV project episode: How Different Are the TR and the Critical Text? See for Yourself in English. It's only to ask what those details are not to make any huge moves as you're clear that it's each individual's choice which source text informs their Bible choice ... something moved the needle for you. If it's not prying to ask about a public statement, that's my only reason for the question above: "I do not think the critical text is far superior though I do for several reasons believe it is superior and yet I'm okay truly with my brothers in Christ thinking that the TR is superior as long as they don't have to put the critical text down and as long as they translate the TR into fully intelligible contemporary English"

[@markwardonwords]

@@chuckhortler2814 Very fair. I accept that the reading that best explains the others is likely to be original. I also accept the idea that very old uncials are more likely to be closer to the original than manuscripts that are centuries younger. I also recognize that I am dependent on the work of others in such a complex field, and the people I trust adopt the critical text.

[@justinhawes1593]

I laughed out loud at “Beelzeboub”

[@anthonym7272]

@3:56 - you said no jokes, but that was a little humerous :)

[@BlisterBang]

@35:38 Did you mispronounce οικοδομιαν? The accent is on the last iota, but it sounds like you emphasized δομ. Or was this intentional to point out the only letter difference between the two words?

[@markwardonwords]

I can’t remember! I remember both stumbling a little and trying to emphasize the difference.

[@BlisterBang]

@@markwardonwords Don't worry about it. I probably shouldn't have brought it up. I'm re-learning Koine Greek (took it 25 years ago) and got so frustrated today with accent rules!

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

This video is brilliant.

[@markwardonwords]

Thank you, Tim! Much appreciated.

[@fantasynerd8]

TR onlyism is King James Onlyism once removed

[@timmyholland8510]

Not necessarily, NKJV is TR based.

[@fantasynerd8]

@@timmyholland8510 that's a fair point. I guess I'm speaking from my experience. The folks I have encountered who will use the new King James do not generally behave like King James only folks.

[@mike245401]

Hi Dr. Ward, do you have a video on the gospel of Mark? If the ending was added, missing, or original? Thanks 😊

[@markwardonwords]

I do not. It’s not been my concern to advance one perspective or the other but to plead for peace among the evangelical adherents of the major options.

[@mike245401]

​@@markwardonwords Well I don't think it would cause a holy war lol. I think it's important and needs to be addressed. There are alot of opinions on the matter but nothing scholarly I can find. (Well Christian scholarly.) I guess we can take it to the original source. But getting the actual truth about it may be a problem. (Catholicism) Truth should be truth to Christians whatever it may be. Thanks so much for your response and your help. 😊

[@markwardonwords]

@@mike245401 Try this: textandcanon.org/a-case-for-the-longer-ending-of-mark/ textandcanon.org/a-case-against-the-longer-ending-of-mark/

[@mike245401]

@@markwardonwords Thank you!😊

[@eclipsesonic]

Mike Winger did a 2 hour video on the authenticity of the longer ending of Mark if you're interested in seeing in-depth information on it.

[@tony.biondi]

Brilliant!

[@EricCouture315]

I'm only 8 min in and I'm having trouble containing my excitement. This was the hard road I had to travel down in order to free me from the errors I believed in KJVonlyism / TRonlyism.

[@markwardonwords]

Having watched the whole thing… What do you think of the title? It's not too late to change it.

[@EricCouture315]

I think the title is great. I know people who are walking the path I walked will be lead to this video by asking that very question. You know the work I put in comparing only the last edition of Erasmus to the last edition of Stephanus to the last edition of Beza to the last edition of Elzivir and finally to the KJV ... I only made it through 3 gospels and I was convinced that the arguments against the CT could be applied in every kind (except that one [which all English Bibles still contain them]) to the family or TR texts. That day, I reached out to you and told my mind had been changed. By doing the work myself, I couldn't deny the truth that the very concept of verbal plenary preservation specifically of the family of TR texts had to be rejected. Thank you for your works. Yea, the title is good. 😅

[@michealferrell1677]

Yea, that is still the question:)

[@TheRomanOrthodox]

Indeed, it should not be referred to as "texti recepti" because "textus" is a 4th declension Latin word, and therefore the plural should be "textus recepti". (Random Nerd Trolling)

[@DevlinDomini]

There’s some really good stuff in here that could be repackaged into smaller vids. Not SHORTS! (lol) I was thinking particularly near the end; the whole jot and tittle thing and the common ground. I’m not a video editor, but I’d totally be sharing that with folks.

[@DevlinDomini]

Lol… I just noticed the KZbin clip function. Praise God.

[@eclipsesonic]

If KJV-Only advocates were being honest, they would have to admit that the only TR that's truly "perfect" is Scrivener's, as only the choices that the KJV translators made were absolutely perfect in all their translational decisions, at least on their view.

[@johnsavard7583]

Well, you can debunk King James Only-ism here, but what about the Majority Text faction that claims that Kr or Family 34, because of the great agreement among that group of manuscripts, contains the perfect text?

[@MAMoreno]

Pickering and Pals haven't had the same negative impact that KJVOs have had. But yes, that level of confidence is bizarre. Surely such a level of agreement indicates a conscious standardization of the text at the beginning of the second millennium, not a perfect stream of copies over the first millennium.

[@sethplace]

It’s funny to me that there is probably a KJ advocate sitting around somewhere saying man I wish this guy would go away… but I think they want opposition.. at least in my experience they tend to like the argument. 🤷‍♂️

[@joestfrancois]

Argument is a big part of religion. Did you eve notice how many denominations there are? In all religions?

[@sethplace]

@@joestfrancois you’re not wrong.

[@vinoneil]

​@@joestfrancois what's an atheist doing in the comment section of a video about biblical manuscripts? 🤨

[@joestfrancois]

@@vinoneil wrote "what's an atheist doing in the comment section of a video about biblical manuscripts?" I no longer self-apply the term "atheist." Too much crap associated with that label. But my beliefs have nothing to do with my interest in the Hebrew and Christian Bibles. And I can comment wherever I please.

[@vinoneil]

​@@joestfrancois Never said you couldn't comment wherever you please. And what on earth does that mean? That you no longer self-apply the term atheist? Would "non-believer in God" better cater to your sensibilities? Most of your comments have been the typical atheist stuff. It's certainly an odd past-time. But if it tickles your fancy, have at it I guess.

[@benjaminrandolph8972]

Your reluctant foray against a "perfect" TR is certain to return significant gains for the side of consistency and truth. I believe that most KJVO adherents initially are anchored to a foundation of a perfect translation. Well, information available online for all to see has made this position nearly impossible to maintain, as it is easily disproven. The same thing could be said for the readability and intelligibility arguments, which you have so convincingly dismantled. When those foundations get shaky, folks will tend to jump to the next pier that they perceive to be sturdy-a pure/perfect base text. Your work in this video, along with the work of others before you, is certainly causing that next pier to waver! Soon, many Christians who are willing to be honest with themselves will realize that the house that is sitting on this unreliable foundation is about to crumble! This is the process that I went through and is the same process that I've had others describe to me from their experiences! As you know, this battle is not about winning; it is about helping other Christians understand God's words better and to give their consciences the liberty to read a Bible that is written in their language. Your work is making a difference! Another excellent video!

[@markwardonwords]

Your last paragraph is right! This is about freeing Christian consciences to read God's word in their own English. Praise the Lord, progress is being made! Fundamentally, Christian people want this. They want to know God through his word. I do, too.

[@voyager7]

I first encountered KJV/TR-onlyism when I was much younger. I've always felt that the movement was, dare I say, embarrassing for the church at large. Far from being a dogmatic belief about some theological or ontological truth as revealed by God, it amounts to a fabricated theological position completely manufactured to satisfy an innate human need: surety. The problem of course, is that positions like this that are of human invention, always seem to suffer from glaring illogic and inconsistency. Where was the preserved word in 1610? Why English as the language of final "preservation" when it did not even exist to the original writers? Why is the TR significantly influenced by the Latin vulgate? Why is Scrivener's own position as a textual critic such as it was, effectively ignored? Why does the "preserved" text, allegedly basing its OT on the Masoretic text, found with numerous NT quotes of the OT from the LXX? And finally, as the video asks well, which TR? In the end the KJV/TR-only position is a position that none of the translators or compilers of KJV or the various TR's would have held. In the desire to have a "Qur'an-like" Bible (meaning one asserted to be effectively a copy of one in heaven) the movement causes endless division within Christendom because it can not or does not want to understand the superior method in which God chose to preserve His word, as Dr White describes well, as broad distribution and non-centralized authority. The confidence one can have in such an approach is far in excess of that possessed in presuming that one's favorite regal English translation alone is the ink of the proverbial Divine pen.

[@markwardonwords]

You nailed it.

[@Naomi_OB]

Fantastic job. Wish the KJVO friends I know would listen to this. Sadly, I know they won't bc it is way over their heads. That is no fault of Dr Ward, its bc the KJVO friends have no interest in learning or being educated about the KJVO doctrine/dogma, and simply accept what they've been told is true by their charismatic (yet uneducated) pastor

[@fuddlywink1]

wow super fantastic information. well done very comprehensive, info !!! lots of territory covered there. those outlandish belief systems are reactive uneducated...... GREAT VIDEO

[@fuddlywink1]

the preservation idea in so old we can not get that close to the autographs compare whatever text you want bishops stephanus geneva kjv...asv revised authorized...got them all... then study the Masoretic interlinear Hebrew it will Change your mind... Don't be fooled into thinking there's no Hebrew Gospels TOO... respectfully

[@danbrown586]

"We" (i.e., KJVO/TR-only folks, a group to which I don't belong) recognize that Ruckman was kind of a kook, so we don't want to sound like him, so we don't want to say that the KJV corrects the Greek text. We don't want to say that the KJV translators were miraculously guided in their work, or that their work was reinspired. Well and good--those are truly outlandish positions, and they should indeed be avoided. Instead we say it was "providentially preserved," which sounds nice and sensible, especially to those of a Calvinistic bent. But here's the problem, which any Calvinist (in which category I consider myself) will, or should, recognize: everything that happens is a result of God's providence. As Sproul famously said, there are no stray molecules in the universe. The _Texti Recepti_ are as they are as a result of God's providence, this much is true. And it's equally true that the NA28 is as it is as a result of God's providence--the one no less than the other. And for that matter, it's equally as a result of God's providence that the Queen James "Bible" exists. God's providence, true as it is, proves nothing with respect to the accuracy of any given text, manuscript, or translation; that question must be addressed by other means. But a very good job nailing down a critical question: how much, and what kind, of variation is acceptable among texts? And its necessary follow-up: on what principle do you draw the line where you do?

[@jsonisbored]

To whoever reads this, I'm curious if there is a translation that has the following goal that is taken from the BibleProject when they occasionally do their own translation. "To use words and phrases that convey the same meaning but give new vitality to phrases that have become overly familiarized. Some words might sound strange, but these translation choices are a more literal rendering of the Greek text into English."

[@JustMeUnderDog]

Best explanation I've ever heard. I wonder why including your unprotestested engagement in misquoted scripture. (Mat 5:17 KJV) {17} Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to 👉FULFIL👈. {18} For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be 👉FULFILLED.👈 Mathew 1:1 might have a page before called New Testament, but technically the New Blood Testament hadn't been cut and He was walking under the Old Blod Covenant. Even at the "Last Supper" thar was a ceremony but important (keeping short simple). The on the cross He said it was finished and as a sign the curtain ripped the New Covenant was "CUT". Then on Pentecost the Temple became a living sanctuary, living stones, earthenware, earthen vessels. It is not a promise of a written Bible with no missing dot on the ιοτα. "ι". Not only have large masses of people of long periods of time had no word. Even in the Old Testament they found missing Scrolls while remodeling lol. GOD IS PROMISING THE THOUGHT, IDIOM, HE KNOWS AND WILL DO ALL OF IT.... NOT A PERFECT TEXT OR TRANSLATION. I'm thankful and study the word and look at the text too. I doubt nothing about my bible being inspired and I enjoy looking at the Variants too. I was born-again in 1977, in about 1980 I studied how we got our bible as a member in a church that was KJVO. They not intending to do so taught me the idolatry AND I started seeing that destructive attack I learned and used on people. I believe your doing an important great work

[@JustMeUnderDog]

Typos and auto correct. I stopped being KJVO because of their own teaching. I saw some of the flaws you pointed out. And I saw how they and I were mean to others. They imply salvation issues if not KJVO. I also saw idolatry and worship of the translation. I got my NKJV when NT was released then later OT. Hebrews mistake has been fixed, " the Just shall live by faith, but if ANYMAN (HE) draw back".... They fixed to (He), then under pressure from Calvin's people changed it back. So I lost heart in those who want it to agree with them. We adjust our beliefs to the word. I show KJVO somethings in the "letter from the translators to the reader"

[@chancylvania]

27:21 I saw on a website about nt Greek try to claim the verb in the maidens and the lamps parable “going out” is wrong compared to the KJVs “are run out” (they weren’t kjv only). It’s a ridiculous claim that somehow the amount of oil has to do with the Holy Spirit or some weird interpretation. I’m very much condensing it here but it’s just an odd claim I found.

[@nobodyspecial1852]

Really large leaps or series of them, that must then be taken hyper literal. I don't know what to call it, how to articulate it concisely, but i know what you're talking about.

[@chancylvania]

@@nobodyspecial1852 yeah he was basically trying to read too much theology into a parable that Jesus already told us how to interpret, and making a mountain out of a mole hill of most of it, and just being flat out wrong about the verb.

[@richardvoogd705]

I'm open to correction here, it seems to me that the point of the parable is that we should be prepared when Jesus returns. Deciding whether the lamps are run out or going out is a minor discussion point by comparison.

[@chancylvania]

@@richardvoogd705 yeah that’s what I mean. He made a mountain out of a mole hill saying making it “our lamps are going out” instead of “our lamps are gone out” is somehow a theological problem.

[@erichoehn8262]

To argue that we need an inerrant TR because if we did not have one it would leave us at the mercy of scholarly conclusions is a form of the logical fallacy "argumentum ad consequentiam" or "argument to the consequence". Just because a truth leads to undesirable consequences does not make it untrue.

[@RandomTChance]

When will they come out with a translation that replaces "the" with thuh and "our" with ire. 😂 Sorry I just had to "ast" the question? 😂

[@RandomTChance]

@@HansTyndale WOW!!! 🤯 I will look that up. ✌️🤠

[@timmyholland8510]

It has gone too far in arguing that King James is the only Bible to use. Yet, many do make a fair point you can't be double minded on things, unstable in all their ways. Two TRs seems perfectly fine as the go to, leave it as the best options. NKJV and KJV would be excellent together and have been actually printed as parallel Bibles. At least half might be useful. Still, half the Bibles on the market is a problem to defending the reliable Bible, choose two or so to stand on, in the TR preferred mostly.

[@billcook4768]

I know I should pay attention to the scrivener edition, but I would prefer not to.

[@annakimborahpa]

Which TR Is the Perfectly Preserved One? Mark Ward speaking at 0:27-32: "But I am convinced that God's people do better knowing the truth than they do believing errors." Response: I wholeheartedly agree and commend you for all the work you have done regarding the Biblical text. However, I have a question that might fall under your Category 11 - Contradictions. It refers to a perceived contradiction between (A) the King James Version on one hand and (B) the English translations of the Textus Receptus and Critical Text in the KJV Parallel Bible online that appear to be incorrect renderings of their original Greek. I am referring to the conjunction in the first sentence clause of 1 Corinthians 11:27. 1. On the KJV Parallel Bible Org webpage About The Site, A few housekeeping points etc., No. 10 states: "This project was conceived, designed, and organized by Mark Ward, PhD, author of Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible." Therefore, it would appear that Dr. Ward assumes the chief responsibility for its contents. 2. On the KJV Parallel Bible Org webpage for 1 Corinthians, Verse 27 reads: A. Textus Receptus: "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, AND drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." B. Critical Text: "Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread, AND drink the cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." 3. On the KJV Parallel Bible Org webpage About The Site, A few housekeeping points etc., No. 2 states: The specific version of the Textus Receptus used by this site is Scrivener’s TR, an edition of the TR F.H.A. Scrivener made in 1881 to demonstrate the textual-critical choices made by the KJV translators." 4. On the KJV Parallel Bible Org webpage About The Site, A few housekeeping points etc., No. 3 states: "The specific version of the critical text used on this site is the Nestle-Aland 28, the current edition of the CT used by basically all major modern English Bible translations except the NKJV and MEV (which uses the same Greek text as the KJV)." 5. When linking to the respective websites provided, (A) Google Books for the 1881 Scrivener as the basis for the Textus Receptus and (B) Deutche Bible Gesellschaft for the Nestle-Aland 28 as the basis for the Critical Text, in 1 Corinthians 11:27 both give the Greek conjunction ἢ in the first sentence clause which is translated as OR, not AND. 6. Therefore, there is a discrepancy between the KJV Parallel Bible's translation of (A) both the Textus Receptus and Critical Text and (B) their actual Greek texts for the conjunction in the first clause of 1 Corinthians 11:27. 7. Further, the KJV Parallel Bible Org webpage About The Site, A few housekeeping points etc., No. 2 states: The KJV translators used two slightly different editions of the TR as they worked on the KJV New Testament: Stephanus (1550) and Beza (1598). Both these TR editions have ἢ that is properly translated as OR, but the KJV translators translated it as AND. The New King James Version released in 1982 provides the correct translation of 1 Corinthians 11:27. Compare: A. King James Version: "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, AND drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." B. New King James Version: "Therefore whoever eats this bread OR drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." 8. For 1 Corinthians 11:27, the KJV translators followed the same rendering existing in both the 1560 Geneva Bible and 1568 Bishop's Bible. However, all three were in contradiction to the three previous English translations that the 1982 NKJV translation returned to: (A) Wycliffe's Bible of 1382, (B) the Tyndale Bible of 1535 and (C) the Great Bible of 1539 authorized by King Henry VIII. 9. Why? 10. God help me, may I take to heart these words of Mark Ward written above: "I'm not being snarky; I'm asking very sincerely. I'm driving at what I think is an important and even peacemaking point in the debate over the text of the Greek New Testament."

[@MAMoreno]

This isn't a textual variant, so there's no reason to translate it differently if the stated goal is to show where the texts differ. It would be akin to translating re'em as "wild ox" rather than "unicorn" in the second column. The point isn't whether the KJV translates things well: the point is whether they would have translated the passage differently if they had consulted a different base text.

[@annakimborahpa]

1. From what I can ascertain, the KJV translation of the conjunction of the first clause of 1 Corinthians 11:27 is at variance with ALL of the Greek New Testament manuscripts. Feel free to point out to me any that agree with the KJV. So even if the KJV translators "had consulted a different base text" how would they have translated the passage differently? 2. As mentioned prior, the same incorrect conjunction is used in the previous Bishops' Bible and the Geneva Bible. The Bishop's Bible was produced when Archbishop Thomas Cranmer's 39 Articles of Religions were becoming established as the official doctrine of the Church of England. The Geneva Bible was produced under the authority of John Calvin, the theocratic ruler of Geneva, and Miles Coverdale was one of his translators. Miles Coverdale had also been the primary translator of the earlier King Henry VIII's Great Bible that contained the correct conjunction in the first clause of 1 Cor 11:27. Therefore, Coverdale knew better, but he bent to Calvin. 3. Although there appears to be nothing extant to explain the 'why?' for such an obvious error, the change in the interpretive meaning of the text provides the clues. We can discuss it if you like. 4. My purpose in bringing this up was in response to Dr. Ward's statement, "But I am convinced that God's people do better knowing the truth than they do believing errors," so that the error in his KJV Parallel Bible Org webpage for 1 Cor 11:27 in both the TR and the CT could be corrected. 5. One anecdote: Over forty years ago, there was a KJV Onlyist who repeatedly approached me to assert that the KJV was the perfect, error-free English bible translation. Then he dared me to show him any error in the text that was at variance with the Greek concordance he placed in my hands. When I pointed out the conjunction in the first clause of 1 Cor 11:27, he went silent and never again attempted to evangelize me on the infallibility of the King James Bible. I respect the KJV Onlyists for believing in an infallible teacher, but consider their belief to be misplaced.

[@MAMoreno]

@@annakimborahpa It's not an error in a Greek text. If anything, it's an "error" in interpretation, one that may or may not reflect early Catholic/Protestant disputes about how to administer communion. But either way, it's an interpretive choice that is not dependent upon the Greek of any given TR or CT edition.

[@annakimborahpa]

1. Agreed, there is no error in the Greek text. 2. However, it is not an error in interpretation in the KJV, it is an error of translation. 3. The correct translation of the conjunction ἢ in the first clause of 1 Cor 11:27 in both the TR and CT is 'OR'. 4. Therefore, the KJV Parallel Bible Org's TR and CT for 1 Cor 11:27's conjunction in the first clause that contains 'AND' instead of 'OR' is incorrect. 5. Agreed, it was an interpretive choice, but it was also a deliberately erroneous choice to translate ἢ as 'AND' in the first sentence clause of 1 Cor 11:27 in (A) the Geneva Bible, (B) the Bishops Bible and (C) the King James Bible. 6. It involved more that just "early Catholic/Protestant disputes about how to administer communion." 7. Rather, it involved a text upon which the entire Protestant Reformation in the English speaking countries HINGED regarding their theology of liturgical worship.

[@TheSwatmachine]

No text is 'perfect' in and of it itself. What makes it 'perfect' is the Holy Spirit of God bearing witness to it through His work of preservation.

[@masaomorinaga6412]

I think the underlying problem to this entire debate is that all conservative Christians (both Critical Text and Textus Receptus) display some degree of dishonesty toward their lay constituents. The TR camp will tell their constituents that "THE TR is inerrant" knowing that their constituents will be left with the false assumption that there is one unified TR. But you also have the CT camp that will tell their constituents that "THE Bible is inerrant" knowing that the typical constituents will falsely assume that their ESV, NIV, and NLT are one unified text (except surface level phrasings). So you have the TR camp pointing out the hypocrisy of the CT camp, and then you have the CT camp pointing out the hypocrisy of the TR camp. This is really a case of us seeing only the speck in our brother's eye. And the underlying cause of the hypocrisy is that conservative Christian leaders/scholars are living with the uncomfortable tension of "upholding preservation" while recognizing the state of textual transmission. There are only two ways to resolve this tension. For example, the TR side can dogmatically uphold one particular TR edition (or even the KJV itself) as the preserved inerrant text. The CT side can uphold a particular NA edition as the final culmination of textual criticism. But most conservative Christians (both TR and CT) won't go this route because it's "unscholarly" and too dogmatic. The other way to resolve this tension is to get serious about what preservation means in light of the textual evidence. For example, it could be something as simple as applying the paradigm that "God preserved the text, but fallible humans do not agree on which text is the preserved text (it could be an edition of the Byz, TR, Vulgate, CT - we agree to disagree)". Then you can save the doctrine of preservation as traditionally understood and shift the "uncertainty" to man's fallibility. But what we usually end up with are just two polarized positions of some type of onlyism on one end and the denial of perfect preservation on the other end. The underlying cause of this debate is due to both sides promoting the old paradigm of preservation to their lay constituents while at the same time not willing to go the only logically consistent route of KJV-onlyism or NA27 or 28 onlyism. We should all consider, "How long halt ye between two opinions?"

[@joestfrancois]

@masaomorinaga6412 wrote "The underlying cause of this debate is due to both sides promoting the old paradigm of preservation to their lay " Another more simple explanation is that the Bible is man-made.

[@nobodyspecial1852]

I believe that the inspired scriptures carry the wisdom of God to those who genuinely study them. To argue "inerrancy" for any translation, rather than God's word being his intent to communicate with us in a coherent form, that concepts and knowledge are carried by integers (integers for thought) we call words (word: intent, proclamation, demand, order, wish... what is "God's word" by what definition do you regard that very term).... it's a really deep rabbit hole leading nowhere when people get stuck on bible translations as the be all end all. Human speech and writing is busted since the curse of babel, the is no perfect method of communication.

[@richardvoogd705]

​@@joestfrancoisthere may be an element of truth lurking here, or at least some kind of discussion point here. There are at least four "translations" that come to my mind that I wouldn't want to use regularly. Which ones, and why, might better suited for a separate discussion.

[@masaomorinaga6412]

@@joestfrancois Are you an atheist?

[@PhotographyByDerek]

An excellent and logical presentation. Unfortunately, KJVO and TRO defenders tend to be immune to logic, since they base their beliefs illogical arguments and conclusions.

[@markwardonwords]

There are exceptions! But with regard to this paper (now video), I've been particularly disappointed in the responses. I do not believe I got any substantive, intelligent responses. Not one.

[@EricCouture315]

Keep heart brother. I was a KJVO/TRO defender for many many years. I have since abandoned that position.

[@nobodyspecial1852]

If someone would just articulate that the chain of custody was established for the TR and CT was mostly "found in a cave recently" I'd understand..... but that chain of custody was full of shady custodians and narcissists, and the alternate textual lines back up the whole, especially that recent find preserved in clay jars in a cave. Do I trust a bunch of scholars and archaeologists that might be woke or narcissists (or malevolent deceivers) to *NOT* tamper or outright forge "ancient scriptures"? Nope, but look at them all as a corporate work from different people throughout the last two millennia, what changed in the actual message? Radio carbon dating means nothing to me, stories aren't hard to make up and acquire conspirators to spread, but the work matches and reinforces what we already had.

[@TerryChambers7]

A lot of my friends dislike you, brother Mark. I am so excited about it. It’s like being friends with a follower of the way, which Pharisee friends hated in early church days. The recognition of kjv only being a cult, has helped me be more honest with myself in scripture history matters.

[@markwardonwords]

Unlike Jesus, I sin. People have good reasons for disliking me-in addition to the bad ones. ;)

[@Apologetics1Peter315]

This is only a problem because the Textus Receptus is said to be the autograph in its text. And once one chooses Scrivener it would make sense to also adapt the Old Testament textual critical decisions the KJV translators made.

[@kevinshort2230]

"By dismissing all differences among TRs as minor they have implicitely agreed a huge portion of the differences between the TRs and the critical texts." Yes absolutely a major logical fail that is important, as are variations between the early Byzantine Uncials and the later Byzantine texts. If those differences are "ok" then the TRO theology implodes, the logic undercuts their own conclusions.

[@JamesStein-wy8un]

Wow you are sooo amazing and sooo smart!!

[@timb8970]

The KJV-only crowd must have skipped the part about not judging others. Not sure how reading other translations like the NIV or CSB makes you satanic.

[@billcook4768]

Unpopular opinion: If a doctrine depends on a singular passage or a particular translation, it’s not critical.

[@Sarah-e5s2s]

So if I've got this correct, to be a kjv-onlyist, you have to believe that the kjv is infallible because it was based on Scrivener's TR, and you believe Scrivener's TR is infallible because it's based on the kjv. Really? Wow. I believe that men were inspired to write based on miraculous events, and that the inspiration of God means in the same way God breathed life into the first humans, the words are life giving. I don't believe that the words themselves are perfect, or perfectly translated, because that's impossible. But the words give hope and life to us all.

[@timb8970]

Bottom line; will you have a different view of Christ and a difference in Theology if you read the KJV vs ESV vs NIV? I don’t think so.

[@markwardonwords]

Right.

[@brettmahlen722]

I look forward to listening to this; I hope it answers Vince Krivda, I have been waiting for you to interact with him. I think he answered this question very well. Maybe I missed your interaction with him. Blessings in Christ!

[@brettmahlen722]

We love you, Mark, but I am sad that Krivda wasn't mentioned in this video. Krivda answered your essay 2 years ago but you still seem to be dodging him. This video was answered years ago.

[@markwardonwords]

@brettmahlen722 I disagree.

[@brettmahlen722]

@@markwardonwords ​I understand that you disagree, dear brother, but it doesn't change the fact that Krivda’s answer is the same answer that the KJV translators had, the Dutch State Bible notes had, Turretin had, Owen had, all the other 17th century reformers had, and even Riddle had before you finished your PhD. You don’t like the answer, and you don’t like that brother Krivda answered you, so you disingenuously say, “Nobody has answered my Detroit Seminary paper,” when you know it isn’t true. You have been answered thoroughly (maybe even “throughly” 😜), but it is an answer that is immune from your “gotcha” question which, I confess, is effective against KJV reading, pelagian separatists (who are divorced from the history of the text they read anyway), but it isn’t effective against those who hold to the 17th century confessional position, even if you think it is effective. Your “ministry,” or what you set out to do in life, is to help the Schwärmerei (see Letis, Ecclesiastical Text, chapter 8), and there is nobility to that cause because the Schwärmerei do traffic in misinformation, but we are not the same as the Schwärmerei. If a helicopter flies and a bumble bee flies, that doesn’t make a helicopter a bumble bee. I shake my head, brother, because I believe you are sincere, but this video (and your Detroit paper, and all those like it), though helpful in some ways, was another adventure in missing the point. Why don’t you do a video interacting with Krivda’s paper, so your audience can hear both sides, or maybe offer to have Krivda on, and have sincere dialogue. I'm sorry I have not interacted with you more, my life hasn't fully recovered from the lockdown crisis (long story), but it is slowly getting there. Blessings in Christ!

[@brettmahlen722]

@@markwardonwords I thought I posted this, sorry: I understand that you disagree, dear brother, but it doesn't change the fact that Krivda’s answer is the same answer that the KJV translators had, the Dutch State Bible notes had, Turretin had, Owen had, all the other 17th century reformers had, and even Riddle had before you finished your PhD. You don’t like the answer, and you don’t like that brother Krivda answered you, so you disingenuously say, “Nobody has answered my Detroit Seminary paper,” when you know it isn’t true. You have been answered thoroughly (maybe even “throughly”) but it is an answer that is immune from your “gotcha” question which, I confess, is effective against KJV reading, pelagian separatists (who are divorced from the history of the text they read anyway), but it isn’t effective against those who hold to the 17th century confessional position, even if you think it is effective. Your “ministry,” or what you set out to do in life, is to help the Schwärmerei (see Letis, Ecclesiastical Text, chapter 8), and there is nobility to that cause because the Schwärmerei do traffic in misinformation, but we are not the same as the Schwärmerei. If a helicopter flies and a bumble bee flies, that doesn’t make a helicopter a bumble bee. I shake my head, brother, because I believe you are sincere, but this video (and your Detroit paper, and all those like it), though helpful in some ways, was another adventure in missing the point. Why don’t you do a video interacting with Krivda’s paper, so can hear both sides, or maybe offer to have Krivda on, and have sincere dialogue.

[@brentriggs1223]

The preservation of Scriptures is not about preserving exact jots and tittles, but rather the preservation of God's written authority - Sola Scriptura. The autograph changed over time and is no longer extant and thus not preserved in its original form. Preservation has never been about preserving jots and tittles, word counts, etc. Scriptural preservation should never be compared to grandpa's coin collection "preserved" down in the vaults at 1st National Bank & Trust Jerusalem where every "generation" can come and take a peek at the exact same mint condition coins. No, that type of preservation doesn't fit the Scriptures or history! Scriptural preservation is more like grandma's pickles where the nutritional value is preserved even though the form (jots, tittles, word counts, etc.) changes. In the form that God wants each generation and language to have.