I came out of a KJVO movement. I’ve heard quite a few sermons based on a single word that didn’t mean what the preacher thought it meant. I’m saddened by the waste of pulpit time that could have exalted God’s Word and given Christ the glory He deserves thus truly edifying the body. Thanks for your tireless work helping fellow believers understand the Truth of His Word and the importance of the original language.

@ColonelEmpire

Жыл бұрын

How can a preacher glorify God's word with a modern bible? They are all filled with errors and are also filled with *known* changes made in order to weaken major Bible doctrines... The King James Bible believers want to strengthen a Christians faith in God & His word... The modern bibles weaken the Christians faith.

@ColonelEmpire

7 ай бұрын

@@QuietlyContemplating If you would like a civil discussion, I am game, but if you are going to be rude, just know that your idiocy and rudeness does not intimidate me... I can sling mud right back at you... That does not honor God....IF you are indeed a Christian... *doubtful* as you are calling God a "liar" which is blaspheme... Here is what God said about His *WORDS* God said: Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Psalm 12:7 *Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever* Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. I Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. I Peter 1:24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: I Peter 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. Your problem is that you have an impotent "god". He showed up in Genesis 3:1 saying "yea hath God said..." Just like you... You are following his leadership.... My God is omnipotent... He is able to keep His *WORDS* pure throughout *EVERY* generation, even this English speaking generation... I can give you a list of Bible verses that were changed making the doctrines weak... I can give you a list of Bible verses that were purposely removed from the Scriptures... Making Christians that believe those modern English translations weak.... I can show you how the modern versions fit with Catholic manuscripts thus endorsing Catholic dogmas.... There is only one thing stopping me... Your rotten hypocritical spirit and attitude... *IF* you can be polite *DOUBTFUL* I will continue this discussion... If not, move on with your empty rhetoric...and your heresy's It's your move Pharisee... You make the call....

I’m always challenged by your reminders to preach responsibly. I’ve often been saved from inventing a nifty point simply by comparing English translations.

That was neat! After watching this I checked a few other translations… “Enter” is used now and then as well. 👍🏻

I have learned a whole lot from your videos as well as others but most recently I have gotten into exegetical Bible commentaries while I have absolutely no clue how to read Hebrew or Greek it has been a big help in understanding a lot of the Bible we are not encouraged at our church to read other translations or even Bible commentaries but I have always been one to go against the grain so to speak

@dustinburlet7249

Жыл бұрын

There are some great resources to help you with respect to this such as Greek for the Rest of Us and Hebrew for the Rest of Us. One of the newest (written by a friend and former student of mine) is entitled Four Week Greek: Learn the meaning behind New Testament Greek without translating the language (2021) by Jason Gayoway (Author) and Rebekah Brisbin

This is very similar to a sermon I heard years ago . The preacher preached on the phrase "And it came to pass" (from the KJV) as a lesson that every difficulty that comes in our lives, will pass. I was very theologically ignorant back then, but I somehow understood this was not the way to explain the Bible.

@fnjesusfreak

Жыл бұрын

That is a terrible abuse of the wording. I often used the phrase "And it so happened..." when I translated the New Testament.

@dustinburlet7249

Жыл бұрын

@@fnjesusfreak excellent point!

@ColonelEmpire

Жыл бұрын

@@fnjesusfreak Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. The word of God should be reread and reread not rewritten.

@fnjesusfreak

Жыл бұрын

@@ColonelEmpire Even the KJV is an example of "rewriting" the word of God, which was written in Hebrew, Aramaic/Syriac and Greek, not English.

@ColonelEmpire

Жыл бұрын

@@fnjesusfreak Translating the Bible is not rewriting the Bible... The translators for the modern bibles are deceivers. They *changed* the text for their own agenda. The King James Bible translators did not change anything...they *only* translated from Hebrew & Greek to English. I hope that helped!

Thank you, Mark for sharing this helpful advice to Matthew. I enjoy comparing a variety of translations to gain meaning from passages, but I also refer to resources such as Logos Bible Software. It's the best way I know to minimize doubt.

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

My pleasure!

And we return to… 1 Timothy 1:5-7 👍 I thoroughly enjoy knowing that there are people like Matthew who manage to make their way out of ‘wet paper bags’ of deception.

I rely upon context and other translations to help with context. For example, Gen. 7:1 says "Go" is used in the NIV and ESV whereas the KJV and the NKJV use the word "Come." What can be gathered is God wants them to go into the Ark.

Blue Letter Bible (totally free) has some great helps, including this regarding how the word is translated in the KJV: "KJV Translation Count: 2,577x. The KJV translates Strongs H935 in the following manner: come (1,435x), bring (487x), ... in (233x), enter (125x), go (123x), carry (17x), ...down (23x), pass (13x), ...out (12x), misc (109x)."

Thanks for this. You are so right about monolingual mono-translation problems. My one question I ask “perfect translation” people is whether they speak a second language because no one who does thinks there is a single right way to word something in a translation. For years now I’ve been seeking out as many translations and even paraphrases as I can to help me avoid this kind of accidental misunderstanding. I so appreciate your gentleness too. I follow others speaking out on various truth issues and can rarely share them with anyone who isn’t already in their camp because of their (presumably unconscious) attitude toward anyone who hasn’t seen the light yet. Thank you for your dauntlessly winsome demeanor!

Thank you so much for this! Your videos help me stay off the "one-version-onlyism" bandwaggon - without guilt.😃 I'm just a layperson, but I read from the NKJV, NASB2020, CSB, NLT and recently (because of one of your videos 🤓) the NIrV. I find it refreshing and it makes me STOP and think about things I assumed or glossed over before. For Spanish I read the NBLA, NVI, NTV, RVA2015 and RVC.

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

You are so welcome! More power to you!

HEeeeeyyyyy... You just called us nerds. 😉

Thanks for sharing!

Excellent! Thank you.

Mark is an asset to the body of Christ....and I am not an IFB....good work brother

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Thank you, sir!

Another translation issue handled well. Often these small differences become large behind the pulpit by the KJVO preacher. I've heard many. What is missed, I find, is that they aren't necessarily trying to bring clarity to what God is revealing. Most of the time it's simply an example of the superiority of the KJV. Come. Go. Enter. Yep, God is there. Noah wasn't confused about being in the ark.

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Yes, it's sad that sometimes "Christ is preached of contention." Praise God, I think most of these preachers are restrained by God-and by the Spirit that really does indwell them-from going very far from Bible truth. This Gen 7:1 error isn't a big one. But it is an error.

In the Vulgate, the verse reads effectively as follows (neither come nor go): "And the Lord said unto him: 'Enter thou and all thine house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.'"

@dustinburlet7249

Жыл бұрын

That is, of course, the English rendering of the Latin - an entirely separate enterprise

@fnjesusfreak

Жыл бұрын

@@dustinburlet7249 Hence "effectively". I translated it as literally as possible out of the Latin.

Another great video. :) Thank you for sharing your studies

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

My pleasure!

This is an amazing video my friend I have to be honest, in my book (which is, truth be told, quite technical in some places) I had NEVER ONCE THOUGHT about the difference(s) in translations between 'go' into the ark and 'come' into the ark Alongside this, I did not comment on it at all (with respect to Hebrew syntax, etc.) By way of clarity, I actually opted for the translation 'Go into the ark' - pg. 138 Keep up the awesome work you are doing - fantastic fantastic stuff 🙂

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Me either! Not until I got this message!

@dustinburlet7249

Жыл бұрын

in case anyone is interested, David M. Carr's commentary in the IECOT series (Kohlhammer) does perceive some theological significance in the language that is employed here but delineates it primarily through J vs. P

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Ha! The use of J and P only confirms my read! I’ve never been persuaded of the value of trading out literary/theological/historical strands like that. Lewis has a brilliant take-down; can’t remember where!

@dustinburlet7249

Жыл бұрын

@@markwardonwords You and me both brother - I gotta be honest - JEDP just can't stand up to scrutiny (in my opinion) when one considers the ANE text of the Flood - not to mention the toledoth ;-)

For some reason, the (H)CSB is one of a tiny handful of translations that simply say, "Enter the ark..."

While I share your concerns with KJV onlyism; In my experience, preachers that refer to the Hebrew and Greek using tools like Strong's (or computer software like Logos), when they have not learned these languages, far more frequently "put words in the King's mouth" than do the KJV only people I have encountered. The problem is that they do not understand how context and grammar limit the semantic range of meaning and they end up choosing a definition from the often long list of choices that is not possible in the passage they are reading. Using your example of בוא, in Strong's you get a list of: to go or come (in a wide variety of applications):-abide, apply, attain, x be, befall, + besiege, bring (forth, in, into, to pass), call, carry, x certainly, (cause, let, thing for) to come (against, in, out, upon, to pass), depart, x doubtless again, + eat, + employ, (cause to) enter (in, into, -tering, -trance, -try), be fallen, fetch, + follow, get, give, go (down, in, to war), grant, + have, x indeed, (in-)vade, lead, lift (up), mention, pull in, put, resort, run (down), send, set, x (well) stricken (in age), x surely, take (in), way. Those who have not studied Hebrew don't typically understand that the grammatical construction limits the semantic range to a subset of these definitions. While a good Hebrew dictionary does break down the definitions by construction, that is still overlooked by most who do not understand the language because they have no idea what qal, piel, hiph., etc... means. Also, you have cases where idioms are in play i.e. שכם אחד or על פי for example, where the meaning is derived from the idiom. I would encourage those who have not studied the languages to use multiple good English translations, commentaries written by people who can read the biblical languages, and resources like the NET bible notes to get insights into the original languages. If they do use a lexicon, they should understand that they cannot simply choose the definition that they like best and the best resource they have for choosing the right definition is by looking at some of the many good English bible translations. Also they should understand that some translation choices have to do with more than just the definition of a word i.e. the לא vs. לו example in Ps. 100:3 for example. Looking at translation notes, or a good commentary will give them insights into these kinds of things, but a Lexicon would be entirely useless. MOST IMPORTANTLY, I want people to know that they can truly understand their bible by using resources like these without ever looking at a Hebrew or Greek word. There are many good reasons to learn Greek and Hebrew, but for the English speaking world, thinking you cannot understand your bible without looking up Hebrew and Greek words is a frequent and serious error.

@dustinburlet7249

Жыл бұрын

I like this - very well done! 🙂

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

I agree with you wholeheartedly, Mike. This is a great concern to me. I don't know that I can tackle all of this in every video. But I have said many of these things, and I plan to say more.

@ZacharyKlein

Жыл бұрын

@Mike Tisdell I agree with your comment, but I think the point Mark made here was that consulting a lexicon would have helped guard against making an argument based on supposed nuance in the text that really isn’t there. When at a glance you can see that בּוֹא can be translated as go, come, bring, enter, etc (even in the KJV) it should immediately become apparent that the specificity of the English “come…” in Gen 7:1 is, at best, a very uncertain thing to base a sermon upon. Perhaps further study would reveal grammatical or contextual reasons to adhere to “come” vs “go”, but at minimum a good student of the Word should be able to tell what *not* to do with a peculiarity of English in their particular translation. Yes, comparing translations would get you the same answer, but that does introduce other complexities as well (textual variants, translation philosophy, etc). I don’t think we should discourage those without a working know,edge of Hebrew or Greek from consulting these resources, rather we should “yes and” with further instruction and encouragement to use them well, and together with other resources (or better yet, to take up the study of the languages themselves!).

@dustinburlet7249

Жыл бұрын

@@ZacharyKlein I like this answer - it is nuanced and specific in a way that I think deals with the intricacies involved

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Yes, Zachary! Love this! I want to do this work. I think I’m doing it!

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

@markwardonwords

8 ай бұрын

Amen!

Very nice video. Logos sounds quite nice, but there are millions of us who simply cannot afford it.

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

I was such an one, but somehow I managed! I made no money, but I set aside my two mites and asked for Logos commentary sets for graduation presents! Also, we have a free version: logos.com/basic. And if you get that and get on the Free Book of the Month club, you'll have some nice stuff in a short time!

That was my first response, if GOD is everywhere, as David said, does it matter whether he said come or go. Then you said look up the word, I looked it up on eSword, and viola.

It seems like preachers can sometimes practice reader response in their sermons. I’m a proponent of reader response hermeneutics in all literature. However, pastors do injustice if they present a reader response subjective hermeneutic as an objective historical-grammatical interpretation based on a plain reading in English.

Very good

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Thanks!

As in English (and most languages), "come" can mean "go" and "go" can mean "come", depending on the context. For example, normally one would say "come here" and "go there", but there is also nothing strange with "come there" and "go here". The word that occurred in Genesis 7:1 is "בֹּא", which is the word for "come", not "go". The word for "go" is "הָלַךְ". However, we need to look at all the related words, and try to understand why the author chose the word he did. Because, between "come" and "go", "go" should be the more natural to use in Genesis 7:1 (unless we assume that God was inside the ark), then there must be an overriding reason for choosing "בֹּא" instead of "הָלַךְ". The reason is because "בֹּא" is also the word for "get in" (i.e., in general, no other Hebrew word corresponds better to the English "get in"), which fits perfectly here, being an instruction to get into the ark. Therefore, "get in" is a more precise translation than either "come" or "go".

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

I didn't get this technical in the video; that wasn't its purpose-don't be disappointed when it comes out in a few hours!

@jamestrotter3162

Жыл бұрын

I understand your point, and I mean no argument here, but, God is omnipresent. So, he was in the ark and outside the ark. Noah understood perfectly what God was saying to him.

@dustinburlet7249

Жыл бұрын

I somewhat disagree with your assertions here - allow me to explain - those Hebrew words do not HAVE those meanings - they may be traditionally glossed in those ways but their meaning as rendered into English can be fluid depending on the nature of the English being used - since it is an imperative 'come' or 'go' into the ark both effectively render the Hebrew

The Geneva Bible translated it ambiguously with “enter”.

@alanmunch5779

Жыл бұрын

Swiss neutrality! I like it.

im stoppingnat 2:33 cause I dont want the answer to spoil my thought. If I say "go into the store" it feels like im commanding someone, or giving them an order. thats a differant feeling than saying "come into the store" which feels more warm and soft, like im asking.

Could you do a video on the textual variant in 2 Peter 3:10…”burned up” vs “found/disclosed?” This one has bothered me for a while. One of these is wrong.

@dustinburlet7249

Жыл бұрын

That would make a great video

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

That is one of the most difficult textual-critical issues there is. I like this idea. Not that I'll solve the problems. But Al Wolters has written on it: I'd point you his way.

@dustinburlet7249

Жыл бұрын

@@markwardonwords Al Wolters is the bomb 🙂 Redeemer had no idea (I feel) what they had 🙂

@MAMoreno

Жыл бұрын

Perhaps the difference in meaning is superficial. Consider the descriptions of burning and disclosing in 1 Corinthians 3.13, 15. (Admittedly, the English versions sometimes make the wording between these two passages sound more similar than they actually are in Greek.)

@jacques3402

Жыл бұрын

@@MAMoreno You make a good point!

Mark, I know this is off topic, but I was wondering what your opinion is of the Legacy Standard Bible? I've been reading it online and it seems to be very similar to the ESV, at least in the New Testament.

@dustinburlet7249

Жыл бұрын

I actually think he has a video of it

@MAMoreno

Жыл бұрын

He questions the need for its existence: evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2020/05/more-on-translation-draft.html That doesn't mean that he thinks it's a bad translation. When people ask him about the LSB in the comments, he tends to say that he hasn't looked at it enough to evaluate it fairly. But considering that the LSB is simply a slightly-tweaked NASB (1995 edition), it's reasonable to apply his thoughts about the NASB to the LSB. Check out his video "The NASB Is the Best Bible Translation--And So's the LEB!!"

@dustinburlet7249

Жыл бұрын

@@MAMoreno on a technical level, how does KZread allow you to post a link? Everytime I have posted a link KZread blocks my comment

@MAMoreno

Жыл бұрын

@@dustinburlet7249 KZread is really inconsistent about it. They often get flagged as spam, but I'm able to get one to go through sometimes. I try not to make my post too long if I include one (but I also make sure to post more than just the link).

@dustinburlet7249

Жыл бұрын

@@MAMoreno thank you I will see what I can do about this

It’s the difference between Bo and Ba Ba is what’s being used scripture4all website is my source Both translations are correct

Mark, have you looked into the differences in judges 13:18 between the kjv and esv? Judges 13:18 KJV “And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret?” Judges 13:18 ESV And the angel of the LORD said to him, “Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?” Im more of a kjv guy but I will say it seems like the ESV might be right on this for a few reasons. If you keep reading you’ll see that the next verse says “So Manoah took a kid with a meat offering, and offered it upon a rock unto the LORD: and THE ANGEL DID WONDROUSLY; and Manoah and his wife looked on.” KJV Usually our Bible defines words by the proceeding sentence so it honestly makes sense. Matthew Henry also stated in his commentary on this verse “But here it is secret, or it is wonderful, too wonderful for us. One of Christ's names is Wonderful, Isa. 9:6” Isaiah 9:6 “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” So I do agree with you having a few different translations can be helpful

@dustinburlet7249

Жыл бұрын

Mark Boda's commentary in the Revised EBC helps clarify the Judges passage as does his co-written work (with Mary Conway) in the Zondervan Exegetical Discourse series

@MAMoreno

Жыл бұрын

It's helpful to have an unabridged KJV, i.e. one with the translators' original notes from the 1611 edition. In the margin for Judges 13.18, the note reads, "Or, wonderfull." (It can't be said enough that the KJV translators would be horrified to discover that people were treating their translation decisions as infallible.)

@seansimpson1133

Жыл бұрын

@@MAMoreno Hey I have a 1611 thanks for letting me know! I’ve looked at the marginal note in Isaiah 14 on the whole Lucifer thing but I never noticed one in judges! And I absolutely agree they would be horrified.

Would you agree that the Bible(s) we have are not “inerrant,” but they are not “in error?” That’s quite a nifty thought.

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

I can't follow this comment, I'm afraid. Try again?

@MAMoreno

Жыл бұрын

Do you mean the English translations?

@BroDaveMartinSRBC

Жыл бұрын

@@markwardonwords I believe that you stated in your video that the different translations, COME and GO, are not "in error." That struck me, and it seems that we could expand that thought. Everyone says the Bible is inspired and inerrant, but no one can produce a truly "inerrant" Bible version. So, would it be correct to say that although the Bible(s) we have are not "inerrant," they are "not in error?" (The standard position of many is that the KJV is not a perfect translation, therefore not inerrant; the ESV is not a perfect translation, therefore not inerrant -- but they [the various versions] are "not in error" where they disagree in the translation of a word or phrase.)

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

I think you're on to something, I do. I think "not in error," in all the Christian circles I've been in, means, "not in doctrinal error." And I would say that's true of all the major modern evangelical English Bible translations.

@BroDaveMartinSRBC

Жыл бұрын

@@markwardonwords From our previous conversations, you know I’m a KJV is the “best” kind of believer. Personally I believe it is “inerrant,” not just “without (doctrinal) error.” But it was a “nifty” thought. My complaint is that no one in the non-KJV camp can honestly say that their particular modern version has in their hand is inerrant. The standard statement is the “the Bible is inerrant in the original autographs,” as if that settles the matter of “errant” translations (and that would include all the Greek texts, since they are not the “originals.”) Its a sticky wicket for sure.

This is way too common a word to make such a minute observation and important sermon point. I noticed that the word is also used in Genesis 4, translated as "went", "the sons of God _went_ in to the daughters of humans." It seems to me that if one is going to give such a minute reading of a word then one must be able to apply the same sort of reading to all its uses.

@markwardonwords

11 ай бұрын

Right!

The Septuagint says "Enter thou into the ark."

@dustinburlet7249

Жыл бұрын

Of course, that is only a rendering of the LXX (cf. LES with NETS for instance) - the Greek doesn't say that 🙂

@makarov138

Жыл бұрын

@@dustinburlet7249 The LXX is the Greek! The Greek translation of the old testament Hebrew.

@dustinburlet7249

Жыл бұрын

@@makarov138 I am aware of that . . . I think you missed the subtlety of my argument . . . I was trying to say that the Greek is written in Greek - thus, what you wrote is only an English representation of the Greek itself - something that, therefore, falls into the same kind of trappings as trying to represent in English what the Hebrew is saying

@makarov138

Жыл бұрын

@@dustinburlet7249 I agree. My post was to merely write what the English translation of the Septuagint has in that verse. So, I fail to see why you even have an argument.

Why do most English translations use "assembling" in Heb 10:25, when in 2 Thes 2:1 it translates it "gather?" And the root, Gr1996, is translated virtually "gather" in one way or another. Since the context is the same as 2 Thes 2:1, it would seem that "gather together" would be the better choice. It's the "gathering" at the parousia of the Lord.

@MAMoreno

Жыл бұрын

You do have the CSB, which starts with the words "not neglecting to gather together." But as the KJV preface states, it's usually not necessary to translate a Greek word with the same English word every single time. In this case, the translation committee for the Bishops' Bible decided that "assembling" was more appropriate in this context, and several of the translations that have followed the Bishops' Bible (KJV, ASV, NKJV, MEV) simply haven't seen any point in changing it.

@makarov138

Жыл бұрын

@@MAMoreno I also have that translation as well. You are correct Sir. However, the problem that exists in all the translations is that the English texts do not reveal to the reader that the Greek word (1997) is in fact a NOUN and not a verb! Therein lies the problem. It should be translated as "not forsaking the gathering together as some have." "the gathering together" is the noun tense. It's the title of an event, a noun! Here's a text I wrote on this subject: IT'S A NOUN AND NOT A VERB! IT'S A NOUN!! In MT 24:31 “And he shall send forth his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall [gather together] his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” This is the verb form in Greek (1996). They would be gathering the elect. (action) But in both 2 Thes 2:1 and Heb 10:25, we have the noun form of Greek (1997). It's the name of an event!! 2 Thes 2:1 “ Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our [assembling] to meet him, we beg you, brethren,” This “assembling” is an event! It is THE assembly at the coming of the Lord! Remember, it's a noun! Heb 10:25 “not forsaking our own [assembling together], as the custom of some is, but exhorting one another; and so much the more, as ye see the day drawing nigh.” This too is an event in time, at the coming of the Lord in judgment. The very same assembly. It's a noun too! How do I know? The context is in the succeeding verses. Heb 10:26 “For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful prospect of JUDGEMENT, and a FURY of FIRE which will consume the adversaries. 28 A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse PUNISHMENT do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY” And again, “The Lord will JUDGE his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” This is judgment language. Specifically at the time of the coming of the Lord, or the Day of the Lord, when he would exact judgment on the ungodly. Heb 10:25 is written using that context. It has nothing to do with any weekly worship meeting. Verbs are verbs and nouns are nouns, and they should be understood when in English.

God's Word is infallible but translators are not, and English is constantly changing, so I use several translations when doing a serious study in it, along with Strong's Concordance to go back to the Hebrew and Greek. Often a more modern translation than KJV gives modern readers a better understanding without violating the meaning of the original. When I was first saved I had great difficulty reading KJV but over the years I became more accustomed to it. If you're not trying to do an in depth study, I tell people to use whatever translation they find works best for them for daily reading, but if they get stuck understanding something try looking it up in a different translation.

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Excellent! Would you be willing to give a recent example of an insight you achieved by checking Hebrew or Greek meanings in Strong’s?

Hi Mark! I speak more than 3 languages. And I am a Christian. Whenever I compare translations of the Bible (such as NET, NIV, CSB and LEB) and the revisions of the KJV translation (Such as ESV, NASB, NRSV, etc) I get annoyed. I feel that these so-called translation philosophies are stupid. It is because if you speak different languages and translate, you will understand it. That is, accurate translation is a literal translation. A literal translation keeps the meaning. The target language's grammar does not matter if the meaning is transfered as it is. For example, in Malayalam, you say "how are you?" by using one word. It is one word. And some translations does not translate things accurately because of theology or "understanding" or "easy to read." For e.g., NET sometimes replaces pronounces (e.g., she or he or they) with the names because those pronouns in context talking about them. But you are translating. NOT EXPLAINING. Come on. And also the Divine name of God. We know that it is not pronounced. But we know that how we should pronounce it. Yahweh. Why not use the divine name rather than replacing with the Lord? Is it little bit disrespectful? I think I will use LEB insntead.

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

My friend, I used to think this way. And, forgive me for seeming hard to pin down, but I think it can still be *useful* for translators to think this way. But not, ultimately, morally obligatory. Have you seen my "INCREDI-NASB" video? kzread.info/dash/bejne/pJl2tJmdmZS0ops.html That's really my response to your line of thinking. That line of thinking still has a pull on me! It's one reason that the ESV is still kinda my default Bible translation. But that video is why I can't just rest there and reject less literal translations.

@IndianChristian19

Жыл бұрын

@@markwardonwords Since English is my third language, I used the NIV translation for several years. But now, I use the LEB. But I go and compare with other translations such as the NIV, CSB, NJB, CJB and NET Bible.

@IndianChristian19

Жыл бұрын

@@markwardonwords One day, I may publish my own translation. I am learning Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Plus, I am learning about manuscripts.

@IndianChristian19

Жыл бұрын

@@markwardonwords In my opinion, "Literal" may be playing with the words and "meaning for meaning" is interpretation rather than translation. For e.g., in Malayalam, there is a phrase meaning "that is true." I will try my best to transliterate it. The phrase is: a-ad-d' sha-ri an-n' *I use one line quote (whatever it is called) to show that pronounce that isolated letter. For e.g., D' pronounced as d--not dee (or romanized as di). Let us look at that phrase. The first word, a-ad-d', means "that." The second word, sha-ri, means, "okay." Third word, an-n', means "is." If I was so-called literal, it would be, "That okay is." See, it will be playing with the words. Or it is just interlinear. Earlier, I have translated it as "That is true." I have translated the word for okay as true. And when that specific word occurred in this specific sentence, it turned to be "true." This is only time that this specific word can *ONLY* mean "true." A translation is the way of transferring the exact meaning from a language to another language. A translation is not interpretation. Interpretation, you know, is interpretation (or explanation). Plus, we have too much revisions of the KJV. There is NKJV, RSV (with its update and NRSV), NAB with NABRE. Nasb with updates and revisions including LSB. We have only actual translations. NIV, NET Bible, CSB, LEB, JB with its revisions and updates (NJB and RNJB) and etc...

@IndianChristian19

Жыл бұрын

@@markwardonwords I have watched your video on it. I do agree with it. A translation will not play with the words. A translated sentence may have more or less words than original sentence because it is what translation is.

The first KJVO sermon I remember included Philippians 3:20. “For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.” The preacher went on about how we should practice heavenly speech. The problem was that in old English a conversant was the word for citizen.

@markwardonwords

5 ай бұрын

Ouch. Not surprised. =(

You did not answer your question, though. The question in your title is "Why did the ESV change "Come" to "Go" in Genesis 7:1?" Nearly all other translations use "come". I assume they had a reason. Why did the ESV use "Go" instead?

@MAMoreno

Жыл бұрын

As I noted in my comment, it was a change introduced in the RSV. The most likely reason for the change was to clarify that God was probably not calling to Noah from inside the ark.

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

I agree with M.A. But I see this as super minor. Either option is fine. There doesn't have to be a reason to pick one over the other. You just have to pick one.

@lucentedg

Жыл бұрын

@@markwardonwords If MA is correct, the translators are saying God was "probably" sending, not calling. That is fine if it is what the Hebrew says. According to your video, it could be either one, though. How would they make the decision that God was out of the ark sending Noah in, vs God being in the Ark calling Noah in? MA says one of those is more probable. How do we know that?

@MAMoreno

Жыл бұрын

@@lucentedg We don't know for certain, and it's arguably irrelevant. However, there's no other indication that God was projecting the voice from inside the ark, and Noah was already hearing God's voice before he even built the ark (Gen. 6.13-14). On top of that, even the KJV seems to assume that God is outside the ark in Gen. 7.16: "And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in." Note that the translators used "went" here, not "came." So too, it states that God shut Noah in the ark, which would seem to position God outside of the ark. All of this would seem to suggest that the translators placed far less significance on the difference between "come" and "go" in Gen. 7.1 than we might assign to it today.

I prefer The Majority texts and the Byzantine tradition, that is not a KJV onlyist:)

@markwardonwords

2 ай бұрын

So do you use the NKJV?

The short answer: the ESV didn't change it. The RSV did. The ESV committee simply kept what they had received. So did the NRSV teams, for that matter. In using "go," the RSV went back to the wording of the Coverdale Bible and the Matthew Bible. The ASV's use of "come," on the other hand, reflects a revision to the English text that had first appeared in the Great Bible and that was retained in the Bishops' Bible and the KJV. Of course, the RSV committee didn't necessarily revert to Coverdale's wording intentionally. The translators probably just thought that "go" sounded more natural in context, as "come" gives the impression that God is speaking to Noah from inside the ark.

@TernaryM01

Жыл бұрын

Of course God wasn't speaking from the ark, therefore the meaning "get in / go in / enter" of the word "בֹּא" is what is being activated in this passage. That's what most modern translations opt for: LSB, NASB20, NABRE, NIV, NLT, NRSVue, EHV, CEB. Thus, it's not "come", but it's not exactly "go" either. "Go" is "הָלַךְ" (which also means "walk"). It's a mistake to think that the primary meaning of "בֹּא" is "come", and "get in" derived from it. Most likely, it's actually the other way around: the prototypical meaning of "בֹּא" is "get in". But I suspect that scholars in the era of KJV etc. were more familiar with the meaning "come" for "בֹּא".

@tintinismybelgian

Жыл бұрын

@@TernaryM01 Wouldn't God's omnipresence mean that he was in the ark (as well as outside of the ark)?

@TernaryM01

Жыл бұрын

@@tintinismybelgian Fair enough, but he's still not exclusively in the ark. He's in the ark just as much as he is in Noah's house, as well as in heaven, etc. "Go" still would be expected instead of "come".

@tintinismybelgian

Жыл бұрын

@@TernaryM01 Not necessarily, as it would be a comfort to be reminded that God would be with Noah in the ark.

@TernaryM01

Жыл бұрын

@@tintinismybelgian That would be a possible interpretation worth considering, if the passage were written in English with "Come" (even then, it would be far from certain, because people interchange "come" and "go" all the time). However, it's written in Hebrew, not English. So, as I've explained, in all likelihood, the word is being used in this passage to simply mean "Enter", without the added nuance that God would be with Noah in the ark. (We cannot read God's mind, but we can ask the question: What would an ancient Israelite reader intuitively understand this word to mean?) As it stands, making a sermon based on the speculation that the word has the nuance of "come over here, where I am", is intellectually irresponsible.

I’m still trying to figure out why they changed replenish to fill at Gen 1:28. It discourages any further study of the earth before this world.

@markwardonwords

11 ай бұрын

"Replenish" in 1611 simply meant "fill." It didn't mean to "fill back up." Here's the OED on that word: "transitive. To stock or supply (a place) abundantly with people or animals. Formerly also with †of. Now rare."

@olegig5166

11 ай бұрын

@@markwardonwords just goes to show that depending on one's choice of definition, so goes their depth of study. It does nothing to encourage one to study the following: Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Job.38.6,Job.38.7 KJV

@olegig5166

11 ай бұрын

@@markwardonwords is the Hebrew word translated to replenish at Gen 1:28 a different Hebrew word that is translated to replenish at Gen 9:1?

@MAMoreno

9 ай бұрын

@@olegig5166 It's the same word, but consider Isaiah 2.6, which also uses the same Hebrew word: "Therefore thou hast forsaken thy people the house of Jacob, because they be replenished from the east, and are soothsayers like the Philistines, and they please themselves in the children of strangers." The modern meaning of _replenish_ makes no sense in that verse. So too, consider Noah Webster's first definition of _replenish_ in his 1828 dictionary: *To fill; to stock with numbers or abundance. The magazines are replenished with corn. The springs are replenished with water.* *Multiply and replenish the earth. Genesis 1:28.*

@olegig5166

9 ай бұрын

@@MAMoreno Yelp, I wrote and rewrote a response, but nothing made good sense. Those last days will be something hard to imagine.

also, why are you in a greenhouse???

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

children ;)

One puts God outside the ark, the other places Him inside the ark. They are not the same, one is wrong.

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

I don’t agree; both can be right.

Why ESV translators had changed the text??? Genesis 3:16: “for (’el) your husband.” (Original ESV translation) Genesis 3:16: “contrary to (’el) your husband.” (Permanent Text)

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

This is something I need to do a video on. I don't currently have a thorough or fair explanation.

@krzysztofpocian6560

Жыл бұрын

​@@markwardonwords I couldn't figure it out, but I found the answer in Net Bible. The footnotes are great.🙂

@MAMoreno

Жыл бұрын

​@@krzysztofpocian6560 The NET Bible is indeed a good place to start. This interpretation of Eve's "desire" was first proposed by Susan Foh in a paper from the 1970s, during the height of Second Wave Feminism. This perspective was later embraced by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), a complementarian organization. The first edition of the NLT in 1996 placed this proposed interpretation in its footnote for Genesis 3.16. Around this same time, the RSV was licensed for a revision conducted by complementarian scholars, including members of the CBMW. The ESV of 2001 was largely a reaction to the NRSV, which had introduced gender-inclusive language into the RSV, and the British inclusive language edition of the NIV. It followed the NLT in placing Foh's interpretation in a footnote. The early 2000s also saw the appearance of the NET Bible, which followed Foh's interpretation in the main body of the text. The 2004 update of the NLT did the same. A year later, the gender-inclusive TNIV came out, once again stirring up criticism, especially from supporters of the ESV. While the TNIV officially died out a few years after its release, most of its translation choices were incorporated into the 2011 edition of the NIV. Again, criticism was common from complementarian circles. Five years later, the ESV finally took after the NET Bible and NLT, embracing Foh's take on Genesis 3.16 into the text. The translators went one step further by declaring this to be the "permanent text" of the ESV, though they walked that decision back a bit once they received a strong backlash. This reading of the translational decision might sound unfavorable, but there really is no understanding the change in the text without understanding the "politics" of the egalitarian vs. complementarian wars between evangelical Protestants that occurred in the background throughout the last 30 years. There is real scholarship behind it, yet even that scholarship is reflective of modern culture wars.

@krzysztofpocian6560

Жыл бұрын

@@MAMoreno Thank you for your answer! I didn' know about that! Without a footnote it is hard to understand this verse in ESV!!! Sometimes answer is in the brackets like in Mt 24:34 in Amplified Bible I assure you and most solemnly say to you, this generation [the people living when these signs and events begin] will not pass away until all these things take place. Hallelujah!😇🙏

@evangelicalinsiderbibles1091

Жыл бұрын

The issue is related to the word תשוקה (teshuqah) i.e. desire, and not preposition אל (el); the question is about what kind of desire is being communicated by this word. It is only used three times in Scripture, once more in Ge. 4 to describe the desire of sin to control Cain and then once in Song of Songs. Susan Foh has argued that, based on the usage in Gen. 4, this "desire" should be understood as the desire to control her husband. The ESV's translation is based on Susan Foh's argument.

There are some misleading translations that are based on the translator’s *theological bias,* which are not faithful to the original Greek text. For example, Acts 1:11 never mentions Jesus’ return or his coming back to earth. It is a mistranslation. Some of these inaccurate translations are the NIV, NLT, BSB, CEV, GNT, ISV, AMP, GW, NET Bible, NHEB, & WEB. All these Bible versions mistranslate the verse as if Jesus “will come back” or “will return.” However, the original Greek uses a word (*ἐλεύσεται*) that does not imply a “coming back” or a “return.” It simply indicates *one* single coming. The Greek text uses the word *ἐλεύσεται,* which simply means “will come.”

I don't know what ad hominem means? Am I in line; or out of line; to ask; what do you think about the possibility of genuine vrs. "Counterfeit" bibles? If such a question is actually; ad hominem, then I don't expect a response.

@MAMoreno

Жыл бұрын

Ad hominem means attacking the character of the person making the argument instead of the argument itself. If someone argues that we need to raise taxes to help fund local schools, and you say that we shouldn't listen to her because she uses recreational drugs, then you're guilty of an ad hominem argument. Your dismissal of her position had nothing to do with the subject at hand and everything to do with your disapproval of her unrelated life choices. And there are counterfeit Bibles, but you're looking in the wrong place. The Book of Mormon is a counterfeit Bible. The New American Standard Bible is not.

@SabbatarianSundayer.

Жыл бұрын

@@MAMoreno So; don't share a link that seems to say the NASV IS a "Counterfeit"?

@MAMoreno

Жыл бұрын

@@SabbatarianSundayer. The text you're linking may contain ad hominem arguments, but it will (probably) contain arguments that fall outside of that. If we're talking about the NASB, then I would expect the arguments to include the association fallacy. Guilt by association does somewhat overlap with the ad hominem argument. To return to my previous example: if someone else stands up and says, "I agree that we should raise the millage," you would not want to say, "We shouldn't listen to him! He agrees with drug addicts!" That's attacking one person's character simply because he agrees with someone you find to be immoral. And you're still ignoring the actual substance of their argument by doing so. The problem with this argument is easy to demonstrate. Most doctors disapprove of smoking because it is bad for your health. Hitler disapproved of smoking for the same reason. But it wouldn't be fair if I said, "My doctor agrees with Hitler! I shouldn't listen to her!" Obviously, I should be reasonable and assume that my doctor disagrees with Hitler's more heinous beliefs and actions (unless some more direct evidence arises that the doctor is a fascist, of course). The NASB was made by a committee of fundamentalist scholars (in the early 20th century sense of "fundamentalist," where it means the opposite of "modernist"). The whole reason they made the NASB was because they didn't approve of the modernist influence on the RSV. But they've been treated as if they're no different than the RSV translators simply because they made some of the same translation decisions (even though they consciously went against the RSV's more controversial decisions). That's an association fallacy, and it's effectively an ad hominem argument.

@SabbatarianSundayer.

Жыл бұрын

@@MAMoreno MAY contain ad hominem arguments? You probly would assume that; if you don't agree with me that the NASV is a "counterfeit". I do see; most don't agree with me that modern day bibles; are "Counterfeit". I guess I have nothing further.

Matthew 18:11 KJB: For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. ESV: Omitted NWT: Omitted NAB: Omitted

@MAMoreno

Жыл бұрын

For the Son of man came to seek and to save what was lost (Luke 19.10 NWT). If a heretical group wanted to remove a teaching from the Bible, surely that group would remove all references to it, not just one.

@ColonelEmpire

Жыл бұрын

@@MAMoreno It's called "incrementalism".... Very subtil changes.... Just more of the devil's tactics "...yeah hath God said..." is an old and obvious tactic... The NWT is a cult bible.

Matthew 17:21 KJB: Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. ESV: Omitted NWT: Omitted NAB: [This kind does not leave but by prayer and fasting.] (Placed in Brackets causing doubt)

Matthew 27:35 KJB: And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: *that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet* , They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. ESV: And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots. NWT: When they had impaled him they distributed his outer garments by casting lots. NAB: When they had crucified him, they divided his clothes among them casting lots.

@MAMoreno

Жыл бұрын

If the New World Translation was seeking to deny the fulfillment of Psalm 22.18 in the crucifixion of Christ, the translators would have removed John 19.24 as well: *So they said to one another: “Let us not tear it, but let us cast lots over it to decide whose it will be.” This was to fulfill the scripture: “They divided my garments among themselves, and they cast lots for my clothing.” So the soldiers actually did these things.* (Jn. 19.24 NWT) Saying that the ESV resembles a Unitarian translation is saying very little. It only counts for something when the translation choice reflects a Unitarian bias. The Watch Tower has no reason to deny that Jesus fulfills Psalm 22.18. In fact, their online NWT contains a cross-reference to that verse in Matthew 27.35!

@ColonelEmpire

Жыл бұрын

@@MAMoreno It's called "incrementalism".... Very subtil changes.... Just more of the devil's tactics "...yeah hath God said..." is an old and obvious tactic... The NWT is a cult bible.

KJB - King James Bible ESV - English Standard Version NWT - New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses NAB - New American Bible of the Roman Catholic Church Matthew 8:29 KJB: And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, *Jesus* , thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time? ESV: And behold, they cried out, "What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?" NWT: And, look! they screamed, saying: "What have we to do with you, Son of God? Did you come here to torment us before the appointed time?" NAB: With a sudden shriek they cried: "Why meddle with us, Son of God? Have you come to torture us before the appointed time?" They removed "Jesus" from the text! Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. The word of God should be reread and reread not rewritten.

@miketisdell5138

Жыл бұрын

Do you know which Greek manuscripts support the KJV translation?

Because it's from the erroneous Alexandrian texts. Like most modern and are.

@markwardonwords

Жыл бұрын

Alan, my friend, Genesis is in the Old Testament. There are no Alexandrian texts of the Hebrew Bible. All the English translations are, as best I know, looking at the same Hebrew words when they go to translate this verse.

@alanhales1123

Жыл бұрын

@@markwardonwords I know that. But the modern translations are erroneous and come from the erroneous Alexandrian texts. They leave 6000 words out and have 1.8000 differences to the true Bible.