วีดีโอ

Very powerful presentation. I certainly will make copy and study them so that I can be armed with the truth when encountering the counterfeits.

Hi, can you please provide a source for the claim that the Waldensians had a text as far back as 120AD? From all that I can find they were named after Peter Waldo (Valdo, or Valdes) from 12th century France.I can't find anything backing their being around earlier than that.

The TR succeeded in effectively changing the 6th commandment by altering Matt 5, verse 22. As we sit here debating commas and vocabulary Satan is sitting back and smiling at his sly handiwork.

The last quote… C. Simonides wrote the manuscript. Thank you for your video.

A absolutely fantastic presentation!!! If we had only the critical texts, and no traditional texts, the Reformation would not have occurred. We'd all be praying to Mary instead of the Lord Jesus! The critical text "Scolars," if they're truly saved, owe their salvation to the Traditional Texts! They might as well be Catholics for the things they believe. I'm, thankfully, a protestant... thanks to a Bible preserved for 2000 years. :-)

ANYTHING spiritual that is taken from the bible is hearsay, feelings, beliefs, hopes, and tales of imaginations, and not proven with evidence. The bible is a book written by men who never even met the people they wrote about (many many years after). It is also heavily edited by a church that had a power and politics agenda, eliminating a number of chapters. In addition, there isn't just one Christian bible - there are at least three with different numbers of chapters. There exists no provable, fact-based evidence to support any of the supernatural (spiritual) events in it. Thus, it is pure human belief - a human emotion and dependent on as many human thoughts as there are humans. To believe without factual evidence is like saying a court case should be determined by only hearsay or a feeling. It's hard to think God wouldn't hold humans to a standard that they hold themselves

Except the “Textus Receptus” has a known PUBLICATION DATE. And entire books weren’t available in Greek when it was complied - like Revelation. Revelation was BACK TRANSLATED from Latin in 1500 by Erasmus.

Good episode

Good points and if every true Christian would understand what happened they should not participate in the deception. Some mistakes in your presentation are the false dates of so called earliest and best codex's. It's clear Codex Sinaiticus is not from the 4th century. If you love God’s word then you would use traditional text. If the Greek compilation or translations you use take Jesus’ Deity out of 1Timothy 3:16 and John 3:16 or make Jesus lie to his brothers in John chapter 7 concerning going to the feast then that is not traditional text. Why are there such ludicrous changes? Because modern Bible translators translate from a corrupted set of codex’s which jesuits, catholics and satanists compiled. They worked to replace reliable codex’s to translate from, instead using Codex Sinaiticus which was created in the 1800’s which they pass off as the oldest and best “old” Bible; Sinaiticus, they claim is 1500ish years older than it truly is. Then there is codex Alexandrinus which “appeared” about ten years after KJV 1611 was published, and codex Vaticanus which appeared in the Vatican around the 1400’s and was rejected by the scholars that worked on the KJV. Not every verse in scripture was changed but there are changes throughout. In a nutshell, handing Bible Translators something “messed up” to translate “from” makes whatever they translate “to” wrong from the start. One should review evidence in the Chick Tracts Official channel playlist on Sinaiticus to know more about this subject.

Excellent content brother! Thank you for spreading the word. Literally, the beautiful words of God…

Thank you for your work.

Codex Aleph and Vaticanus are 19th century FABRICATIONS - COUNERFEITS.

Protestants burned catholics catholics burnt protestants. Calvin rule in Geneva was extremist. 30 years war in Europe because of religious conflicts.

I would endorse this presentation as very edifying except for the statements about I Jn. 5:7. It truly belongs in the Bible from the beginning, but not as a representation of the so called trinity of God. Also "son"" is not to be added in making people think there is an eternal son of God heaven. On Jesus' ascension, he went back to being the Spirit, the Word, and the Father. He was only the son in the days of his flesh.

Using the same reasoning as this blogger the KJV should have translated “Lord” as Jesus in Jude (chapter 1) verse 5 because Origen Cyril Jerome Bede read “Jesus”. See Bruce Metzger (Renewing Truth, Lord or Jesus? Metzger’s Comments on Jude 1:5)

Nobody guided by the Holy Spirit will be misled regarding the deity of Christ, the atonement, the resurrection, and essential doctrines by reading modern translations.

This gentleman, though well meaning, does not have a deep understanding of textual criticism.

Dispensationalism is a heresy! All Christians are jews and the people/nation of God There was only one gospel which even abraham believed salvation was always by faith Alone, it was never by works and it was never maintained by works nor by ourselves but always by God

Amen Bro. and thank you for making this. More info has come out about the so-called oldest codex's. These books are very good. "Was Codex Sinaiticus written in 1840?", by Jack Moorman "Neither oldest Nor best", by David Sorenson "Is the worlds oldest Bible a fake", by David Daniels "Who faked the worlds oldest Bible", by David Daniels

Amen Bro. and thank you for making this. More info has come out about the so-called oldest codex's. These books are very good. "Was Codex Sinaiticus written in 1840?", by Jack Moorman "Neither oldest Nor best", by David Sorenson "Is the worlds oldest Bible a fake", by David Daniels "Who faked the worlds oldest Bible", by David Daniels

Very Good, www.biertonparticularbaptists.co.uk/resources/What%20Version%20Authorised%20Or%20Revised.pdf

I wish the average anti-KJVO Christian knew this stuff. Then they can disagree with the facts, not just with the caricature in their minds.

It’s hard to watch a video and take it seriously when the very first verse is used wrong and out of context. I’m context “thou shall keep them forever” is talking about the poor and downtrodden. Who the passage was actually about. King James Onlyists have been using that verse to support their completely ridiculous view for years. This video is obviously for people who haven’t actually studied the verses in it and exactly why modern Bible scholars know they were added. Usually by the Latin manuscripts and the Latin Vulgate. When you’ve got a verse that doesn’t appear in Greek manuscripts for over a thousand years or more, is only found in Latin, and that the early church fathers never used in any writings, even though it would’ve single handedly have destroyed a major heresy they were fighting (the comma Johanneum) ,then you can know well beyond any reasonable doubt, that it was added.

Can you please share me the project link! I'm tired slandering my AKJV Bible.

Fantastisk å se deg tilbake!

I agree. It's sort of like saying God's word which believers all over the world used for hundreds and hundreds of years was a bit wrong, but now, we've got the right one from this discovery just from the 1800's. I don't think it makes sense.

This is great thank you. I just recently ran across all abhorrent things about Wescott and Hort being into mysticism and contacting the dead, even forming a mystic group. I’m now pretty much convinced to only study from Kjv and Nkjv, Kjver, kjv21 and Akjv.

Taking Genesis 3:1 out of context does not help one’s argument.

Excellent study, thank you. You have explained it very clearly in an easy to understand manner. I am saving this to show others that I know who prefer the modern translations and believe they are superior to the KJV.

I don't think that you realize the implications against Paul in 1 John 4:3 : ◄ Romans 8:3 ► Romans 8 - Click for Chapter 3 3588 [e] 3 to 3 τὸ 3 - 3 Art-ANS 1063 [e] gar γὰρ For Conj 102 [e] adynaton ἀδύνατον powerless [being] Adj-ANS 3588 [e] tou τοῦ the Art-GMS 3551 [e] nomou νόμου , law N-GMS 1722 [e] en ἐν in Prep 3739 [e] hō ᾧ that RelPro-DNS 770 [e] ēsthenei ἠσθένει it was weak V-IIA-3S 1223 [e] dia διὰ through Prep 3588 [e] tēs τῆς the Art-GFS 4561 [e] sarkos σαρκός , flesh N-GFS 3588 [e] ho ὁ - Art-NMS 2316 [e] Theos Θεὸς , God N-NMS 3588 [e] ton τὸν - Art-AMS 1438 [e] heautou ἑαυτοῦ of Himself RefPro-GM3S 5207 [e] Huion Υἱὸν Son N-AMS 3992 [e] pempsas πέμψας , having sent V-APA-NMS 1722 [e] en ἐν in Prep 3667 [e] homoiōmati ὁμοιώματι likeness N-DNS 4561 [e] sarkos σαρκὸς of flesh N-GFS 266 [e] hamartias ἁμαρτίας , of sin N-GFS 2532 [e] kai καὶ and Conj 4012 [e] peri περὶ for Prep 266 [e] hamartias ἁμαρτίας , sin N-GFS 2632 [e] katekrinen κατέκρινεν condemned V-AIA-3S 3588 [e] tēn τὴν - Art-AFS 266 [e] hamartian ἁμαρτίαν sin N-AFS 1722 [e] en ἐν in Prep 3588 [e] tē τῇ the Art-DFS 4561 [e] sarki σαρκί , flesh N-DFS ◄ Philippians 2:7 ► Philippians 2 - Click for Chapter 7 235 [e] 7 alla 7 ἀλλὰ 7 but 7 Conj 1438 [e] heauton ἑαυτὸν Himself RefPro-AM3S 2758 [e] ekenōsen ἐκένωσεν , emptied V-AIA-3S 3444 [e] morphēn μορφὴν [the] form N-AFS 1401 [e] doulou δούλου of a servant N-GMS 2983 [e] labōn λαβών , having taken V-APA-NMS 1722 [e] en ἐν in Prep 3667 [e] homoiōmati ὁμοιώματι [the] likeness N-DNS 444 [e] anthrōpōn ἀνθρώπων of men N-GMP 1096 [e] genomenos γενόμενος . having been made V-APM-NMS You'll want to look up the Greek words for "likeness" and "form" Also , this issue between the manuscripts are a bit more complicated than we think . I believe that OVERALL the Textus Receptus/Majority texts are better than the Critical/Minority texts , however , both strands have things added and omitted things in them , we can't just say that older is better unless we're dealing with the originals which we don't have , that means either strand of text types . What you have to do is find out what the earliest church based out of Jerusalem taught , those would be The Ebionites , unfortunately , we don't have much left from them and anything we do have was written by their enemies

Thank you very much for the hard work and resources. Although I believe in Covenant Theology and not Dispensationalism. Praise God for the love of His Pure Word.

You realize that even if the critical text only gets translated in the 1900’s, the manuscripts themselves exist that thus were preserved forever right? So the word of God was totally preserved through ever age. This is the idiocy of the traditional text postion

Could you kindly let us know 1) where you studied textual critical studies and 2) where you were licensed to teach textual criticism and where you currently teach textual criticism? And 3) what textual critical scholars recognize you as an authority in the field?

ya, I have not watched the video.... but after reading the comments subscribed to the channel. I am sure I will spend a lot of time here in the future.

Dear Kongebarn, Please tell me about 1John 5:7-8. anti-Trinitarians love to boast about this verse not being in the oldest texts claiming that it was added by Erasmus. Has this passage ever been quoted by an earlier church father?

Why are you lying? 85% papyri represent traditional Text! Really? Of course that's not true. The same story with 97% of uncials. 100% lectionaries. You should look at first to them. You took this absurdal claims from the book of Waite. He is a liar.

A very good work thanks!

15:43 not "set you free" but "make you free"

That's one of my Bible verses I use in my Bible studies. Thou shall keep them O Lord.... from this generation forever

Thank you for this careful straight forward explanation of what the crux of the whole English Bible translation issue is all about, and WHY simply, and CLEARLY the texts used for the Authorized Version are the safest and most reliable texts we have. Do you have any books that you might recommend on this topic? Or others who have also done quality videos such the one you've done? Thank you and God bless you for the diligence you've put into this.

Kongebarn. You are using circular logic. God's words are pure, yes. But who is to say what are God's words? You are assuming you know what they are based on a collection of books. Things found in books are known as TESTIMONIES, not God Himself speaking. Jesus is the only true Word of God.

I’ve never seen a better defense than this with evidence for every attacked verse. Thank you so much!

can you send me your powerpoint presentation??

I do appreciate this video, thank you! I do have a comment on your mention of dispensationalism: Grace was present in the skins provided by God for covering.

WHICH "Received Text"!!!!!!!!!!!!? ( There is more than one.) WHICH "Critical Text"!? ( There is more than one.)

23:15 time.....Umm mark 1:2 is in Isaiah 40

What about the MEV translation that uses the Majority/Received text? Well?

Look up the video, 'Wescott and Horts Occult Connections - Dr. Phil Stringer'. There is obviously some evil things going on with the critical text.

Tusen takk for god bibelundervisning! Takk til Gud for at jeg fant denne undervisningsserien, oppklarte en del spørsmål jeg har hatt i det siste. Vil gjerne se videoen om Daniels 70 uker også, men ser ut som den ikke er tilgjengelig for øyeblikket?

Awesome Work!!!!!!!! Thank!