The Catholic 1974 NAB Bible says in 2Sam 21:19 that Elhanan killed Goliath of Gath. The King James Bible says that Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath. Which one is true? The King James Bible says that David slew Goliath. So we must decide, is this really an important issue? Do we want an accurate account of history? There are 100’s of changes in the Catholic 1974 NAB . Check out Isa. 14:12, The NAB says , “How have you fallen from the heavens, O morning star..” Whoa! Who is the “morning star?” Well this same Bible says in 2Pet 1:19 that the “day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.” So in one verse (Isa14:12) the morning star fell from heaven, and another verse, (2Pet 1:19) the morning star rises in your hearts. We are to “study” to show ourselves approved unto God.
mike hopper Hi Mike. Here is the one that a Muslim put up where James White denies that Luke 23:34 is inspired Scripture. "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them: for they know not what they do." brandplucked.webs.com/jwonluke2334.htm
At 3:16, are you trying to say that God provided us with the KJV? Which book are you asserting that God has provided us, and then please tell me by what means did He provide this book; did this method include textual variants, or didn't it? And if it did, how does one choose which reading is the correct reading?
Hi Lawrence, I can appreciate the comment. I covered those issues in my book Which Bible Would Jesus Use? The Bible Version Controversy Explained and Resolved.
@@jackmcelroy3485 I'm going through "The King James Only Controversy" right now, but I have been at least vaguely familiar with the topic for some time now; for the life of me, with all of the problems that we may find in ANY translation of the Bible, I cannot understand how someone can be dogmatic about any particular translation. I have an especially hard time understanding the thinking of individuals like Steven Anderson who would assert such demonstrably false claims that the KJV is error-free. What Bible would Jesus use? During the ministry of Jesus and the Apostles, there existed two forms of the Old Testament - the Greek Septuagint (used mostly by the people), and the Hebrew Scriptures (used mostly in the Temples). Both the Greek and Hebrew texts existed simultaneously during Jesus' ministry, but Jesus and the Apostles chose to quote MUCH more from the Septuagint than they did from the Hebrew Text: 307 times from the Septuagint as opposed to just 33 from the Hebrew Text. This number from Gleason L. Archer and Gregory C. Chirichigno, "Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey," pgs. xxv, ff. Here's the point - they quoted from both... We know that both had textual variants at that time, and both were quoted by Jesus and the Apostles, and both were considered authoritative. The task of the student then is to be informed as to which is more accurate, where it is more accurate, and why it is more accurate, but we must understand that perfection in copying of God’s Word was not the standard for Jesus and the Apostles for Moses and the Prophets, so why should we hold the New Testament of God's Word to a different standard that even God Himself did not hold it? If our understanding of the inerrancy of scripture means that TRANSLATIONS of the text are error-free, then we have a wrong view of inerrancy. So, which Bible would Jesus use? Well, If Jesus spoke English, then He would probably use several translations alongside a good Greek text that takes into account the most manuscripts and papyri as possible, backed by the best scholarship and methods available.
@@lawrencestanley8989 Hi Lawrence, I’ve read Dr. White’s book twice and I am familiar with Archer’s work as well. I covered the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy in some detail which would answer the question you’ve raised. Anyway, here is an excerpt from the Introduction of the book… “When it comes to the creation, manufacturing, and distribution of the Bible, I see the Lord Jesus Christ as the project manager. Getting a pure Bible into your hands is his job. And truly… He’s the only one qualified for the job. I expect more out of the Lord than some fundamentalists and evangeli¬cals do when it comes to the Bible. I expect him to provide his own children with a book that contains all of his life-giving words and only his life-giving words. I expect that the Lord of Hosts would not leave us without a book. In short… There has to be a book. I expect that the identity of that book would be clearly recognizable to his children. Further, I don’t believe that he requires his children to learn ancient He¬brew or Greek, Aramaic, Latin, Chaldean, or any other language, or be¬come a textual critic in order to identify which Bible is the one he would use if he came to your church. I believe that when it comes to what words the so-called “Original Bible” contained, the Lord Jesus Christ is the only one who can provide them. And when it comes to translation, he’s the only one who can determine just how he wants his words translated. He’s the author, and he’s the only one who can determine what he wants said and how he wants it said. Most books on this subject compare verses and focus on variant read¬ings, manuscript evidence, and opinions of scholars as to which readings are authentic. This book is different. My pre¬suppositions are that 1. There has to be a book-a physical book. 2. This book must contain all of God’s words and only God’s words. It can’t be a mixture of men’s words and God’s words. 3. Most importantly, the work of providing this authentic, physical Bible is the responsibility of the Lord Jesus Christ. I’ve combed through reams of research and scores of books for you. The issue is focused by asking one simple “big picture” question: “If he came to your church, which Bible would Jesus use?” It’s a question no one has ever dared to ask even though the answer should be easy. Although it may be politically incorrect, the Lord’s Bible should be easy to recognize by its fruit. And the King James Bible has had more fruit than them all. Proving it takes a little more work. That’s what this book does. This book will prove… That the experts (who assembled the Greek text underlying the New Testaments of the NIV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, NLT, and a host of others) actually believe that the “original autographs” making up the so-called Original Bible had errors in them. They teach that the evangelists (Mat¬thew, Mark, Luke, and John) made errors when they wrote the Gospels. You’ll find the details in chapter 2. Plus, you’ll learn: • Why the Lord is actually forced to choose only one Bible. (Chapter 1) • Why the Lord Jesus Christ would never use the English Standard Ver¬sion (ESV) because of the known errors (admitted by experts) inserted into the text in Matthew 1:7, 8, & 10. (Chapter 3) • Why the Lord wouldn’t carry the New American Standard Bible (NASB) to church with him because of the known errors (admitted by experts) inserted into the text in John 7:8-10 and because of the way it refers to him in John 1:18. (Chapter 3) • Why the Lord couldn’t use the NIV, ESV, or the NASB because of the known geography error (admitted by experts) inserted into the text in Luke 4:44. (Chapter 3) • Why the Lord can’t use the NIV, ESV, or the NASB because of the known error (admitted by experts) inserted into the text in Mark 1:2. (Chapter 3) • Why the Lord is hurt by how his character is besmirched in Mark 1:41 in the New International Version (NIV) and would never, ever use it. (Chapter 3) • Why the Lord wouldn’t bring the New King James Version (NKJV) into church with him because of how it undermines the historical in¬tegrity of his words in English. (Chapter 8) This book goes on to answer other nagging questions like… • Why didn’t the Lord preserve the original autographs? (Chapter 4) • Where was the Bible before 1611? (Chapter 9) • Which edition of the King James Bible is “the Bible”? (Chapter 10) • What about the tens of thousands of differences between the 1769 edi¬tion (or any edition today) and the first edition in 1611? (Chapter 11) • What about the differences between King James Bibles printed by the Oxford and Cambridge University Presses? (Chapter 12) • What is the Bible’s definition of inspiration? (Chapter 15) • What was the commonly understood definition of inspiration in the late 19th century? (Chapter 16) • Who is responsible for changing the Bible’s definition of inspiration and when did they change it? (Chapter 17) • Why do some conservative scholars say the Lord preserved error in¬stead of truth in the extant biblical manuscripts? (Chapter 18)…”
@@jackmcelroy3485 I appreciate your response, but you must demonstrate your presuppositions. For instance, why does there HAVE to be a physical book? Where in scripture did God promise that every translation and copy made of the original autographs would be error-free? Again, perfection in copying was not the standard of Jesus and the Apostles, so why must we impose a standard upon the scriptures that even Jesus didn't? If God had made this promise, then I would be assured that whenever I am copying scripture into my sermon notes, that I will never make a mistake while doing so, and I know that's not true... As for your second presupposition, there is not a single Bible translation that can be demonstrated to be error-free, including the KJV; man's words are constantly being inserted over God's words. For instance, the phrase "apple of my eye" as seen in passaged like Psalm 17:8, Proverbs 7:2, and Zechariah 2:8 is nowhere in any manuscript or papyri, it is not a Hebraism, and it would also have been unknown to the Greeks - the actual phrase is "little maiden of me eye," but the KJV translators changed it so that its readers would have a phrase that they were familiar with. Not only this, but there are insertions such as in Revelation 16:5 where Beza inserted the words "and shalt be," and yet there are no manuscripts that contain this phrase, and no one before 1598 had ever heard of it before. As for your third presupposition, that the work of providing this authentic, physical Bible is the responsibility of the Lord Jesus Christ, I would ask you where did Jesus promise that He would guide the process of translating the words of the Apostles into the languages of the world so that they would all be absolutely error free? Or are you only asserting this of English for the KJV? You assert that *"I don’t believe that he requires his children to learn ancient Hebrew or Greek, Aramaic, Latin, Chaldean, or any other language, or become a textual critic in order to identify which Bible is the one he would use if he came to your church,"* but at the same time, are you asserting that someone from Papua New Guinea must learn English so that they can read a KJV? Or are you asserting that the KJV can simply be translated into their language, and if so, are you asserting that there will always be an exact, one to one correlation with his language so that there will be no errors or translational issues?
Who is the prophet Jeremy in Matthew 2:17 and 27:9? Matthew is speaking of fulfilled prophecy, but quotes from Jeremiah instead of the book of Jeremy? I saw the modern versions use Jeremiah which seems to be correct and accurate. Is Jeremy a prophet that only Matthew new about? Is this an error? I’ve asked multiple KJVOS and none can seem to answer question. Figured since you wrote the book the all use maybe you can answer it.
James White would have a field day with this, lol. James has completely debunked KJV-Onlyism on several occasions. You can nitpick little things about James, but when he's debunked your entire platform for KJV-Onlyism it's sort of a bad look for you to sit on the sidelines and talk about him. Perhaps you should have a debate with James White? My guess is, you're not up for it.
Thanks for the comment, Matthew. I've written a couple of books on the subject and so has James White. I have concluded that the evidence shows that the Lord has provided his children with a book they can have confidence in. He has not yet come to that conclusion. I hope he does someday.
@@jackmcelroy3485 have you read William Barrick's "KJV Only, Sometimes, Never"? There's also a audio from a Shepherd's Conference at Grace Community Church available. Everyone around James White, everyone I've met personally from GCC, The Master's Seminary, all the way down to James White, have all said you can have confidence in your translation. They would all lean towards other translations, but I've not heard anyone say "you can't trust your Bible." Instead, they say, "here are the textual issues" with each translation. You on the other hand, are the one saying KJV only at the exclusion of the other texts, literally causing people to not trust their Bibles (many of which are far more accurate than KJV). The TR is not the "inspired text," as James White points out regularly. You're the one I've seen memes and various other propaganda telling people not to trust their Bibles or have confidence in them.
@@matthewhagen3497 I’m glad you’ve seen my memes. You should read my book, Which Bible Would Jesus Use? You should completely understand my position so you can effectively argue against it.
@@jackmcelroy3485 I was a Primitive Baptist for half my life. A KJV-Onlyist. I had to study debates and hear both sides for several years before I transitioned into other texts and eventually took Koine Greek. I wish you'd stop creating doubt in people, causing them to not trust their Bibles, like the PB church did to me. Which version of the KJV do you think inspired? Which of the various reprints and new editions would you choose? Why not the Tyndale Bible? Why not all the various Bibles that preceded the KJV? Whatever argument you make in your book, I'm sure I've heard it before, over and over again. The argument for KJV Only is inconsistent and internally contradictory.
The Catholic 1974 NAB Bible says in 2Sam 21:19 that Elhanan killed Goliath of Gath. The King James Bible says that Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath. Which one is true? The King James Bible says that David slew Goliath. So we must decide, is this really an important issue? Do we want an accurate account of history? There are 100’s of changes in the Catholic 1974 NAB . Check out Isa. 14:12, The NAB says , “How have you fallen from the heavens, O morning star..” Whoa! Who is the “morning star?” Well this same Bible says in 2Pet 1:19 that the “day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.” So in one verse (Isa14:12) the morning star fell from heaven, and another verse, (2Pet 1:19) the morning star rises in your hearts. We are to “study” to show ourselves approved unto God.
I'd love to see a link to Will's article on the Muslim video on James White.
mike hopper Hi Mike. Here is the one that a Muslim put up where James White denies that Luke 23:34 is inspired Scripture. "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them: for they know not what they do."
brandplucked.webs.com/jwonluke2334.htm
At 3:16, are you trying to say that God provided us with the KJV? Which book are you asserting that God has provided us, and then please tell me by what means did He provide this book; did this method include textual variants, or didn't it? And if it did, how does one choose which reading is the correct reading?
Hi Lawrence,
I can appreciate the comment.
I covered those issues in my book Which Bible Would Jesus Use? The Bible Version Controversy Explained and Resolved.
@@jackmcelroy3485
I'm going through "The King James Only Controversy" right now, but I have been at least vaguely familiar with the topic for some time now; for the life of me, with all of the problems that we may find in ANY translation of the Bible, I cannot understand how someone can be dogmatic about any particular translation. I have an especially hard time understanding the thinking of individuals like Steven Anderson who would assert such demonstrably false claims that the KJV is error-free.
What Bible would Jesus use? During the ministry of Jesus and the Apostles, there existed two forms of the Old Testament - the Greek Septuagint (used mostly by the people), and the Hebrew Scriptures (used mostly in the Temples). Both the Greek and Hebrew texts existed simultaneously during Jesus' ministry, but Jesus and the Apostles chose to quote MUCH more from the Septuagint than they did from the Hebrew Text: 307 times from the Septuagint as opposed to just 33 from the Hebrew Text. This number from Gleason L. Archer and Gregory C. Chirichigno, "Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey," pgs. xxv, ff. Here's the point - they quoted from both... We know that both had textual variants at that time, and both were quoted by Jesus and the Apostles, and both were considered authoritative. The task of the student then is to be informed as to which is more accurate, where it is more accurate, and why it is more accurate, but we must understand that perfection in copying of God’s Word was not the standard for Jesus and the Apostles for Moses and the Prophets, so why should we hold the New Testament of God's Word to a different standard that even God Himself did not hold it? If our understanding of the inerrancy of scripture means that TRANSLATIONS of the text are error-free, then we have a wrong view of inerrancy.
So, which Bible would Jesus use? Well, If Jesus spoke English, then He would probably use several translations alongside a good Greek text that takes into account the most manuscripts and papyri as possible, backed by the best scholarship and methods available.
@@lawrencestanley8989
Hi Lawrence,
I’ve read Dr. White’s book twice and I am familiar with Archer’s work as well.
I covered the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy in some detail which would answer the question you’ve raised.
Anyway, here is an excerpt from the Introduction of the book…
“When it comes to the creation, manufacturing, and distribution of the Bible, I see the Lord Jesus Christ as the project manager. Getting a pure Bible into your hands is his job.
And truly…
He’s the only one qualified for the job.
I expect more out of the Lord than some fundamentalists and evangeli¬cals do when it comes to the Bible. I expect him to provide his own children with a book that contains all of his life-giving words and only
his life-giving words. I expect that the Lord of Hosts would not leave us without a book.
In short…
There has to be a book.
I expect that the identity of that book would be clearly recognizable to his children.
Further, I don’t believe that he requires his children to learn ancient He¬brew or Greek, Aramaic, Latin, Chaldean, or any other language, or be¬come a textual critic in order to identify which Bible is the one he would use if he came to your church.
I believe that when it comes to what words the so-called “Original Bible” contained, the Lord Jesus Christ is the only one who can provide them. And when it comes to translation, he’s the only one who can determine just how he wants his words translated. He’s the author, and he’s the only one who can determine what he wants said and how he wants it said.
Most books on this subject compare verses and focus on variant read¬ings, manuscript evidence, and opinions of scholars as to which readings are authentic.
This book is different. My pre¬suppositions are that
1. There has to be a book-a physical book.
2. This book must contain all of God’s words and only God’s words. It can’t be a mixture of men’s words and God’s words.
3. Most importantly, the work of providing this authentic, physical Bible is the responsibility of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I’ve combed through reams of research and scores of books for you.
The issue is focused by asking one simple “big picture” question:
“If he came to your church, which Bible would Jesus use?”
It’s a question no one has ever dared to ask even though the answer should be easy. Although it may be politically incorrect, the Lord’s Bible should be easy to recognize by its fruit. And the King James Bible has had more fruit than them all.
Proving it takes a little more work. That’s what this book does.
This book will prove…
That the experts (who assembled the Greek text underlying the New Testaments of the NIV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, NLT, and a host of others) actually believe that the “original autographs” making up the so-called Original Bible had errors in them. They teach that the evangelists (Mat¬thew, Mark, Luke, and John) made errors when they wrote the Gospels. You’ll find the details in chapter 2. Plus, you’ll learn:
• Why the Lord is actually forced to choose only one Bible. (Chapter 1)
• Why the Lord Jesus Christ would never use the English Standard Ver¬sion (ESV) because of the known errors (admitted by experts) inserted into the text in Matthew 1:7, 8, & 10. (Chapter 3)
• Why the Lord wouldn’t carry the New American Standard Bible (NASB) to church with him because of the known errors (admitted by experts) inserted into the text in John 7:8-10 and because of the way it refers to him in John 1:18. (Chapter 3)
• Why the Lord couldn’t use the NIV, ESV, or the NASB because of the known geography error (admitted by experts) inserted into the text in Luke 4:44. (Chapter 3)
• Why the Lord can’t use the NIV, ESV, or the NASB because of the known error (admitted by experts) inserted into the text in Mark 1:2. (Chapter 3)
• Why the Lord is hurt by how his character is besmirched in Mark 1:41 in the New International Version (NIV) and would never, ever use it. (Chapter 3)
• Why the Lord wouldn’t bring the New King James Version (NKJV) into church with him because of how it undermines the historical in¬tegrity of his words in English. (Chapter 8)
This book goes on to answer other nagging questions like…
• Why didn’t the Lord preserve the original autographs? (Chapter 4)
• Where was the Bible before 1611? (Chapter 9)
• Which edition of the King James Bible is “the Bible”? (Chapter 10)
• What about the tens of thousands of differences between the 1769 edi¬tion (or any edition today) and the first edition in 1611? (Chapter 11)
• What about the differences between King James Bibles printed by the Oxford and Cambridge University Presses? (Chapter 12)
• What is the Bible’s definition of inspiration? (Chapter 15)
• What was the commonly understood definition of inspiration in the late 19th century? (Chapter 16)
• Who is responsible for changing the Bible’s definition of inspiration and when did they change it? (Chapter 17)
• Why do some conservative scholars say the Lord preserved error in¬stead of truth in the extant biblical manuscripts? (Chapter 18)…”
@@jackmcelroy3485
I appreciate your response, but you must demonstrate your presuppositions. For instance, why does there HAVE to be a physical book? Where in scripture did God promise that every translation and copy made of the original autographs would be error-free? Again, perfection in copying was not the standard of Jesus and the Apostles, so why must we impose a standard upon the scriptures that even Jesus didn't? If God had made this promise, then I would be assured that whenever I am copying scripture into my sermon notes, that I will never make a mistake while doing so, and I know that's not true...
As for your second presupposition, there is not a single Bible translation that can be demonstrated to be error-free, including the KJV; man's words are constantly being inserted over God's words. For instance, the phrase "apple of my eye" as seen in passaged like Psalm 17:8, Proverbs 7:2, and Zechariah 2:8 is nowhere in any manuscript or papyri, it is not a Hebraism, and it would also have been unknown to the Greeks - the actual phrase is "little maiden of me eye," but the KJV translators changed it so that its readers would have a phrase that they were familiar with. Not only this, but there are insertions such as in Revelation 16:5 where Beza inserted the words "and shalt be," and yet there are no manuscripts that contain this phrase, and no one before 1598 had ever heard of it before.
As for your third presupposition, that the work of providing this authentic, physical Bible is the responsibility of the Lord Jesus Christ, I would ask you where did Jesus promise that He would guide the process of translating the words of the Apostles into the languages of the world so that they would all be absolutely error free? Or are you only asserting this of English for the KJV?
You assert that *"I don’t believe that he requires his children to learn ancient Hebrew or Greek, Aramaic, Latin, Chaldean, or any other language, or become a textual critic in order to identify which Bible is the one he would use if he came to your church,"* but at the same time, are you asserting that someone from Papua New Guinea must learn English so that they can read a KJV? Or are you asserting that the KJV can simply be translated into their language, and if so, are you asserting that there will always be an exact, one to one correlation with his language so that there will be no errors or translational issues?
Who is the prophet Jeremy in Matthew 2:17 and 27:9? Matthew is speaking of fulfilled prophecy, but quotes from Jeremiah instead of the book of Jeremy? I saw the modern versions use Jeremiah which seems to be correct and accurate. Is Jeremy a prophet that only Matthew new about? Is this an error? I’ve asked multiple KJVOS and none can seem to answer question. Figured since you wrote the book the all use maybe you can answer it.
Gregory Miller Hey Greg check out Jack's channel,he's got some great KJB only videos.
James White would have a field day with this, lol. James has completely debunked KJV-Onlyism on several occasions.
You can nitpick little things about James, but when he's debunked your entire platform for KJV-Onlyism it's sort of a bad look for you to sit on the sidelines and talk about him.
Perhaps you should have a debate with James White? My guess is, you're not up for it.
Thanks for the comment, Matthew.
I've written a couple of books on the subject and so has James White.
I have concluded that the evidence shows that the Lord has provided his children with a book they can have confidence in.
He has not yet come to that conclusion.
I hope he does someday.
@@jackmcelroy3485 have you read William Barrick's "KJV Only, Sometimes, Never"? There's also a audio from a Shepherd's Conference at Grace Community Church available.
Everyone around James White, everyone I've met personally from GCC, The Master's Seminary, all the way down to James White, have all said you can have confidence in your translation. They would all lean towards other translations, but I've not heard anyone say "you can't trust your Bible." Instead, they say, "here are the textual issues" with each translation.
You on the other hand, are the one saying KJV only at the exclusion of the other texts, literally causing people to not trust their Bibles (many of which are far more accurate than KJV). The TR is not the "inspired text," as James White points out regularly.
You're the one I've seen memes and various other propaganda telling people not to trust their Bibles or have confidence in them.
@@matthewhagen3497 I’m glad you’ve seen my memes.
You should read my book, Which Bible Would Jesus Use?
You should completely understand my position so you can effectively argue against it.
@@jackmcelroy3485 I was a Primitive Baptist for half my life. A KJV-Onlyist. I had to study debates and hear both sides for several years before I transitioned into other texts and eventually took Koine Greek.
I wish you'd stop creating doubt in people, causing them to not trust their Bibles, like the PB church did to me.
Which version of the KJV do you think inspired? Which of the various reprints and new editions would you choose?
Why not the Tyndale Bible? Why not all the various Bibles that preceded the KJV?
Whatever argument you make in your book, I'm sure I've heard it before, over and over again. The argument for KJV Only is inconsistent and internally contradictory.
@@matthewhagen3497 I answered those objections in my books.
But I’m glad to hear that you’ve come to a position you’re comfortable with.