It is hard for us to realize that "books" did not exist before the printing press. There were few copies, scolls, and people memorized the scriptures. The accounts in the gospels and epistles were written after the ascension by decades.
KJV isn't a translation, but an adaptation from several other translations. It wasn't taken from the original languages either. People should stop their worship of their printed idol, repent and then worship the One Living Word Who is in every Bible, in more than 3,000 world languages. Not even 19% of all people can understand English in some way. Would God give a Bible that would exclude more than 80% of His target audience? Really, some folks really lack common sense. Don't be dumb, please.
Thanks for this interview! It’s an awesome overview of a complicated topic. Especially appreciated the reminder that the KJV was a state-sponsored project … it amuses me when Anabaptists jump on the KJV-only bandwagon! I wish Christians all had some basic knowledge of text criticism like David said he had as a child. So many are completely ignorant of the topic and don’t know what to think when they stumble upon it.
It’s not a band wagon dude. You might want to get your facts straight before judging people who support the KJV as Gods preserved Word. We stand on it based on FACTS not opinions.
I stopped using the NIV after I was shocked to find it literally took out verses. While following a sermon by going to the verses the pastor read, I came to a verse I could not find. I first thought the pastor had made a mistake but then I noticed the numbering of the verses. It was like 14,15,17. It literally took out verse 16. I checked the verse numbering of my NIV with a KJV and all chapters had the same number of verses. After a couple more times of finding a missing verse, I made the decision to just not use the NIV. My husband has a Bible that has several Bible versions where the chapters are side by side. I was surprised to see how different they are and the words that were changed. Some word changes bother me, such as changing virgin to young maiden or girl and removing the words the blood for example.
I’ve been intrigued with translations and how words are translated so I really enjoyed this interview! I would be curious as to how we discern which translations are “corrupted” as David alluded to towards the end.
Thanks for the discussion. It's true about Koine Greek. It's the same for English also. Early English is mostly unintelligible to us today. Only scholars in that field can discern it.
You may be interested in discovering Ivan Panin! As watermark identified the genuineness of paper, so there are mathematical patterns beneath the surface of the original text of the Bible so complex they can only be accounted for by Divine Providence. Some of these patterns found by Ivan Panin shows how he used these to arrive at what he considered a possibly pure Greek text he then translated into English in his “Numeric English New Testament”. Whom correctly translates Romans 9:28 directly from the Greek as follows for the Lord will execute his word upon the earth, finishing and cutting it short.
Thank you, this was excellent. This channel as a whole is just such a valuable resource in understanding the Anabaptist faith. I hope Mr. Bercot will be in more of your videos in the future.
Recommend you not call it “the Anabaptist faith,” but the Anabaptist tradition or stream or other such word-otherwise you’re saying it’s a different religion entirely than other kinds of Christianity!
@debras3806 I'm very sorry, I didn't mean it that way at all. I appreciate the correction. I'll be sure to use Anabaptist tradition next time I refer to it. I just wasn't sure if denomination would be applicable since it's a broad category of denominations (such as Mennonites, Amish, etc) so I went with faith.
Thank you for the kind words. We are glad that you find this channel to be a helpful resource. We expect to publish one or more additional episodes with David within the next year.
Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism. I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin, but not the Greek so out it goes. Good will towards men Doxology in Matthew Without cause God manifest in the flesh Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin, so out they go The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek and Latin so out they go. Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8 some throw out. If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem, what would you see as a problem?
Given that the Russian Synodal translation also uses the word "work" in Rom. 9:28, I would say that this word (and verse) deserve a more thorough analysis as to why "work" was used in the KJV.
@mikezakharov3230 looking up the quote of Isaiah [Yesha'yahu] 10: 23, I don't see "word" written in the Tanakh. I will have to ask the researchers how Romans 9: 28 reads in the Travencore Cochin Ivrit Epistle to Romans.
Word and work are interchangeable Many verses to prove this. One example is James 1:22 and Revelation 2:26 Also see John 14:23 compared to Ephesians 2:10 In other words, the things Jesus taught, His words must be put into action (works).
@ funny thing, I stopped listening at around 29 minutes. I am King James only. Don’t get me wrong, I use every version I can get my hands on, but I only believe one Bible. I only use the other versions to prove that they are not the word of God. There can only be one Bible that is God’s word all the others aren’t.
@AmbassadorEarl where did David say it doesn't matter how we conduct ourselves as Christians? I listened to the whole thing. Never heard him say that.
This was an interesting discussion and I agree with David Bercot that through most modern translations the meaning of God's word remains the same. I recently purchased a 1611 version of the KJV and it is a prime example of the difficulty in even translating 400 years of english into something understandable today. The spelling alone makes it a hard read. Our Mennonite church uses the NRSVue for scripture reading so on Sunday that's my bible. During the week not so much.
1 john 5: 7 - 8 KJV 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. In the NRSVue verse 7 of the KJV was removed and instead expanded verse 8 to include it. The problem is the Father , the Word and the Holy Ghost are a recorded record in heaven, not just a witness. These 3 are one. When you look at the signature of God you will see it in the 1611 where there are 3 ones' , the Father 1 the Word 1 and the Holy Ghost 1 are in the 1611. The 6 is the number of the man 6 , the Word made flesh, John 1 : 14 completing the signature of God on the cover of the 1611 KJB . It is recorded in heaven as stated in John 1: 1 John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” When man changes the written word of God it is Idolatry, no different than when Satan and Eve changed God's word to mean something different in the Garden of Eden. Reading false doctrines of man is worshipping the golden calf .
They didn’t put it in the description yet, but they put a thumbnail link to it on the screen near the end of the video. Great to see you here, by the way! Did you notice that I recommended your 2 videos about it not being 400 years in slavery AND the pyramids video in the first comment? I would include the link to David’s Septuagint video, but I think that gets my comment deleted. You can find it by searching: The Septuagint - David Bercot - Ep. 063
churchindex.org lists one Anabaptist Church in Huston. Consider reaching out to it: map.churchindex.org/church_profile.php?id=c7805348-90ff-11ee-b0e9-00163eb3bc90
Interesting discussion. I enjoyed it. I agree with both of you that the message is the important issue. But..... Why would you assume New Testament writers all wrote in Greek? I admit that some of them knew Greek, especially Paul, who was a Pharisee "Rabbi" trained under Gamaliel in Jerusalem, was from Tarsus, a Roman citizen and highly educated in both Greek and Jewish society. Yet, historically, 1st century AD Jews, even country boys from Galilee, were far better educated in Hebrew than the able to get by with the Greek language. (Hebrew University) 1st century Jews in Judea were educated in the precursors of Synagogues and started reading and writing Hebrew at about the age of 4 to 5 years. They were not ignorant. Besides the native Hebrew, most could communicate in several Aramaic dialects or neighboring language for local trade. Why do we assume that Jewish writers primarily writing to Jewish readers would communicate in Greek? This is a serious question. Given the "Hebrew-isms" in the New Testament, it would be a reasonable hypothesis that the Gospels, and all the books except for Paul's writings, would originally be in Hebrew. Paul had an audience of Hebrew and non-Hebrew (likely Greek) speakers. While seminary experts are trained to make the assumption that the Greek is always the original language, language study suggests that much of the New Testament is rather Jewish writings in Hebrew then later translated to Greek. No translation from one language to another can be done mechanically without some cultural adjustment. A translator must take a sentence, understand the meaning, then formulate the sentence as accurately as possible in the second language. That is just a translation fact.
@@debras3806 hmmmm I guess all the ante-Nicene writers who alluded to a Hebrew gospel and a Hebrew Matthew from Justin the whole way to Jerome are not evidence? obviously, the Hebrew Gospel was destroyed by the Greco-Roman authorities who despised Jews and wanted to stamp out any evidence of the original Church led by James and replaced it with a Church with Paul at the center.
I have a question about the statement that the Waldensian Bible is different from the Received Text. Was not the Itala Bible the Recieved Text? I have heard that the KJV is from the Received Text, but there have been many revisions of the KJV Bible. Now that we have found surviving Hebrew text of the original Ivrit B'rit Chadashah, we are finding more clarity on many subjects
@Afriqueleblanq according to the research team of the Benai Emunah Institute, the Waldensian Bible is the Itala Bible, the first Latin translation from the original Hebrew text. The B'rit Chadashah [New Testament] was first written in 1st Century Hebrew, and we have manuscripts that have survived the flames of persecution to restore the original first generation writings of the Apostles.
We have been told that all the original manuscripts from the time of the Apostles have been lost, but that is just NOT TRUE. Here's one example: There exists a document in the Vatican Archives that contains virtually the entire texts of the four Gospels in the Aramaic language. This document states that it dates from the year AD 67. This document was authenticated by the 18th century official Vatican Librarian, Joseph Simon Asamani who was a native Aramaic speaker from Lebanon. There is an image of the title page online, but the Vatican has not allowed the document to be viewed, under the pretext of preventing it from damage. There are many, many evidences of Aramaic primacy of many of the NT books. Get a copy of the Aramaic English New Testament translated directly into English from Aramaic texts dating from the early AD 100's. (Khabouris codex) That NT has the Aramaic text on the left page and the English text on the right page. The translator Andrew Gabriel Roth is a Messianic Jew from the US. He readily supplies footnotes explaining how comparing the Aramaic to the many English translations from Greek manuscripts reveals how the Greek texts show that the original text was Aramaic, that was mis-translated into Greek, with those mistakes traceable and identifiable in the many English translations with Greek texts as their source texts. Many of these stem from misreading the Aramaic text (which has no vowels) during the translation process into Greek by someone who is not a native Aramaic speaker. A few examples: problems with Mary's genealogy in Matthew 1, the "camel through the eye of a needle" analogy in Matthew 19, and labeling Simon of Bethany in Matthew 26 as a "leper.". There are many other examples that validate this hypothesis. For more info, get ahold of an Aramaic English New Testament and read the footnotes and Appendix notes. The translator has many TH-cam videos, so do a search there to find explanatory videos. I don't worship the Greek texts any longer as the most worthy sources, but simply view them as generally complimentary alongside the Aramaic ones..... BTW, the early Aramaic Peshitta manuscripts are so early in origin that they lack the 5 newest NT books in the general canon: Second Peter, Second and Third John, Jude and Revelation. Please do your own research before shooting any flaming arrows at the ideas I have laid out here.....
@nrgnovator 67 AD was after the beheading of Paul, and before the Apostle Yochanan received Revelations on Patmos. We know the Antioc in Syria was most active in sending Missonaries and translating all manner of literary works into different languages. But there is evidence that it was translated from Greek. I would be very good to carefully examine, and translate any Scripture we find from the 1st Century,.
Word and work are interchangeable Many verses to prove this. One example is James 1:22 and Revelation 2:26 Also see John 14:23 compared to Ephesians 2:10 In other words, the things Jesus taught, His words must be put into action (works). God will save anyone that departs from sin and yields to do His will. We don’t necessarily need a Bible for someone to be saved. However, that doesn’t mean God didn’t perfectly preserve His word in one book the KJV for these deceptive and perverse days that we live in.
Are we sure that Romans 9:28 is the verse here being discussed? KJV indeed does render it "work" but none of the modern translations do. I checked ESV NASB and even NIV and CSB and all of them render it word or sentence. Admittedly the word "sentence" there seems to have some interpretation going on, but they are all pretty close to the original. Good discussion overall. I think there is toouch fear of other translations in my circles, but I think that's mostly because people don't understand the translation process that has happened or how they got their bible at all. It would be valuable to talk about more. David knowing this from a young age seems rare.
To the point made about Romans 9:28-the choice between “work” and “word,” ESV uses “sentence”. Which I think gets us closer to the early church’s understanding
Reagan, you may want to withdraw this episode and share its substance with some trusted advisors. You are treading on dangerous ground and risking the trust of your voice and ministry. Part of the value of the KJV as a version is that it was written at the pinnacle of the English language due to Shakespeares influence in writing. The KJV not only brought the illumination of Gods Word to millions of people, but it also became a common document that perserved English for decades. As we journey deeper into this century, the English language and those who use it are being dumbed down in their words and grammer. In order for a language to be preserved, there must be a common document that maintains a standard and, although we don’t speak in KJV, there is value in a widely recognized, common Bible. I have never thought of myself as a "KJV only" but I tremble as the shortsightedness of questioning it as a standard for Biblical New Testament Churches.
You are wrong Mr Bercot, God’s message are the words that were inspired. You are contradicting yourself, and Scripture, by trying to make a distinction between the words of Scripture and the message of Scripture.
God's Pure Word cannot be dependent on the precise wording of The Received Testament in Greek?!? Well, then, I guess your entire fight over the exact wording of The Masoretic Tanakh versus Codex Vaticanus is meaningless. Ain't it now? The exact wording is irrelevant. In fact, go ahead and make your own "original Hebrew" or "critical Greek" texts. God does not care, as nothing is changing. Why not write your own Bible like the same-genderists do, it'll save you just the same. The wording does not matter. Thank you for clearing all that up for me in 30 seconds! I think I am going to go cheat on my wife now, God will turn a blind eye, because my Bible says it is okay. FOLLOW YESHUA MESSIAH!!!
KJV isn't a translation, but an adaptation from several other translations. It wasn't taken from the original languages either. People should stop their worship of their printed idol, repent and then worship the One Living Word Who is in every Bible, in more than 3,000 world languages. Not even 19% of all people can understand English in some way. Would God give a Bible that would exclude more than 80% of His target audience? Really, some folks really lack common sense. Don't be dumb, please.
There are many differences between KJV and ESV, Gen 3:16, Acts 8:37, Matt 17: , Mark 9:29, 1 Cor 7:1, 1 Cor 7:5 and many more. The doctrine of fasting for more faith to cast out demons is gone. God pronounced a judgement against women to be “contrary” to their husbands, instead of having desire to them. Believers baptism in Acts 8:37 is missing. This is just a small sample. Faith that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God is at an all time low . People don’t know what to believe! So many Bible versions. The devils plan is to replace inspiration and inerrancy with the reason of men. And he has accomplished a lot . Wake up Church!
The desire to be towards the husband doesn't make sense to be a positive thing, as its part of the judgement upon the women as result of her disobedience. Just like the thorns and thistles were going to be a struggle of the man, the order God established is going to be a thorn in the side of the women. It makes more sense that part of the women's judgement is that she will need to be submissive to her husband and it will be hard to do (wont be natural). I believe that is how it was understood historically.
I use the KJV, almost exclusively. Ive only recently been reading the ESV because its being used by more people in our church. We still preach with KJV. Though some verses are left out, the commands the missing verses are laying out are still found in other scripture...I wish they would have included those versus, at least in parathesis.
David Bercot misleads people with his own opinions. The Byzantine texts and the majority texts and the TR texts are all the same, with a few minor differences. The modern translations come from the erroneous Alexandrian of Egypt texts who were anti Christian.
It's uncharitable to accuse other Christians of misleading people. You are mistaken: these labels (MT, TR, Byz) are not just labels that we slap unto a bunch of manuscripts that all say the same thing, the first two are critical editions (scholars decided from among the various manuscripts which each had differences from one another what they believed a prototypical text ought to look like) the last is a category for all such manuscripts that share similar readings. So, the TR and MT are all drawn from Byz-type manuscripts, the MT was compiled from a much larger group of Byz manuscripts than the TR, so there are about 1,800 differences between the two. Nevertheless, the general readings are the same, nothing important is lost in translation, and, indeed, most differences aren't even traslatable.
@@PaulWayneJohnson-ie4cu It depends what you mean by "accurate." If accuracy is a matter of word-for-word literalism, then the charts that I have seen that rank Bible translations by accuracy typically place the English Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible as slightly more accurate than the King James Version. See the chart on this page for one such example: women.lifeway.com/2021/09/22/reference-desk-comparing-bible-translations/ The value of a Bible translation, though, shouldn't simply be assessed based on how literal it is. And accuracy isn't always a matter of word-for-word literalism. How do you assess accuracy in a Bible translation?
Another thing the KJV and other translations get wrong is the timeline immediately before and after the flood. Not that it matters a whole lot, but for example, Israel was not enslaved in Egypt 400 years. Reading Galatians 3:16-17 proves this, but for a better explanation, just search this and be amazed: nathanh83 how long Egypt If you like that, also search: nathanh83 pyramids flood
I don't think Christ and the Apostles had the king James version in their pocket.
They didn’t have any version in their pocket.
It is hard for us to realize that "books" did not exist before the printing press. There were few copies, scolls, and people memorized the scriptures. The accounts in the gospels and epistles were written after the ascension by decades.
🎉🎉🎉🎉
KJV isn't a translation, but an adaptation from several other translations. It wasn't taken from the original languages either. People should stop their worship of their printed idol, repent and then worship the One Living Word Who is in every Bible, in more than 3,000 world languages. Not even 19% of all people can understand English in some way. Would God give a Bible that would exclude more than 80% of His target audience? Really, some folks really lack common sense. Don't be dumb, please.
Certainly not. Elizabethan English came 1,500 years later. 😊. Jesus spoke Aramaic, the OT was in Hebrew, the NT in Greek.
Thanks for this interview! It’s an awesome overview of a complicated topic. Especially appreciated the reminder that the KJV was a state-sponsored project … it amuses me when Anabaptists jump on the KJV-only bandwagon! I wish Christians all had some basic knowledge of text criticism like David said he had as a child. So many are completely ignorant of the topic and don’t know what to think when they stumble upon it.
It’s not a band wagon dude. You might want to get your facts straight before judging people who support the KJV as Gods preserved Word. We stand on it based on FACTS not opinions.
I stopped using the NIV after I was shocked to find it literally took out verses. While following a sermon by going to the verses the pastor read, I came to a verse I could not find. I first thought the pastor had made a mistake but then I noticed the numbering of the verses. It was like 14,15,17. It literally took out verse 16. I checked the verse numbering of my NIV with a KJV and all chapters had the same number of verses. After a couple more times of finding a missing verse, I made the decision to just not use the NIV. My husband has a Bible that has several Bible versions where the chapters are side by side. I was surprised to see how different they are and the words that were changed. Some word changes bother me, such as changing virgin to young maiden or girl and removing the words the blood for example.
For the Lord, who carries out what he says without delay,
will do what he said completely and decisively on the earth. EHV
I’ve been intrigued with translations and how words are translated so I really enjoyed this interview! I would be curious as to how we discern which translations are “corrupted” as David alluded to towards the end.
Thanks for the discussion. It's true about Koine Greek. It's the same for English also. Early English is mostly unintelligible to us today. Only scholars in that field can discern it.
This is true.
You may be interested in discovering Ivan Panin! As watermark identified the genuineness of paper, so there are mathematical patterns beneath the surface of the original text of the Bible so complex they can only be accounted for by Divine Providence. Some of these patterns found by Ivan Panin shows how he used these to arrive at what he considered a possibly pure Greek text he then translated into English in his “Numeric English New Testament”.
Whom correctly translates Romans 9:28 directly from the Greek as follows for the Lord will execute his word upon the earth, finishing and cutting it short.
Thank you, this was excellent. This channel as a whole is just such a valuable resource in understanding the Anabaptist faith. I hope Mr. Bercot will be in more of your videos in the future.
Recommend you not call it “the Anabaptist faith,” but the Anabaptist tradition or stream or other such word-otherwise you’re saying it’s a different religion entirely than other kinds of Christianity!
@debras3806 I'm very sorry, I didn't mean it that way at all. I appreciate the correction. I'll be sure to use Anabaptist tradition next time I refer to it. I just wasn't sure if denomination would be applicable since it's a broad category of denominations (such as Mennonites, Amish, etc) so I went with faith.
Thank you for the kind words. We are glad that you find this channel to be a helpful resource. We expect to publish one or more additional episodes with David within the next year.
Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism.
I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin,
but not the Greek so out it goes.
Good will towards men
Doxology in Matthew
Without cause
God manifest in the flesh
Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin,
so out they go
The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek
and Latin so out they go.
Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8
some throw out.
If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem,
what would you see as a problem?
Great explanation.
Glad you found it helpful.
Given that the Russian Synodal translation also uses the word "work" in Rom. 9:28, I would say that this word (and verse) deserve a more thorough analysis as to why "work" was used in the KJV.
@mikezakharov3230 looking up the quote of Isaiah [Yesha'yahu] 10: 23, I don't see "word" written in the Tanakh. I will have to ask the researchers how Romans 9: 28 reads in the Travencore Cochin Ivrit Epistle to Romans.
We agree.
Word and work are interchangeable
Many verses to prove this. One example is James 1:22 and Revelation 2:26
Also see John 14:23 compared to Ephesians 2:10
In other words, the things Jesus taught, His words must be put into action (works).
I wish this guy gave examples, especially the one in Acts that is not in any greek text.
He gave the example of the Pericope Adulterae at 33:30, but admittedly didn't elaborate much.
@ funny thing, I stopped listening at around 29 minutes. I am King James only. Don’t get me wrong, I use every version I can get my hands on, but I only believe one Bible. I only use the other versions to prove that they are not the word of God. There can only be one Bible that is God’s word all the others aren’t.
I crazy, just started listening and he’s wrong. It absolutely does matter how we conduct ourselves as Christians. I can’t listen to this guy anymore.
@@AmbassadorEarl Thanks for giving us a chance :-)
@AmbassadorEarl where did David say it doesn't matter how we conduct ourselves as Christians? I listened to the whole thing. Never heard him say that.
This was an interesting discussion and I agree with David Bercot that through most modern translations the meaning of God's word remains the same. I recently purchased a 1611 version of the KJV and it is a prime example of the difficulty in even translating 400 years of english into something understandable today. The spelling alone makes it a hard read. Our Mennonite church uses the NRSVue for scripture reading so on Sunday that's my bible. During the week not so much.
1 john 5: 7 - 8 KJV
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
In the NRSVue verse 7 of the KJV was removed and instead expanded verse 8 to include it. The problem is the Father , the Word and the Holy Ghost are a recorded record in heaven, not just a witness. These 3 are one. When you look at the signature of God you will see it in the 1611 where there are 3 ones' , the Father 1 the Word 1 and the Holy Ghost 1 are in the 1611. The 6 is the number of the man 6 , the Word made flesh, John 1 : 14 completing the signature of God on the cover of the 1611 KJB . It is recorded in heaven as stated in John 1: 1
John 1:1
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
When man changes the written word of God it is Idolatry, no different than when Satan and Eve changed God's word to mean something different in the Garden of Eden. Reading false doctrines of man is worshipping the golden calf .
Where is the link to the video about the Septuagint?
They didn’t put it in the description yet, but they put a thumbnail link to it on the screen near the end of the video. Great to see you here, by the way! Did you notice that I recommended your 2 videos about it not being 400 years in slavery AND the pyramids video in the first comment? I would include the link to David’s Septuagint video, but I think that gets my comment deleted. You can find it by searching:
The Septuagint - David Bercot - Ep. 063
Thanks for catching this. We added the link.
th-cam.com/video/Qs_5Kz-5k3k/w-d-xo.html
LOVED the podcast keep it up guys God bless 👍.
Thanks for listening
Dear AP, I live in Houston and looking for a biblical, Anabaptist or similar church to go to. If you know of any, please let me know.
churchindex.org lists one Anabaptist Church in Huston. Consider reaching out to it: map.churchindex.org/church_profile.php?id=c7805348-90ff-11ee-b0e9-00163eb3bc90
There is a relatively new Anabaptist church in Houston. Check on churchindex.org
26:44. 2 Peter 1:19-21, 1 Corinthians 2:13.
Interesting discussion. I enjoyed it.
I agree with both of you that the message is the important issue. But..... Why would you assume New Testament writers all wrote in Greek? I admit that some of them knew Greek, especially Paul, who was a Pharisee "Rabbi" trained under Gamaliel in Jerusalem, was from Tarsus, a Roman citizen and highly educated in both Greek and Jewish society. Yet, historically, 1st century AD Jews, even country boys from Galilee, were far better educated in Hebrew than the able to get by with the Greek language. (Hebrew University) 1st century Jews in Judea were educated in the precursors of Synagogues and started reading and writing Hebrew at about the age of 4 to 5 years. They were not ignorant. Besides the native Hebrew, most could communicate in several Aramaic dialects or neighboring language for local trade. Why do we assume that Jewish writers primarily writing to Jewish readers would communicate in Greek?
This is a serious question.
Given the "Hebrew-isms" in the New Testament, it would be a reasonable hypothesis that the Gospels, and all the books except for Paul's writings, would originally be in Hebrew. Paul had an audience of Hebrew and non-Hebrew (likely Greek) speakers. While seminary experts are trained to make the assumption that the Greek is always the original language, language study suggests that much of the New Testament is rather Jewish writings in Hebrew then later translated to Greek.
No translation from one language to another can be done mechanically without some cultural adjustment. A translator must take a sentence, understand the meaning, then formulate the sentence as accurately as possible in the second language. That is just a translation fact.
Bc there’s ZERO evidence for a Hebrew original!
@@debras3806 hmmmm I guess all the ante-Nicene writers who alluded to a Hebrew gospel and a Hebrew Matthew from Justin the whole way to Jerome are not evidence? obviously, the Hebrew Gospel was destroyed by the Greco-Roman authorities who despised Jews and wanted to stamp out any evidence of the original Church led by James and replaced it with a Church with Paul at the center.
I have a question about the statement that the Waldensian Bible is different from the Received Text. Was not the Itala Bible the Recieved Text? I have heard that the KJV is from the Received Text, but there have been many revisions of the KJV Bible. Now that we have found surviving Hebrew text of the original Ivrit B'rit Chadashah, we are finding more clarity on many subjects
The TR or Textus Receptus is already flawed in some ways. Do some due diligence.
@Afriqueleblanq according to the research team of the Benai Emunah Institute, the Waldensian Bible is the Itala Bible, the first Latin translation from the original Hebrew text. The B'rit Chadashah [New Testament] was first written in 1st Century Hebrew, and we have manuscripts that have survived the flames of persecution to restore the original first generation writings of the Apostles.
We have been told that all the original manuscripts from the time of the Apostles have been lost, but that is just NOT TRUE. Here's one example:
There exists a document in the Vatican Archives that contains virtually the entire texts of the four Gospels in the Aramaic language. This document states that it dates from the year AD 67. This document was authenticated by the 18th century official Vatican Librarian, Joseph Simon Asamani who was a native Aramaic speaker from Lebanon. There is an image of the title page online, but the Vatican has not allowed the document to be viewed, under the pretext of preventing it from damage.
There are many, many evidences of Aramaic primacy of many of the NT books. Get a copy of the Aramaic English New Testament translated directly into English from Aramaic texts dating from the early AD 100's. (Khabouris codex)
That NT has the Aramaic text on the left page and the English text on the right page. The translator Andrew Gabriel Roth is a Messianic Jew from the US. He readily supplies footnotes explaining how comparing the Aramaic to the many English translations from Greek manuscripts reveals how the Greek texts show that the original text was Aramaic, that was mis-translated into Greek, with those mistakes traceable and identifiable in the many English translations with Greek texts as their source texts. Many of these stem from misreading the Aramaic text (which has no vowels) during the translation process into Greek by someone who is not a native Aramaic speaker.
A few examples: problems with Mary's genealogy in Matthew 1, the "camel through the eye of a needle" analogy in Matthew 19, and labeling Simon of Bethany in Matthew 26 as a "leper.". There are many other examples that validate this hypothesis.
For more info, get ahold of an Aramaic English New Testament and read the footnotes and Appendix notes. The translator has many TH-cam videos, so do a search there to find explanatory videos.
I don't worship the Greek texts any longer as the most worthy sources, but simply view them as generally complimentary alongside the Aramaic ones.....
BTW, the early Aramaic Peshitta manuscripts are so early in origin that they lack the 5 newest NT books in the general canon: Second Peter, Second and Third John, Jude and Revelation.
Please do your own research before shooting any flaming arrows at the ideas I have laid out here.....
@nrgnovator 67 AD was after the beheading of Paul, and before the Apostle Yochanan received Revelations on Patmos. We know the Antioc in Syria was most active in sending Missonaries and translating all manner of literary works into different languages. But there is evidence that it was translated from Greek. I would be very good to carefully examine, and translate any Scripture we find from the 1st Century,.
Word and work are interchangeable
Many verses to prove this. One example is James 1:22 and Revelation 2:26
Also see John 14:23 compared to Ephesians 2:10
In other words, the things Jesus taught, His words must be put into action (works).
God will save anyone that departs from sin and yields to do His will. We don’t necessarily need a Bible for someone to be saved. However, that doesn’t mean God didn’t perfectly preserve His word in one book the KJV for these deceptive and perverse days that we live in.
Thanks for this commentary.
Are we sure that Romans 9:28 is the verse here being discussed? KJV indeed does render it "work" but none of the modern translations do. I checked ESV NASB and even NIV and CSB and all of them render it word or sentence. Admittedly the word "sentence" there seems to have some interpretation going on, but they are all pretty close to the original.
Good discussion overall. I think there is toouch fear of other translations in my circles, but I think that's mostly because people don't understand the translation process that has happened or how they got their bible at all. It would be valuable to talk about more. David knowing this from a young age seems rare.
@James White
To the point made about Romans 9:28-the choice between “work” and “word,” ESV uses “sentence”. Which I think gets us closer to the early church’s understanding
Reagan, you may want to withdraw this episode and share its substance with some trusted advisors. You are treading on dangerous ground and risking the trust of your voice and ministry. Part of the value of the KJV as a version is that it was written at the pinnacle of the English language due to Shakespeares influence in writing. The KJV not only brought the illumination of Gods Word to millions of people, but it also became a common document that perserved English for decades. As we journey deeper into this century, the English language and those who use it are being dumbed down in their words and grammer. In order for a language to be preserved, there must be a common document that maintains a standard and, although we don’t speak in KJV, there is value in a widely recognized, common Bible. I have never thought of myself as a "KJV only" but I tremble as the shortsightedness of questioning it as a standard for Biblical New Testament Churches.
Says the person who can't spell grammar...
did he say he used the NKJV??
there is a big difference between it and the KJV new testament
Yes. He said that he uses the New King James Version at about 6:00
@@AnabaptistPerspectives Yes, I agree, the NKJV is decent also. Problematic I however view the ESV, NASB and NIV
You are wrong Mr Bercot, God’s message are the words that were inspired. You are contradicting yourself, and Scripture, by trying to make a distinction between the words of Scripture and the message of Scripture.
God's Pure Word cannot be dependent on the precise wording of The Received Testament in Greek?!? Well, then, I guess your entire fight over the exact wording of The Masoretic Tanakh versus Codex Vaticanus is meaningless. Ain't it now? The exact wording is irrelevant. In fact, go ahead and make your own "original Hebrew" or "critical Greek" texts. God does not care, as nothing is changing. Why not write your own Bible like the same-genderists do, it'll save you just the same. The wording does not matter. Thank you for clearing all that up for me in 30 seconds! I think I am going to go cheat on my wife now, God will turn a blind eye, because my Bible says it is okay.
FOLLOW YESHUA MESSIAH!!!
KJV isn't a translation, but an adaptation from several other translations. It wasn't taken from the original languages either. People should stop their worship of their printed idol, repent and then worship the One Living Word Who is in every Bible, in more than 3,000 world languages. Not even 19% of all people can understand English in some way. Would God give a Bible that would exclude more than 80% of His target audience? Really, some folks really lack common sense. Don't be dumb, please.
There are many differences between KJV and ESV, Gen 3:16, Acts 8:37, Matt 17: , Mark 9:29, 1 Cor 7:1, 1 Cor 7:5 and many more.
The doctrine of fasting for more faith to cast out demons is gone.
God pronounced a judgement against women to be “contrary” to their husbands, instead of having desire to them.
Believers baptism in Acts 8:37 is missing.
This is just a small sample.
Faith that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God is at an all time low .
People don’t know what to believe!
So many Bible versions.
The devils plan is to replace inspiration and inerrancy with the reason of men.
And he has accomplished a lot . Wake up Church!
The desire to be towards the husband doesn't make sense to be a positive thing, as its part of the judgement upon the women as result of her disobedience. Just like the thorns and thistles were going to be a struggle of the man, the order God established is going to be a thorn in the side of the women. It makes more sense that part of the women's judgement is that she will need to be submissive to her husband and it will be hard to do (wont be natural). I believe that is how it was understood historically.
I use the KJV, almost exclusively. Ive only recently been reading the ESV because its being used by more people in our church. We still preach with KJV. Though some verses are left out, the commands the missing verses are laying out are still found in other scripture...I wish they would have included those versus, at least in parathesis.
David Bercot misleads people with his own opinions. The Byzantine texts and the majority texts and the TR texts are all the same, with a few minor differences. The modern translations come from the erroneous Alexandrian of Egypt texts who were anti Christian.
It's uncharitable to accuse other Christians of misleading people. You are mistaken: these labels (MT, TR, Byz) are not just labels that we slap unto a bunch of manuscripts that all say the same thing, the first two are critical editions (scholars decided from among the various manuscripts which each had differences from one another what they believed a prototypical text ought to look like) the last is a category for all such manuscripts that share similar readings. So, the TR and MT are all drawn from Byz-type manuscripts, the MT was compiled from a much larger group of Byz manuscripts than the TR, so there are about 1,800 differences between the two. Nevertheless, the general readings are the same, nothing important is lost in translation, and, indeed, most differences aren't even traslatable.
@markcamacho3152 the truth about him misleading people has to be told, because we don't want people to be misled.
The only? No. The most accurate? Yes.
Can you explain?
@@AnabaptistPerspectives Is there any translation you would consider to be more accurate than the King James?
@@PaulWayneJohnson-ie4cu It depends what you mean by "accurate." If accuracy is a matter of word-for-word literalism, then the charts that I have seen that rank Bible translations by accuracy typically place the English Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible as slightly more accurate than the King James Version. See the chart on this page for one such example: women.lifeway.com/2021/09/22/reference-desk-comparing-bible-translations/
The value of a Bible translation, though, shouldn't simply be assessed based on how literal it is. And accuracy isn't always a matter of word-for-word literalism.
How do you assess accuracy in a Bible translation?
Go and read the preface to your KJV and there in lies your answer to the question.
Another thing the KJV and other translations get wrong is the timeline immediately before and after the flood. Not that it matters a whole lot, but for example, Israel was not enslaved in Egypt 400 years. Reading Galatians 3:16-17 proves this, but for a better explanation, just search this and be amazed:
nathanh83 how long Egypt
If you like that, also search:
nathanh83 pyramids flood
Not sure that is a translation\bible problem. Maybe an interpretation problem