Here's the thing though: No matter how much you understand the translations, or study this information, a KJV only person will remain a KJV only person, and they will call you a heretic! It's sad, really.
Now I am not gonna lie in the least, I can’t stand not having everyone using the same bible like the preacher using a ESV and everyone else in a kjv just a pet peeve of mine. And I would like to pose this question and I hope it’s not a contradiction in my previous statement but I do use the KJV because I think it’s the best. Now when I say best I just mean it’s been used so long it’s proved to be a reliable translation. But in all reality do we not use the versions that we use because we believe them to be the best I’d we really think about it? Also are you from the blue ridge parkway brother?
And many that look down on the king James will always feel they have the better version and king James only readers are silly even though they are NIV only and ESV only etc. It works both ways.
@Mark OnTheBlueRidge yes it does, you must remember there are many versions of the KJV, including ones that use the newer manuscripts, I have seen those that read only the esv mainly calvinist, and niv, who totally try to destroy the king james every chance they get in one way or another, coming just short from discrediting it, and forgetting, there have been old and modern versions of it too. But the good thing is, people are reading the bible, even if it is not my favorite version, and for the most part the older and newer versions line up, especially on salvation and Jesus, and that is truly miraculous!
@Mark OnTheBlueRidge good points but not entirely accurate, some KJV, are not that extreme, and are ok with other versions just not for them, this is the same as ESV only NIV only. Many of those readers would not be caught dead with the KJV, because of old english, or they presume the newer manuscripts are not as accurate if you will, or that the non KJV,s are actually better. Then with say the ESV it more or less has language that favors calvinists, so they are more apt to like that one and so forth, and KJV will counter with this verse was taken out or not included and so forth, so there is a lot of variability. I truly like that we have hundreds of translations available to us, I do agree we should not put down other translations point blank without a solid reason, we can of course critique them if we see something that is out of order, Jesus had the apostles each give their interpretation of the truth, many have been saved and given their life to bring those bible to us. KJV was not the first, but played an extremely pivotable role in Christianity, and as such there will always be those that have it as a favorite and only use it as it has probably been scrutinized more than any other book in history. NIV and other less than 100 year versions have the benefit of today’s language and more manuscripts being recovered, they may have some passages taken out. I think it’s best, if you can to own a few different translation. Than it is easier to witness to more people, and understand where they are coming from.
If the KJV of the Bible never states within itself that we are to only read the KJV, then no one can assert that as a fact. To say that the KJV is infallible then it would state so within the writings of the prophets. Also, to say the KJV is infallible is adding to the scripture something which is not there.
Perfect point about how the book of Hebrews reference to Jeremiah 31 doesnt match the Old Testament in their own hands…. My favorite example is Jesus himself quoting the LXX Isaiah 61:1 verse in Luke 4:18, “restoring sight to the blind” is NOT in the Masoretic text, only in the Septuagint.
The LXX is a fabricated work, only after Christ's death...now how can Christ quote the LXX of the only physical copy we have, was made after his death...
As a former KJVO myself and knowing very much the thinking behind why KJVO mindset, education is really the only cure to this movement. I have had many conversations with KJVO’s and when you challenge them enough in their position they retreat to the personal revelation from God trope. Unbeknownst to them, they open up the door for all who claim to have personal revelations to be true (Mormons, JW’s, SDA’s etc…)
Hey I've been working through some arguments on this subject myself. Can you enlighten me on the KJVO position on English translations that came out prior to the KJV?
I think the big problem with King James Onlyism is that it breaks down when we start talking about languages that are not English. What Bible should I get if I speak another language or I want to learn another language? King James Onlyism won't be able to tell you.
In Dutch we have the Statenvertaling, in German you have the Luther bible, and I'm pretty sure at least every country that had a reformation got a perfect translation just like the KJV. Countries with not much Christians (congo or whatever) do not have perfect translations in their language, although their second language often does.
@@oracleoftroy No each language has a Bible that was translated as Arthur said above KJV should be the standard for English speaking people read the other verison some of them compare Jesus with saint. KJV: Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. NIV: Isa 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! Rev 22:16 I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.” It only takes one change to a word to make God into statan or into a lair or ruin doctrine be carful of modern bibles with what they think they know
@@terrillclark6486 Regardless, my statement about what some KJO advocate for isn't changed by the existence of the slightly more reasonable 'majority text only' or 'textus receptus only' or (whatever other tradition they prefer) position. But I'm not sure why translating morning star/planet Venus from Hebrew to English is satanic, but translating it into Latin is fine. Sounds like a midevil Catholic argument back when they didn't want people able to read their bibles in their own language. Does it equally worry you that the KJV says Satan appears as an angel of light and yet Jesus is the light? The same thing is going on here. The king of Babylon (which for some reason a tradition arose to teach that he is Satan) falsely claims glory that only Jesus has. Sadly, people who don't understand Latin thought lucifer was a name and not a wandering star and misunderstood what the Bible was saying, all due to faulty translations that used Latin like your example from the KJV. If the only way you know to harmonize those passages is to translate 'morning star' into Latin, you are going to have a hard time understanding all the other places in the KJV where some element is attributed to both godly and sinful things.
@@oracleoftroy Beause if you read the the passage it refers Satan to as the Morning Star so reading it refers to the Devil as Jesus. Which is a straight hersey and KJV: 2 Cor 11:13-14 13For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Its striaght up telling you to be on watch satan taking up the form in order to decive which is his mo.He was the first created being of God's angelic host why would i be worried about him turning into an angel of light. those who are apart of the angelic host can turn into anything they want its pretty obvious from reading the bible. But not only that he fooled eve by changing Gods words but eve also changed gods words as well why would he not being doing the same today? He did it with Jesus in the wilderness also, people need to stop listening to scholars and read and study for them selfs the NIV removed 16 verse from the bible who gave them that authroity all because they didnt feel like it was supposed to be their after 400 years or more. This is Satan making several translation in order to cause divsion in the body which he as succeed in doing. This is a spirtual warfare if he cant see the battlefield as it is laid out well i am sorry. God's Word is above is own name KJV: Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. So if he takes is word that seriously so should we.
When I entered an IFB Christian school in 1979 the first thing I thought was why are we forced to use an obviously outdated version of the Bible? KJV Only was always weird to me. I haven't cracked open a KJV Bible since the 1990s. It's outdated! Move one to a much better word for word version. I love the LSB!
You talk about not cracking a KJV since the 90s. Well my son was not even born until the 90s. He has never read other Bibles, but for his first time reading through the Bible, we are reading the King James and he is having zero problems understanding it. None. Maybe your "fundamental" problem is you do not actually want to learn English properly?
I feel like this topic gets complicated pretty quickly. So I've got a simpler question, what about none English speakers? There are definitely bad bible versions but if you are really worried about all but one then learn Greek and Hebrew.
A christian who still remains a KJV only after he or she has read or heard all the arguments from both sides are either afraid to think for himself or has decided to let others to think for him or her will remain a KJVonly until the rapture.I'd like to think this controversy will be finally settled in the Judgment of Christ.
What I don't understand is why there are KJV-Only leaders willing to lie and twist the truth to suit their position. Didn't God say not to give false testimony against our neighbor?
It's all really silly. Differences in translation drive only a small part of the divergences between different interpretations of the Bible. Most of the English-speaking denominations split off from each other when they were all still mostly using KJV's.
I actually think that the 1560 and 1599 versions of the GENEVA BIBLE is superior to the KJV. I use it more than the KJV. But I also have to admit that my 1985 printing of the NKJV Nelson, double column, center reference, wide margins is my personal favorite carry bible. 30+ years of notes and edits is just hard to let go of.
I like alot of things about KJV, but I don't think it's the "only true" translation. The KJV only people worship it like a cult object, it's anti factual and absurd at times.
Youngs L.T. has less errors than the KJV.. David Middleton has many teachings on this. JESUS is not in any book/Bible. Its a book (books) about JESUS. Worship JESUS ,not a certain translations.
I hear this both ways, so let God lead you. And I agree worship Jesus not a translation. Many of the early church, did not have access to much of the New Testament, some perhaps even the old. They used faith in the Holy Spirit, with the few writings they had. And that was enough. We have hundreds of translation, by men from every bias and walk of life, some based on older and newer languages and manuscripts. Some believer the newer manuscripts are more accurate, some believe the older ones are. Let the Holy Spirit lead you, and you will be fine.
Hugely helpful insight, thank you for sharing your expertise! Is there any type of course where one could learn about the translation of the Bible over the centuries or how to defend its divine origin?
9:30 Amen & Touché! They also need to use the "Urtext" 1611 in gothic Blackletter type, if they want to have the absolute original, final and "perfect" document, rather than consulting the "corrupted" 😉 Blayney revision.😊 Free facsimilies from 1611 are readily available on the internet. Thanks for this very informative video response!🙏
Not only that, the KJVO loves to make the argument that the KJV can be traced back to the church in Antioch and bashes anything coming out of Alexandria Egypt. Those who make this statement only prove they do not know church history whatsoever. Because at the time of Council of Nicaea and slightly before, it was Arius who set up his home base in Antioch and taught Arianism (denying the eternality of Christ) and it was Athanasius of Alexandria who defended Christ’s deity. KJVO’s love to say the modern Alexandria versions deny the deity of Christ but it was someone from Alexandria who was contending for the deity of Christ while Arius in Antioch was denying it. Of course, KJVO’s don’t know this history, or if they do they ignore those details.
The transmission of Scripture is like the blockchain network that’s used for cryptocurrency, but it’s much more advanced in the way God did it and it works offline and does not require full nodes (full copies of the entire ledger) for security thus making it very lean and efficient.
according to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and according to the beliefs of the vast majority of Christians throughout church history, only the original manuscripts (mss), aka as the "autographa" are considered inerrant and infallible. However, as James points out, the textual variants are very minor. And for all intents and purposes, we do indeed still have the Word of God. But no translation can be perfect in the absolute sense. And this is what KJVOnlyists believe. And, as James also points out, the King James Version cannot withstand the same accusations aimed at other translations when turned on itself. There are certain Hebrew words of plants and animals they weren't sure of in 1611. But now, more information is available to better translate those words.
I have been in the kjv only rabbit hole researching the last few days. The conclusion I came to is this- kjv onlyists equate the version with the autographs. Such is very far from the truth. I read the nkjv and prefer the textus receptus. However, I have the majority text as well in the interlinear New Testament. Not only is kjv only incorrect, it is not a perfect translation. I use the kjv as well( occasionally) but would never say it is the only correct one to use.
Hi James what do you say to the argument that older manuscripts that differ from the received, are found in a location far away from where they were the originals would have been written thus if we were to find a older manuscript in isreal it would possibly be more likely to be closer to the received.
I think it might makes certain degree of sense (for books of the Bible which were written in Israel), although I think that comparing versions from different areas is probably better, presuming you can work out which area they were from originally. But this is not a good argument for the textus receptus, because the manuscripts used for the TR were primarily found in Switzerland and France from what I can work out; and where they came from before that is mostly unknown. When it comes to the old testament, the Bomberg Bible was printed in Venice, while the Leningrad codex was copied from Israeli manuscripts and the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in Israel.
@@IamGrimalkin thanks for the answer. I guess a possible modification of the argument is to look at possible broken circulation of copies. For example the central land mas of Egypt is fairly isolated from isreal. This is also true of Europe but I would expect that some of the writings were sent to churches there and then copied on mass. But at most I see this argument not enough to be kjv only I would need an example of this occurring in other historical texts to be sufficient to see its historical validity.
I'm KJV only insomuch that it's the only English Bible I read and trust. Concerning ESV: I disagree with Wayne Grudem and JI Packer on soteriology, so I prefer not to have my mind framed by their prejudice. I also get flack from KJV-inspired types, so I'm targeted from both sides.
#2 is literally my problem against any claim that the KJV or it's textual basis is the preserved text and nothing else. I'm leaning TR but not absolutist.
There is no error regarding pi in the Bible. Atheists make this claim by not taking into account ALL of the measurements given, including the hand breadth.
@@cariboubearmalachy1174 No, this is very simple. The bowl is 10 cubits rim to rim. That is the diameter from brim to brim of the bowl. What is the rim? It's the tippy top edge. The bowl was 30 cubits in circumference. You would typically measure the inside of the bowl, because you want to know it's volume. But the bowl is also said to have a brim like a cup. So it is rounded. That puts the measured diameter outside the circumference of the interior where the circumference is measured from. The brim will be located half the distance from the inside of the cup to the outside of the bowl. Well, how far is that? How thick is the wall of the bowl. Well, it tells you. A hand breadth thick. That's a good 5 or 6 inches. So the circumference is being measured maybe 3 inches from the interior. Now, to top it off, the Bible says that the brim of this bowl was like a lily. That means it spread out. Like any average tea cup. Go measure the diameter of a tea cup, then measure the circumference of the brim. The brim has a wider diameter than the interior space of the cup. This argument that the Bible has an error with pi is ridiculous and unthought out. Edited, because in my haste I typed circumference instead of diameter and vice versa a couple of times. hehe Hopefully I got it right now. The point is, the diameter of the interior of the bowl is not the same as the diameter of the spread out brim on a thick walled bowl.
I disagree with the argument that earlier manuscripts in any case tend to have less scribal errors that later ones. That statement is generally true but we need to consider the conditions under which Biblical manuscripts were being copied in the first 3-4 centuries of Christianity. Christian persecution and the iligal status of the Bible would've made copying a nightmare and a process prone to error. So I think mistakes would have been far greater than later centuries.
Salvation is based on faith. If you don’t believe you have God’s Word in your hand, then you have no faith to stand on. Your salvation depends on whether or not you have God’s Word in your hand, you read it, hear it, and believe it. I personally don’t care and adamantly reject textual criticism because it is all based on assumptions and unbelief. It’s not scientific and James White is not Jesus. God bless you all. Stand up stand up for Jesus ye soldiers of the Lord!
Ironically, the man who compiled the source text that would be used in the King James version, Erasmus, was a major figure in the counter-reformation. He believed salvation by faith is heresy. How do you deal with this cognitive dissonance?
Fundamental Baptists definitely do. Although I dont want to generalize but every Independent or Fundamental Baptist preacher I've ever heard is a firm KJV onlyist
@@multiversetheory3740 Yes, but there are varying degrees. I am a member of an Independent Baptist Church, some of them go as far as to say KJV is more inspired than the Greek and Hebrew text and others prefer KJV and will not teach from any other text, but do not discourage you from owning or referring to your ESV's etal.
I usually don't get into these debates. But the NIV Deuteronomy 22:28-29 states that a woman must marry her rapist. Where the KJV refers to two consenting individuals. Just one example I came across recently.
Sinaiticus--I can never spell it correctly-- was located in a monastery under the control of the Fatimid caliphate, so does that mean it has a broken chain of custody? I am assuming the Codex was in the monastery during that time.
@@rtdodge3839 Anybody who cares about chain of custody and use of the text as per the biblical definition of what is scripture and should be used by believers.
@@rtdodge3839 The NKJV, NIV, CSB, ESV, HCSB, NASB, ASV. Of these seven translations, which one does NOT teach Christ is Lord and the Word made flesh, Christ crucified as the one sacrifice for the sin of the world, and resurrected and exalted to the right hand of the Father? That’s the Gospel in a nutshell. Which version has translated its way out of that?
@@samlawrence2695 Precisely. This KJV-Only conspiracy is 💯 hype with zero substance. Apply the same standard of hermeneutics to the FULL passage, not a handful of singular verses here and there. You do that and it’s just a fact that you do NOT walk away with all this satanic depravity these other translations keep getting accused of.
@@Froto1976, because I think that’s a very distracting question to ask. Questions like that sidestep the fundamental problem with this controversy among fellow Christians. See, it’s the KJVO crowd who insists the entirety of the Gospel hangs on a singular translation against all others, usually out of purely anti-intellectualist stubbornness. It’s the KJVO crowd who will utterly dismiss a Christian’s salvation over this issue. It’s the KJVO crowd that constantly bears a false witness against their neighbor. The question undermines the severity of this issue.
Joel Scott, those copies are part of 2,000 years worth of transmission of the scriptures. They have their place in the history of transmission amongst extant copies in the multiples of thousands. Textual preservation of the Word was and is, first of all, miraculous, as James states, but it also requires a humble and thorough consideration of the extant copies that have survived to our present day. Those copies would be part of that heritage, you simply don't view them or study them in a vacuum, but in relation to other copies of the same period, before and after.
I love re-visiting the John A. debate and to see James White then and comparison today...back then ALL looked mid-age old and now they all look YOUNG. LOL ...back then J W looked the baby and totally conservative...now as grandpa white, he is tattooed, beardy and more relaxed in clothing. LOL ..theology still good.
The problem is new Bible versions have copy right issues. This means ten percent of a new Bible version must be changed in order to get a copyright! Publishers do this so others can't sell their versions. Get some books on the changes made and it will open your eyes big time. Also, James White considers minority text superior to majority text. Egghead logic VS intelligence.
@@curtthegamer934 That's common knowledge and the Kind/Queen allows printing and quoting of this translation as long as it's not used in a disgusting/derogatory way. It can even be used for scholarly critique.
@@truthcrusader4521 I read a blog post once where somebody was wanting to publish a study Bible in the UK, and wanted to use the KJV for the text, but the royalty fee was way too high so that he couldn't afford it, so, after trying for weeks to negotiate with them, he gave up and just used the NASB in his study Bible instead because the royalty fee was a lot cheaper and affordable. Make of that information what you will.
@@curtthegamer934 Never heard about that one. If you like other modern Bible versions so be it. What bothers me is when a company has to change 10% of it to get a copy right and that goes for every new updated version. If you prefer a Bible version such as the NIV you are better off finding the oldest version of it available like I have. Parallel Bibles are great to.
Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandria, and Codex Sinaiaticus are all suspiciously favorable to Roman Catholic doctrine. If that doesn't give you reason for pause what would?
Any argument a KJO would use to support their claim could also be used by a Mormon to support the book of mormon, because it's a personal opinion presented as divine decree. Anyone with any modicum of education can see the fault in their logic.
I'm an atheist but iv'e been watching James White content for the past few days straight pretty much because it's so interesting especially about the history of the bible versions etc and something so few Christians tend to know at least in UK
Not kjv only but I do have a sincere question. It would seem that the Bible is indeed something different than a regular manuscript and that the standards of determining the best readings should be different therefore. Here's why I think this, an early text that is not represented down through time was a text not used by the church down through time. But scripture is for our edification. But if it was locked away in a monastery or some other place until the 19th century it was not available to the church in any meaningful fashion. So can it really be called scripture? It would seem you would want a text that all the church is using. This of course would be the byzantine which I realize is not the TR and I also realize that no two texts are the same and that this is an oversimplified depiction. But on theological grounds it seems faulty to accept the alexandrian stuff, simply because it was not used for centuries. For this reason I lean towards a byzantine text position....which again I know isn't the TR. Perhaps someone could give me a better way of looking at this?
@@flintymcduff5417 nope. I assure you I'm not. Long ending of 1 John 5:7. Shouldn't be in there. 2 instances of Granville Sharps, should be in there. Deuteronomy 32.8 should reflect the LXX reading. Lucifer is Is. 14 would read better as Morning Star. Bezas textual guess work in Revelation should be struck through. The Latin back translation Erasmus did in Revelation should be corrected. That is if you want a proper revision of the KJV. The KJV has changed from its original form. The KJV of today is textually different and has two textual families so to speak (Oxford and cambridge). This disqualifies it as preserved, inerrant, infallible. I reject the kjv as the perfect word of God for the same reason I reject some of the Alexandrian variants. A reading has to be around for the church to use to be scripture. If it isn't it isn't scripture. Scripture serves the function of instruction. It can't instruct if it isn't available for hundreds of years. I get people see it different. That's fine. But because I like the kjv and because I like a byzantine text type doesn't make me kjv only. I just finished an adult vbs 5 day class. I had 5 different translations in those slides, with annotations/ references to the original languages, textual variants, and translation choices. Edit: Monogenes needs to be unique. Or One of a kind. Not only begotten. Old etymological understanding is why was rendered only begotten. Mcarthur still goes for it in his Legacy translation but his is a minority view (NASB might too?) Every major translation does a poor job with monogenes except the NLT (which is a cool almost paraphrase that I enjoy reading from time to time) I'm literally the furthest thing from a kjv only person. It's my Bible. Doesn't mean it's THE Bible. We are so polarized these days. Mostly it's the KJVO folks fault but they are rubbing off on the rest of us. Anyway, I hope that clarifies. Have a nice day.
Perhaps the large number of textual variants between Sinaticus and Vaticanus should show that earlier is not necessarily better. Problem with new translations is using only critical text vs. majority text.
I prefer the KJV for three decent reasons: 1. It's very close to the Greek and Hebrew originals. 2. It's simply great literature. 3. The Vatican scriptures are deceptive.
Do you consider the Dominican Greek mss used by Erasmus as Vatican scriptures? Do you accept the KJV's use of the Vulgate and the 1582 Catholic NT as Vatican scriptures? Do you reject every KJV reading that relied on Vatican scriptures?
The fact that every mainstream/worldly "Christian" corporation without exception uses the NIV in their consumer products is enough to keep me away from it.
other translations are fine, though I do prefer the KJV's style. The others are so ahistoric. Reading famous verses in other versions is like having to say "enslaved person" instead of "slave" or "indigenous person" instead of "Indian." Its unnatural.
@@cademiclips I use the 2020 NIV as my personal Bible but will use NASB, NKJV and KJV study Bibles. Tbh after reading though multiple times I use the NIV to hand out to new believers since it’s relatively easy to comprehend in modern English. I 1000% recommend people stay away from the message “translation,” or the passion “translation,” since they’re straight up heretical in places. Also the GNT is sketchy and I don’t particularly trust the New Testament in the GNT.
@@cademiclips they aren't word for word translations or formal equivalence, they are dynamic equivalence. I don't fully agree with KJVO but I only stray as far as NKJV for that reason I mentioned.
Finished re-visiting past KJO debate with Gipp, etc John A Show..... Quest: now 2023 ...how have these (all) modern translations impacted as to date the "falling away" now as we see the imminent return of our Lord in the USa?? AND which translations were used outside the USA that we now see murdered/tortured Asian and Middle Eastern and Aftrican nationals who are being martyred for the Faith as "born again" Christians?? What translations were they preached from that led to their salvation?..and that they died for their belief in/of that translation?? What are the stats????.
Im not KJV only but i do put a limit on the various translations that I read and reference, as some translations appear to be watered down. For example check out NIV which misses out or completely reverses texts Cross reference NIV NKJV or ESV Colossians 2:18 Genesis 27:39 Revelation 1:11 missing from NIV Acts 8:37 missing from NIV Mathew 18:11 missing from NIV Soo much more. You can quickly see how this can become a problem and lead to watered down verses. We should remember the crux of the bible is the Gospel. What Jesus did for us on the cross. I noticed brother white didnt provide his preference of translation on this subject matter or did i miss it?
An update to this is that while some passages are missing from NIV that are in KJV, Niv will go onto include that passage in one of the Gospels. Also when you cross reference the text in KJV and NIV they both reach the same point but come from a different angle in the text. I say that to say this. Its ok to read ESV, NIV but my preference is KJV NKJV and ESV. I mature enough in my faith to know that you dont just read any translation for example the passion of christ translation .
The preservation of the inspired scripture is evident over the millennia. That said, "Peter and the other apostles replied: 'We must obey God rather than huma beings'"! Even the Neo-Evangelical Infidel Version is more accurate in its translation of Acts 5:29, than the KJV.
Steve has other issues than his KJV onlyism, but that video "Marching to Zion" is an absolute masterpiece and very informative for anyone with an open mind.
@@T_frog1 You are right. For how ridiculous he is on most matters, he is almost reasonable on his KJV onlyism and avoids some of the sillier arguments. I heard he has actual experience with translating languages and understands the issues involved better than most.
For me, if someone wants to only stick with the KJV, then more power to them. They will not be led astray. I like the NKJV, NASB95, ESV, and the LSB with a little NLT thrown in for fun. As long as the basic doctrines are in tack with the save Grace of Jesus Christ, read on to your choice. Just my opinion.
Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. I am pretty sure this was the intent, of the translation and they translated exactly as it was. Too assume Peter said it the other way based of the english language or saying it was a bad translation is bold.
The question was: Is the Infallible, Inspired word of God in our possession today? You response was yes. Question - Where is it sir? You have not answered the question.
I think you’ve gotten me off the KJV only position. However, as I’ve learned about how the Bible was formed, I don’t know why anyone would bother arguing for biblical inerrancy. We don’t have any of the originals, and the copies we have do have errors and minor contradictions. Minor or not, if it’s not perfect there’s no argument to be had for inerrancy.
So I’m not a KJV type of person but I must ask if we have the earliest available manuscripts why are scholars adding verses that didn’t exist in the earliest manuscripts? That causes confusion even for myself God says his word is to be preserved if there’s scripture being added that didn’t exist to me that doesn’t make much sense
you need to scare everyone and one day just come out and say you admit you're wrong and KJV is the only translation. maybe next April? it'd be hilarious
@@stevie6621 You might need to listen to the video again. I'm sure he'd agree with my answer: Any good translation qualifies as "Inspired, Inerrant, Infallible Word of God". Including the KJV. KJVOs have an absurd criteria for "infallible" -- one that the KJV can't even stand up to: A number of NT quotations of OT verses come from the Septuagint, and disagree with the KJV OT. It's unedniable. Like Heb 1:6. Try finding that verse in the OT. (Hint: It's not even in the KJV OT. It's in the LXX and DSS only, in Deut 32)
The New Testament and Old Testament are different than any other work of antiquity. They are God's Word. That makes a huge difference if how you do textual criticism if you believe in the supernatural and if you believe the Word of God was preserved to every generation as it says it is. That makes a huge difference in how you discover what is the true text! I will trust the traditional text passed down over those. like James White, who would delete Jesus words "Forgive them they know not what they do." How could anyone even entertain that thought? Psalm 12:6-7 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalm 33:11 The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations. Psalm 100:5 For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations. Psalm 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Matthew 5:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 1 Peter 1:23-25 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 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: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
I myself prefer the King James Bible as its one i grew up on and to me its the best. Notice I said " TO ME" , I did not say to all! I also feel any church should use just a single bible as a standard and not a dozen different types of English bible. King James, then be a King James Church. NASB, then be a NASB Church. ESV, be and ESV Church. Keep a standard on what Bible is used in the church. So many different versions in a single church, leads to confusion. IMO. My church uses King James, what does your church use as a standard?
Hahahahah So the original greek and Hebrew are not? Because the kjv is not infalliblty translated But of course you have no idea you only have brainwashed human works based traditions instead of rebirth by the spirit and actual faith.
Don’t forget about ESV only and NIV only ness which are quickly joining KJV only ness. Never mind each has newer versions based on the newer manuscripts and older versions. People will always find something on both sides to feel superior than others and to put down others.
@@scuzlol Because the NIV and ESV take stuff out, like part of 1 John 5:7. There are other verses too, and they replace "Lucifer" with "Morning Star" or "Day Star" in Isaiah 14:12
Is the earth flat or a sphere? I believe it’s a sphere but a KJVO pastor said it’s flat. Also I believe there are 3 that bear witness in heaven. Father Word and Holy Spirit even though that may not be what 1John 5:7 actually says. I love the King James Version too but I will use it and others. Is the NIV a bad version? The LSB? I like the NASB, John MSB too. I just want God’s word to be God’s word.
If the KJB had errors, mistakes, whatever you want to believe about the KJB. They would have made the corrections and then released it as the updated version. And the certainly wouldn't keep printing and selling the Bible with the mistakes in it.
What would you believe out of a Egyptian text type? You could consider how many Translaters worked, and cross referenced their work. Why do people critize KJVO? There is a valid argument against using multitude translations in order to fit Gods Word to your liking. The Geneva Bible was influenced by Augustine, Wycliff followed the teaching of Augustine of Hippo. If you Just want a Catholic version buy it.
Whether or not kJV only is right or not, the biggest problem with all these translations is that, they’re not the same and that creates doubt and a stumbling block for a lot of Christians. The word says that Gods word will be preserved, and if I believe in an all powerful, all knowing God, And then the Word isn’t preserved, well that’s a problem. It creates confusion, which is attributed to who?
I mean if you do a side by side comparison, you’ll see very quickly that within all of the modern versions, that are reputable for being translated well, you’ll see that they all basically say the same thing just with different wording or descriptors depending on the style of translation (word for word or phrase by phrase)
You nailed it. Satan has one goal concerning the Bible and that is to undermine people's faith that any Bible is perfect enough to judge HIS children by. 1 John 3:9-10 KJV
So called "bible" publishers add some words, take away some words, copyright it and make them some money. Anyone can write what they want, call it a bible and make them some money. I am staying with my King James bible. The same peopke that preach from the perverted versions tell people to turn from their sins to be saved. Have people repeating a sinners prayer. Tell them to commit their lifento Christ. Make Jesus Lord of their life, etc. ie works for salvation.
Uh, no, Jesus didn't approve the KJV. It wasn't around on Earth when He was. Jesus spoke Aramaic. Yeshua Hamashiach is the Word. John 1:1 I like the KJV because it speaks to my heart withy authority and I need that. I have a 1611-1885 parallel. It was created in the late 1800's. It was Gutenberg pressed and it's beautiful, but not as beautiful as the words inside! Sola Scriptura!
I see a lot of people who hate the final authority of God’s Word in this comment section. How can you claim the promises of God’s Word when you cannot even determine what His Word even is? I think most of you are just intimidated by the faith of King James Only believers so instead of seeing the obvious truth and submitting to God’s final authority, you do your own thing and live to try and shake our faith. It’s pretty pathetic to be honest.
I have been a deeply committed evangelical believer since 1985, when I'd gotten saved out of Catholicism. I was raised/discipled on the NIV and then later with the ESV. All those many years, I was a deeply committed follower of Jesus Christ and a believer in the inerrancy/infallibility of His Word. Nevertheless, in 2019 I switched to KJV/TR-only. So, would I call non-KJV-ers "heretics?" Well,... assuming that you follow a similar faith to my "pre-KJV-only" faith, then I would say emphatically, No! Nevertheless, I believe that followers of James White are deeply misinformed regarding the Canon of Scripture and that their stance on bibliology leads to a huge amount of doubt and confusion among both believers and near-believers/seekers. They tragically “cause these little ones to stumble.” (Mt 18:6) So,… why not go back to the real McCoy - to the Traditional Text and to its English translation, the KJV? Why taint your cup of water with just a "little" poison when you can so easily drink from a pure cup. James White will NEVER change his stance - like I had changed only two years ago after so many years - because he has such a vested interest career-wise in maintaining it. For example, imagine that someone conclusively proved Codex Sinaiticus to be a fraud. (as does David Daniels here... th-cam.com/video/HqNCarZwZ-s/w-d-xo.html …and here… th-cam.com/play/PLhmAbEGx-AnT8VmEOfkIc4U8Zx7cozYEv.html) Would not James White fight to the death (intellectually) in his attempts to label such an argument as a laughable conspiracy theory? If you're honest, you'd say yes,...no matter how plausible the argumentation. And why would White argue so emphatically? I'll give you a hint, it has NOTHING to do with empirical evidence and everything to do with maintaining the very foundation of his entire career. His vested interest has become SO STRONG that any newly introduced evidence doesn't stand a change against the freight-train of White's multi-decade career/reputation momentum. James White will NEVER change his stance (like I had changed just a few years ago) because he has monumentally strong vested interest in maintaining it. So, barring a miracle, he will go to his grave propagating his [flawed] arguments. I might recommend a visit to the "King James Bible Research Council" TH-cam channel to wend your way out of the confusion sown by James White....
@@josephmyers9843 I very much wish you well, so if you are depending upon your own works to save you -- as the RCC clearly teaches via its sacramental system -- then you will be sorely disappointed at the Great White Throne Judgment. I make this statement pleadingly toward, not mockingly at all. You need to trust in Christ's finished work upon the Cross, His substitutionary atonement, for your sins -- plus nothing -- in order to be saved. Isaiah reminds us that our own righteous works are as filthy rags in His sight.... "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." (Isaiah 64:6) Here are some other verses for you to gravely consider. Your very eternal destiny hangs in the balance.... "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12) "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." (1 Timothy 2:5-6) "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9
@@Matt-vk9sb Thanks for getting back to me. Out of the Word of God's mouth goes a sharp two edged sword: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. You need both! Maybe you left the Catholic Church because you did not possess the Catholic Faith?
@@Matt-vk9sb Also, Protestants believe works based salvation too! Faith is defined as work. Protestants just nitpick over interpretations and words, be it Greek or Hebrew!
"Couldn't he just have reinspired the Bible in 1611? Well, that means he didn't care about the people before 1611 as he did afterwards..." Mr. James White 1. I don't think it does. Our God works in long, gradual stages that provide thorough spiritual preparation of the people and culture before his perfectly timed dispensations. The accusation against God that follows from that logic, if true, would apply to the giving of the Law to Moses, the Incarnation, the Reformation, etc. 2. Did Erasmus mention anything about being inspired by God when he was doing any translation? Or was such a thought out of the question to him? “My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jerome’s text, with notes, that I seem to myself inspired by some god.” Erasmus 3. It seems to me the question is not what Erasmus and the KJV translators would have said about their work in 1611, had you been there, but what they would say about their work TODAY, looking at the glut of translations inspired by the love of filthy lucre, their effect on the God-seeking populace of the world, the current general lack of faith in the inerrancy of the Bible, of the many warring denominations, of the average piety and worldliness of Christians, of the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, the potential and technology available for manuscript forgeries and fakes, and a host of other important considerations, in other words, looking at the current big picture, would they agree with you? I doubt it. You don't even agree with what you were saying in 1995 on the John Ankerberg show about the world needing more translations of the Bible, and that's a mere 27 years. I'm sure even in the short time you've lived and published, you have a different assessment of your own works than you used to have. 4. What would Erasmus, Luther etc. think about the modern translators themselves and their connections to big, for profit publishing houses and universities? Erasmus said that only as an independent scholar could he hope to reform religion. Facing the common notion (still current) that anyone who knows two languages can translate, Luther listed some qualifications for a translator - specifically, a Bible translator: “It requires a devout, righteous, true, diligent, God-fearing, Christian, learned, educated, experienced heart. This is why I consider it impossible for someone who is not a true Christian or for a factionalist to be a faithful translator.”
What a crazy manifetso who is going to spend their entire week reading some no name self proclaimed youtube experts mile long rant You millennials are totally warped insane on your own narcissism
What you are saying is - for instance, that the Apostle Matthew wasn't as accurate at recording the events of Jesus' life which he had witnessed, as translators working 1600 years later. The eye witnesses are not as accurate as the interpreters?????? This argument has zero credibility.
It is amazing how "critical theory" is taught as if it is science, I don't care how many TLAs you put in front of your name, "critical theory" is not science. You don't need to have a PhD to compare the AV with the Revision to realize the AV is the most Biblically accurate English Bible we have, this is not in dispute; given, the reason for the Revision was to put back the errors introduced by Lucian, the starting premise is absurd; thus, the foundation of the theory for Revision is not based in reality.
James White you need to repent from deceiving the people even if it costs you your career, reputation and the money you make off of this. We know the facts and truth so stop lying. God preserved his word through the true church throughout history and didn’t just find it all of a sudden in the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which were never in use.
@@terriblehaute5100 all true believers in the finished work of Jesus Christ are in his body and are his church. The denomination has nothing to do with being the church.
@@mrpeanut517, yes, we do, but that very scripture you use to make that claim against White was originally written in Greek and or Aramaic, not English. White, like all reasonable believers who steep themselves in the Word, knows that to claim a single English translation as the lone true Word is ludicrous on its face. The translation of God's Word from the original language, to other languages, not just English, is a process that requires a knowledge of the history and variance of known extant copies in a number of different languages. To claim that that the KJV is the only legitimate true Word of God is as ignorant and foolish a claim as 2+2=5, both of which originate from the same self-deifying relativistism.
@@mrpeanut517 , of course I'm not saying that, but to suggest that one translation holds all cards is arrogance of the highest and most ignorant order.
The KJV is THE HOLY BIBLE for the English speaking world. All the other inferior translations accomplish is to sow confusion, and GOD is not the author of confusion.
Im not KJV only but i do put a limit on the various translations that I read and reference as some translations appear to be watered down. For example check out NIV which misses out or completely reverses texts NIV vs NKJV or ESV Colossians 2:18 Genesis 27:39 Revelation 1:11 missing from NIV Acts 8:37 missing from NIV Mathew 18:11 missing from NIV Soo much more. You can quickly see how this can become a problem and lead to watered down verses. We should remember the crux of the bible is the Gospel. What Jesus did for us on the cross. I noticed brother white didnt provide his preference of translation on this subject matter.
@@samlawrence2695 KJV: Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. NIV: Isa 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! Rev 22:16 I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star. NIV made satan into Jesus based off this translation. That their is confusions but their are many more that are just as bad change one word and make God into a liar.
@@terrillclark6486 The NIV verse is closer to the original text. "Lucifer" comes from the latin vulgate. The proper noun is not in the hebrew but instead it translates literally to daystar or morning star. In fact the word lucifer means light bringer or torch bearer, so by your argument the verse would be blasphemous anyway since Jesus is the light bringer. Nebuchadnezzar was also called king of kings. The reason he is using this epithet is explained in that passage, which is that lucifer tried to make himself like the most high, so of course he would use the same epithets God uses.
Here's the thing though: No matter how much you understand the translations, or study this information, a KJV only person will remain a KJV only person, and they will call you a heretic! It's sad, really.
I’m a KJV only user lol I don’t like the other translations, nothing against them or those who use them just like the kjv
Now I am not gonna lie in the least, I can’t stand not having everyone using the same bible like the preacher using a ESV and everyone else in a kjv just a pet peeve of mine. And I would like to pose this question and I hope it’s not a contradiction in my previous statement but I do use the KJV because I think it’s the best. Now when I say best I just mean it’s been used so long it’s proved to be a reliable translation. But in all reality do we not use the versions that we use because we believe them to be the best I’d we really think about it? Also are you from the blue ridge parkway brother?
And many that look down on the king James will always feel they have the better version and king James only readers are silly even though they are NIV only and ESV only etc.
It works both ways.
@Mark OnTheBlueRidge yes it does, you must remember there are many versions of the KJV, including ones that use the newer manuscripts, I have seen those that read only the esv mainly calvinist, and niv, who totally try to destroy the king james every chance they get in one way or another, coming just short from discrediting it, and forgetting, there have been old and modern versions of it too.
But the good thing is, people are reading the bible, even if it is not my favorite version, and for the most part the older and newer versions line up, especially on salvation and Jesus, and that is truly miraculous!
@Mark OnTheBlueRidge good points but not entirely accurate, some KJV, are not that extreme, and are ok with other versions just not for them, this is the same as ESV only NIV only.
Many of those readers would not be caught dead with the KJV, because of old english, or they presume the newer manuscripts are not as accurate if you will, or that the non KJV,s are actually better.
Then with say the ESV it more or less has language that favors calvinists, so they are more apt to like that one and so forth, and KJV will counter with this verse was taken out or not included and so forth, so there is a lot of variability.
I truly like that we have hundreds of translations available to us, I do agree we should not put down other translations point blank without a solid reason, we can of course critique them if we see something that is out of order,
Jesus had the apostles each give their interpretation of the truth, many have been saved and given their life to bring those bible to us.
KJV was not the first, but played an extremely pivotable role in Christianity, and as such there will always be those that have it as a favorite and only use it as it has probably been scrutinized more than any other book in history.
NIV and other less than 100 year versions have the benefit of today’s language and more manuscripts being recovered, they may have some passages taken out.
I think it’s best, if you can to own a few different translation.
Than it is easier to witness to more people, and understand where they are coming from.
“One sweater to rule them all...” 😎👍
Reminded me of all those Bill Cosby sweaters
I only use the ESV
Embroidered Sweater Vest
@@Jemoh66 He’s doing his best to rehabilitate the loud sweater.
If the KJV of the Bible never states within itself that we are to only read the KJV, then no one can assert that as a fact. To say that the KJV is infallible then it would state so within the writings of the prophets. Also, to say the KJV is infallible is adding to the scripture something which is not there.
Perfect point about how the book of Hebrews reference to Jeremiah 31 doesnt match the Old Testament in their own hands…. My favorite example is Jesus himself quoting the LXX Isaiah 61:1 verse in Luke 4:18, “restoring sight to the blind” is NOT in the Masoretic text, only in the Septuagint.
The LXX is a fabricated work, only after Christ's death...now how can Christ quote the LXX of the only physical copy we have, was made after his death...
Septuagint dating and original release is a major debate…evidence is poor for a pre AD work…
Don't use logic on them, its unfair.
Wow. This is the most angry I’ve ever seen people at you. As a non-KJV onlyist, I say, well done.
We have freedom in USA read other Bible versions!
Hey, jimmy white was it you that gets my texts removed?
Yes, I love KJV, It's very good and reliable translation. I'm also like NKJV, WEB, NET too.
Any love for the nasb?
James you ever consider doing an audiobook of the kj controversy?
Yes please
As a former KJVO myself and knowing very much the thinking behind why KJVO mindset, education is really the only cure to this movement. I have had many conversations with KJVO’s and when you challenge them enough in their position they retreat to the personal revelation from God trope. Unbeknownst to them, they open up the door for all who claim to have personal revelations to be true (Mormons, JW’s, SDA’s etc…)
Hey I've been working through some arguments on this subject myself. Can you enlighten me on the KJVO position on English translations that came out prior to the KJV?
@@4jgarner jf 331 kinda left you hanging huh? Take Gen 1:1 in the KJV and then compare to some other translation and get back with me.
@@jimevans1112 ok, thank you! I did. So what's up?
@@4jgarner the difference between heaven and heavens is big thing right?
@@4jgarner now look up Psalms ch 12:6-7
I think the big problem with King James Onlyism is that it breaks down when we start talking about languages that are not English. What Bible should I get if I speak another language or I want to learn another language? King James Onlyism won't be able to tell you.
In Dutch we have the Statenvertaling, in German you have the Luther bible, and I'm pretty sure at least every country that had a reformation got a perfect translation just like the KJV. Countries with not much Christians (congo or whatever) do not have perfect translations in their language, although their second language often does.
I have heard some KJVO proponents argue that everyone should just learn English and read the KJV.
@@oracleoftroy No each language has a Bible that was translated as Arthur said above KJV should be the standard for English speaking people read the other verison some of them compare Jesus with saint. KJV: Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. NIV: Isa 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! Rev 22:16 I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.” It only takes one change to a word to make God into statan or into a lair or ruin doctrine be carful of modern bibles with what they think they know
@@terrillclark6486 Regardless, my statement about what some KJO advocate for isn't changed by the existence of the slightly more reasonable 'majority text only' or 'textus receptus only' or (whatever other tradition they prefer) position.
But I'm not sure why translating morning star/planet Venus from Hebrew to English is satanic, but translating it into Latin is fine. Sounds like a midevil Catholic argument back when they didn't want people able to read their bibles in their own language.
Does it equally worry you that the KJV says Satan appears as an angel of light and yet Jesus is the light? The same thing is going on here. The king of Babylon (which for some reason a tradition arose to teach that he is Satan) falsely claims glory that only Jesus has. Sadly, people who don't understand Latin thought lucifer was a name and not a wandering star and misunderstood what the Bible was saying, all due to faulty translations that used Latin like your example from the KJV.
If the only way you know to harmonize those passages is to translate 'morning star' into Latin, you are going to have a hard time understanding all the other places in the KJV where some element is attributed to both godly and sinful things.
@@oracleoftroy Beause if you read the the passage it refers Satan to as the Morning Star so reading it refers to the Devil as Jesus. Which is a straight hersey and KJV: 2 Cor 11:13-14 13For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Its striaght up telling you to be on watch satan taking up the form in order to decive which is his mo.He was the first created being of God's angelic host why would i be worried about him turning into an angel of light. those who are apart of the angelic host can turn into anything they want its pretty obvious from reading the bible. But not only that he fooled eve by changing Gods words but eve also changed gods words as well why would he not being doing the same today? He did it with Jesus in the wilderness also, people need to stop listening to scholars and read and study for them selfs the NIV removed 16 verse from the bible who gave them that authroity all because they didnt feel like it was supposed to be their after 400 years or more. This is Satan making several translation in order to cause divsion in the body which he as succeed in doing. This is a spirtual warfare if he cant see the battlefield as it is laid out well i am sorry. God's Word is above is own name KJV: Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. So if he takes is word that seriously so should we.
When I entered an IFB Christian school in 1979 the first thing I thought was why are we forced to use an obviously outdated version of the Bible? KJV Only was always weird to me. I haven't cracked open a KJV Bible since the 1990s. It's outdated! Move one to a much better word for word version. I love the LSB!
Define outdated, is the text outdated or your understanding of words is outdated.
You talk about not cracking a KJV since the 90s.
Well my son was not even born until the 90s. He has never read other Bibles, but for his first time reading through the Bible, we are reading the King James and he is having zero problems understanding it. None.
Maybe your "fundamental" problem is you do not actually want to learn English properly?
Wow! This guy has become my friend this very day! Why have I now heard of him??
It’s too bad this has so few views. This is great apologetics though. Thank you James
I feel like this topic gets complicated pretty quickly. So I've got a simpler question, what about none English speakers? There are definitely bad bible versions but if you are really worried about all but one then learn Greek and Hebrew.
This isn't the point of this video but I love this man sweaters
Why does he need sweaters in Phoenix?
@@Kaddywompous it gets cold in the studio. And it does get chilly in Phoenix. Also, he isn’t always in Phoenix.
A christian who still remains a KJV only after he or she has read or heard all the arguments from both sides are either afraid to think for himself or has decided to let others to think for him or her will remain a KJVonly until the rapture.I'd like to think this controversy will be finally settled in the Judgment of Christ.
Sad that it would take a dude sailing in from the clouds to settle something so basic.
What I don't understand is why there are KJV-Only leaders willing to lie and twist the truth to suit their position. Didn't God say not to give false testimony against our neighbor?
‘The rapture’ is a modern error.
It's all really silly. Differences in translation drive only a small part of the divergences between different interpretations of the Bible. Most of the English-speaking denominations split off from each other when they were all still mostly using KJV's.
@@KaddywompousJesus Christ isn't just some dude. Disrespectful to the One who saved you
Inspiration & Preservation.
I actually think that the 1560 and 1599 versions of the GENEVA BIBLE is superior to the KJV. I use it more than the KJV. But I also have to admit that my 1985 printing of the NKJV Nelson, double column, center reference, wide margins is my personal favorite carry bible. 30+ years of notes and edits is just hard to let go of.
I like alot of things about KJV, but I don't think it's the "only true" translation. The KJV only people worship it like a cult object, it's anti factual and absurd at times.
@@khaccanhle1930 yes because they worship the created thing not the creator
Youngs L.T. has less errors than the KJV.. David Middleton has many teachings on this.
JESUS is not in any book/Bible. Its a book (books) about JESUS.
Worship JESUS ,not a certain translations.
I hear this both ways, so let God lead you.
And I agree worship Jesus not a translation.
Many of the early church, did not have access to much of the New Testament, some perhaps even the old.
They used faith in the Holy Spirit, with the few writings they had.
And that was enough.
We have hundreds of translation, by men from every bias and walk of life, some based on older and newer languages and manuscripts.
Some believer the newer manuscripts are more accurate, some believe the older ones are.
Let the Holy Spirit lead you, and you will be fine.
Just had KJV ONLY CHURCH come to my town. Named “Autonomous Baptist Church”. For real
KJV only can go to hell!
Hugely helpful insight, thank you for sharing your expertise!
Is there any type of course where one could learn about the translation of the Bible over the centuries or how to defend its divine origin?
Seriously, brilliant. This was incredibly helpful to consider
9:30 Amen & Touché! They also need to use the "Urtext" 1611 in gothic Blackletter type, if they want to have the absolute original, final and "perfect" document, rather than consulting the "corrupted" 😉 Blayney revision.😊 Free facsimilies from 1611 are readily available on the internet. Thanks for this very informative video response!🙏
His last statement was good. Council of Nicaea didn’t have the KJV or its readings.
Not only that, the KJVO loves to make the argument that the KJV can be traced back to the church in Antioch and bashes anything coming out of Alexandria Egypt. Those who make this statement only prove they do not know church history whatsoever. Because at the time of Council of Nicaea and slightly before, it was Arius who set up his home base in Antioch and taught Arianism (denying the eternality of Christ) and it was Athanasius of Alexandria who defended Christ’s deity. KJVO’s love to say the modern Alexandria versions deny the deity of Christ but it was someone from Alexandria who was contending for the deity of Christ while Arius in Antioch was denying it.
Of course, KJVO’s don’t know this history, or if they do they ignore those details.
The transmission of Scripture is like the blockchain network that’s used for cryptocurrency, but it’s much more advanced in the way God did it and it works offline and does not require full nodes (full copies of the entire ledger) for security thus making it very lean and efficient.
Interesting analogy.
according to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and according to the beliefs of the vast majority of Christians throughout church history, only the original manuscripts (mss), aka as the "autographa" are considered inerrant and infallible. However, as James points out, the textual variants are very minor. And for all intents and purposes, we do indeed still have the Word of God. But no translation can be perfect in the absolute sense. And this is what KJVOnlyists believe. And, as James also points out, the King James Version cannot withstand the same accusations aimed at other translations when turned on itself. There are certain Hebrew words of plants and animals they weren't sure of in 1611. But now, more information is available to better translate those words.
I have a honest question. Did Jesus have faith ?
You can not translate one language to anther accurately, because every language is different.
I really appreciate (and agree with) your cogent arguments. And in this video, your sweater is the best I've ever seen. Lord bless you.
I have been in the kjv only rabbit hole researching the last few days. The conclusion I came to is this- kjv onlyists equate the version with the autographs. Such is very far from the truth. I read the nkjv and prefer the textus receptus. However, I have the majority text as well in the interlinear New Testament. Not only is kjv only incorrect, it is not a perfect translation. I use the kjv as well( occasionally) but would never say it is the only correct one to use.
I’ve been wanting to ask you this question; that sword that is behind you, did that come from an episode from Babylon 5?
I think that’s the Scottish one he has. He’s had it out before.
Dr. White can you recommend any good commentaries please.
Haydock DRA
Where did you get the p45 replica?
Hi James
what do you say to the argument that older manuscripts that differ from the received, are found in a location far away from where they were the originals would have been written thus if we were to find a older manuscript in isreal it would possibly be more likely to be closer to the received.
I think it might makes certain degree of sense (for books of the Bible which were written in Israel), although I think that comparing versions from different areas is probably better, presuming you can work out which area they were from originally.
But this is not a good argument for the textus receptus, because the manuscripts used for the TR were primarily found in Switzerland and France from what I can work out; and where they came from before that is mostly unknown.
When it comes to the old testament, the Bomberg Bible was printed in Venice, while the Leningrad codex was copied from Israeli manuscripts and the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in Israel.
@@IamGrimalkin thanks for the answer. I guess a possible modification of the argument is to look at possible broken circulation of copies. For example the central land mas of Egypt is fairly isolated from isreal. This is also true of Europe but I would expect that some of the writings were sent to churches there and then copied on mass. But at most I see this argument not enough to be kjv only
I would need an example of this occurring in other historical texts to be sufficient to see its historical validity.
I'm going to learn ancient an modern Hebrew,Greek an Aramaic.
Very good, very helpful
A little off topic....... is that a warp core flashing /operating in the background? 😁
Yes, but which one is it? Is it a model of the warp core from Enterprise A, or Enterprise D?
I would say Enterprise D
Also, just noticed model of Enterprise E....
@@kdsaveks It's sort of a trick question; the warp core from Star Trek VI was used in TNG.
Wow... A grand poobah down at the moose lodge and a top notch bible scholar.😁
This is a very poignant and accurate argument against KJV Onlyism. Excellent content
Satan's arguments against ANY accurate Bible, are very convincing!
Great video KJV only is ridiculous . The ESV is a better translation
I'm KJV only insomuch that it's the only English Bible I read and trust. Concerning ESV: I disagree with Wayne Grudem and JI Packer on soteriology, so I prefer not to have my mind framed by their prejudice. I also get flack from KJV-inspired types, so I'm targeted from both sides.
#2 is literally my problem against any claim that the KJV or it's textual basis is the preserved text and nothing else. I'm leaning TR but not absolutist.
There is no error regarding pi in the Bible. Atheists make this claim by not taking into account ALL of the measurements given, including the hand breadth.
Maybe the bowl was oval?
@@cariboubearmalachy1174 No, this is very simple. The bowl is 10 cubits rim to rim. That is the diameter from brim to brim of the bowl. What is the rim? It's the tippy top edge. The bowl was 30 cubits in circumference. You would typically measure the inside of the bowl, because you want to know it's volume. But the bowl is also said to have a brim like a cup. So it is rounded. That puts the measured diameter outside the circumference of the interior where the circumference is measured from. The brim will be located half the distance from the inside of the cup to the outside of the bowl. Well, how far is that? How thick is the wall of the bowl. Well, it tells you. A hand breadth thick. That's a good 5 or 6 inches. So the circumference is being measured maybe 3 inches from the interior. Now, to top it off, the Bible says that the brim of this bowl was like a lily. That means it spread out. Like any average tea cup. Go measure the diameter of a tea cup, then measure the circumference of the brim. The brim has a wider diameter than the interior space of the cup. This argument that the Bible has an error with pi is ridiculous and unthought out.
Edited, because in my haste I typed circumference instead of diameter and vice versa a couple of times. hehe Hopefully I got it right now. The point is, the diameter of the interior of the bowl is not the same as the diameter of the spread out brim on a thick walled bowl.
@@ronaldsmall8847 That fits. But there are other theories that can fit the data as well. Maybe the writers were just being imprecise, for example.
@@cariboubearmalachy1174 No. God was not being imprecise.
What is your favored Dr. White. Just wondering.
He's big on the LSB. Legacy Standard Bible. So am I. Dr. White was part of the translation process also. It's a highly accurate version.
I disagree with the argument that earlier manuscripts in any case tend to have less scribal errors that later ones. That statement is generally true but we need to consider the conditions under which Biblical manuscripts were being copied in the first 3-4 centuries of Christianity. Christian persecution and the iligal status of the Bible would've made copying a nightmare and a process prone to error. So I think mistakes would have been far greater than later centuries.
But weren’t they copying copies of those early “prone to error” manuscripts?
Salvation is based on faith. If you don’t believe you have God’s Word in your hand, then you have no faith to stand on. Your salvation depends on whether or not you have God’s Word in your hand, you read it, hear it, and believe it. I personally don’t care and adamantly reject textual criticism because it is all based on assumptions and unbelief. It’s not scientific and James White is not Jesus. God bless you all. Stand up stand up for Jesus ye soldiers of the Lord!
So Muslims are saved due to them thinking that the Quran is Gods word?
Ironically, the man who compiled the source text that would be used in the King James version, Erasmus, was a major figure in the counter-reformation. He believed salvation by faith is heresy. How do you deal with this cognitive dissonance?
What denomination(s) teach King James is the only infallible inerrant word of God?
Usually Independent Fundamental Baptist churches
Fundamental Baptists definitely do. Although I dont want to generalize but every Independent or Fundamental Baptist preacher I've ever heard is a firm KJV onlyist
@@multiversetheory3740 Yes, but there are varying degrees. I am a member of an Independent Baptist Church, some of them go as far as to say KJV is more inspired than the Greek and Hebrew text and others prefer KJV and will not teach from any other text, but do not discourage you from owning or referring to your ESV's etal.
I usually don't get into these debates. But the NIV Deuteronomy 22:28-29 states that a woman must marry her rapist. Where the KJV refers to two consenting individuals.
Just one example I came across recently.
Sinaiticus--I can never spell it correctly-- was located in a monastery under the control of the Fatimid caliphate, so does that mean it has a broken chain of custody? I am assuming the Codex was in the monastery during that time.
Who Cares?
@@rtdodge3839 Anybody who cares about chain of custody and use of the text as per the biblical definition of what is scripture and should be used by believers.
It was not being used in the Divine Liturgy.
Idk what you're wearing but it's so cool and I want one myself! (the jacket thing)
Now they call it KJB, not a version.
@Mark OnTheBlueRidge So how many souls will go into eternity without Christ while the intellectuals argue whether the King James is Gods Word or not?
@@rtdodge3839 The NKJV, NIV, CSB, ESV, HCSB, NASB, ASV. Of these seven translations, which one does NOT teach Christ is Lord and the Word made flesh, Christ crucified as the one sacrifice for the sin of the world, and resurrected and exalted to the right hand of the Father? That’s the Gospel in a nutshell. Which version has translated its way out of that?
@@samlawrence2695 Precisely. This KJV-Only conspiracy is 💯 hype with zero substance. Apply the same standard of hermeneutics to the FULL passage, not a handful of singular verses here and there. You do that and it’s just a fact that you do NOT walk away with all this satanic depravity these other translations keep getting accused of.
@@j.sethfrazer but you didn't answer their question. You just dodged the question with another question
@@Froto1976, because I think that’s a very distracting question to ask. Questions like that sidestep the fundamental problem with this controversy among fellow Christians. See, it’s the KJVO crowd who insists the entirety of the Gospel hangs on a singular translation against all others, usually out of purely anti-intellectualist stubbornness. It’s the KJVO crowd who will utterly dismiss a Christian’s salvation over this issue. It’s the KJVO crowd that constantly bears a false witness against their neighbor. The question undermines the severity of this issue.
Jesus Christ died on the cross, no one killed him then put him on the cross.
I am not that well educated and have a learning disability I have had the KJV Cambridge and Oxford translation and yes they are definitely different.
Would the refomed still awknowlege codex Vaticanus/ Latin vulgate/ Douey Rheims version of the Bible as still the valid word of God?
Douay rheims is the bible of the jesuits and is an anti protestant bible. Genesis 3:15 was altered in the douay rheims bible.
yes
@@BeastofBrooklyn fair enough, but I just wanted to know if it's still accepted as a valid bible.
Joel Scott, those copies are part of 2,000 years worth of transmission of the scriptures. They have their place in the history of transmission amongst extant copies in the multiples of thousands. Textual preservation of the Word was and is, first of all, miraculous, as James states, but it also requires a humble and thorough consideration of the extant copies that have survived to our present day. Those copies would be part of that heritage, you simply don't view them or study them in a vacuum, but in relation to other copies of the same period, before and after.
@@craigamore2319
That's very true, correct me if I'm wrong but I think the KJV was influenced by the Rheims 1582 New testament?
I love re-visiting the John A. debate and to see James White then and comparison today...back then ALL looked mid-age old and now they all look YOUNG. LOL ...back then J W looked the baby and totally conservative...now as grandpa white, he is tattooed, beardy and more relaxed in clothing. LOL ..theology still good.
if that sweater were longer I'd think you a Christian Wizard. lol man you rock those sweaters, I'm kind of Jealous
The problem is new Bible versions have copy right issues. This means ten percent of a new Bible version must be changed in order to get a copyright! Publishers do this so others can't sell their versions. Get some books on the changes made and it will open your eyes big time. Also, James White considers minority text superior to majority text. Egghead logic VS intelligence.
The King James Version is copyrighted in the UK, and the UK is the original country of publication for it.
@@curtthegamer934 That's common knowledge and the Kind/Queen allows printing and quoting of this translation as long as it's not used in a disgusting/derogatory way. It can even be used for scholarly critique.
@@truthcrusader4521 I read a blog post once where somebody was wanting to publish a study Bible in the UK, and wanted to use the KJV for the text, but the royalty fee was way too high so that he couldn't afford it, so, after trying for weeks to negotiate with them, he gave up and just used the NASB in his study Bible instead because the royalty fee was a lot cheaper and affordable. Make of that information what you will.
@@curtthegamer934 Never heard about that one. If you like other modern Bible versions so be it. What bothers me is when a company has to change 10% of it to get a copy right and that goes for every new updated version. If you prefer a Bible version such as the NIV you are better off finding the oldest version of it available like I have. Parallel Bibles are great to.
Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandria, and Codex Sinaiaticus are all suspiciously favorable to Roman Catholic doctrine. If that doesn't give you reason for pause what would?
Truly the best version except for the NIV is the one you read and understand!
Which is why I read my brilliant NIV.
Any argument a KJO would use to support their claim could also be used by a Mormon to support the book of mormon, because it's a personal opinion presented as divine decree. Anyone with any modicum of education can see the fault in their logic.
I'm an atheist but iv'e been watching James White content for the past few days straight pretty much because it's so interesting especially about the history of the bible versions etc and something so few Christians tend to know at least in UK
Well, if you're an atheist, James White is one you want to listen to, if you want to become a FALSE Christian.
Not kjv only but I do have a sincere question. It would seem that the Bible is indeed something different than a regular manuscript and that the standards of determining the best readings should be different therefore. Here's why I think this, an early text that is not represented down through time was a text not used by the church down through time. But scripture is for our edification. But if it was locked away in a monastery or some other place until the 19th century it was not available to the church in any meaningful fashion. So can it really be called scripture? It would seem you would want a text that all the church is using. This of course would be the byzantine which I realize is not the TR and I also realize that no two texts are the same and that this is an oversimplified depiction. But on theological grounds it seems faulty to accept the alexandrian stuff, simply because it was not used for centuries. For this reason I lean towards a byzantine text position....which again I know isn't the TR. Perhaps someone could give me a better way of looking at this?
But in reality you are KJV only but pretending to be something else.
@@flintymcduff5417 nope. I assure you I'm not. Long ending of 1 John 5:7. Shouldn't be in there. 2 instances of Granville Sharps, should be in there. Deuteronomy 32.8 should reflect the LXX reading. Lucifer is Is. 14 would read better as Morning Star. Bezas textual guess work in Revelation should be struck through. The Latin back translation Erasmus did in Revelation should be corrected. That is if you want a proper revision of the KJV. The KJV has changed from its original form. The KJV of today is textually different and has two textual families so to speak (Oxford and cambridge). This disqualifies it as preserved, inerrant, infallible.
I reject the kjv as the perfect word of God for the same reason I reject some of the Alexandrian variants. A reading has to be around for the church to use to be scripture. If it isn't it isn't scripture. Scripture serves the function of instruction. It can't instruct if it isn't available for hundreds of years. I get people see it different. That's fine.
But because I like the kjv and because I like a byzantine text type doesn't make me kjv only. I just finished an adult vbs 5 day class. I had 5 different translations in those slides, with annotations/ references to the original languages, textual variants, and translation choices.
Edit: Monogenes needs to be unique. Or One of a kind. Not only begotten. Old etymological understanding is why was rendered only begotten. Mcarthur still goes for it in his Legacy translation but his is a minority view (NASB might too?)
Every major translation does a poor job with monogenes except the NLT (which is a cool almost paraphrase that I enjoy reading from time to time)
I'm literally the furthest thing from a kjv only person. It's my Bible. Doesn't mean it's THE Bible. We are so polarized these days. Mostly it's the KJVO folks fault but they are rubbing off on the rest of us.
Anyway, I hope that clarifies. Have a nice day.
Perhaps the large number of textual variants between Sinaticus and Vaticanus should show that earlier is not necessarily better. Problem with new translations is using only critical text vs. majority text.
KJV didn't use either so your point is moot in this context
Text us Receptus is basically a subset of Majority (Byzantine) text based on a handful of manuscripts.
I prefer the KJV for three decent reasons:
1. It's very close to the Greek and Hebrew originals.
2. It's simply great literature.
3. The Vatican scriptures are deceptive.
Same here KJV ftw 🙌
Do you consider the Dominican Greek mss used by Erasmus as Vatican scriptures? Do you accept the KJV's use of the Vulgate and the 1582 Catholic NT as Vatican scriptures? Do you reject every KJV reading that relied on Vatican scriptures?
The fact that every mainstream/worldly "Christian" corporation without exception uses the NIV in their consumer products is enough to keep me away from it.
other translations are fine, though I do prefer the KJV's style. The others are so ahistoric. Reading famous verses in other versions is like having to say "enslaved person" instead of "slave" or "indigenous person" instead of "Indian." Its unnatural.
Off-topic from the video's argument, but OK.
@@cademiclips I use the 2020 NIV as my personal Bible but will use NASB, NKJV and KJV study Bibles. Tbh after reading though multiple times I use the NIV to hand out to new believers since it’s relatively easy to comprehend in modern English.
I 1000% recommend people stay away from the message “translation,” or the passion “translation,” since they’re straight up heretical in places. Also the GNT is sketchy and I don’t particularly trust the New Testament in the GNT.
@@cademiclips they aren't word for word translations or formal equivalence, they are dynamic equivalence. I don't fully agree with KJVO but I only stray as far as NKJV for that reason I mentioned.
Finished re-visiting past KJO debate with Gipp, etc John A Show.....
Quest: now 2023 ...how have these (all) modern translations impacted as to date the "falling away" now as we see the imminent return of our Lord in the USa??
AND which translations were used outside the USA that we now see murdered/tortured Asian and Middle Eastern and Aftrican nationals who are being martyred for the Faith as "born again" Christians?? What translations were they preached from that led to their salvation?..and that they died for their belief in/of that translation??
What are the stats????.
The King James Bible is God's Perfect, Preserved and Inspired Word.
On what evidence do you make that claim?
Im not KJV only but i do put a limit on the various translations that I read and reference, as some translations appear to be watered down. For example check out NIV which misses out or completely reverses texts
Cross reference NIV NKJV or ESV
Colossians 2:18
Genesis 27:39
Revelation 1:11 missing from NIV
Acts 8:37 missing from NIV
Mathew 18:11 missing from NIV
Soo much more. You can quickly see how this can become a problem and lead to watered down verses.
We should remember the crux of the bible is the Gospel. What Jesus did for us on the cross. I noticed brother white didnt provide his preference of translation on this subject matter or did i miss it?
An update to this is that while some passages are missing from NIV that are in KJV, Niv will go onto include that passage in one of the Gospels.
Also when you cross reference the text in KJV and NIV they both reach the same point but come from a different angle in the text.
I say that to say this. Its ok to read ESV, NIV but my preference is KJV NKJV and ESV. I mature enough in my faith to know that you dont just read any translation for example the passion of christ translation .
The preservation of the inspired scripture is evident over the millennia. That said, "Peter and the other apostles replied: 'We must obey God rather than huma beings'"! Even the Neo-Evangelical Infidel Version is more accurate in its translation of Acts 5:29, than the KJV.
Obey God...not mere Scripture! Which, you do not even have all the Sacred Books!
@@josephmyers9843 oh no... this went from a KJVO argument to an apocrypha argument
What about the sketchy figures being wescott and hort?
All accusations and no evidence.
Basically, I warn people to take care not to violate the commandments by slandering men without proof.
Steven Anderson is actually one of the more reasonable KJV Onlyists. Those dispensational guys are completely nuts
@@samlawrence2695 But you have to admit, he's pretty entertaining sometimes. 😂
Steve has other issues than his KJV onlyism, but that video "Marching to Zion" is an absolute masterpiece and very informative for anyone with an open mind.
@@Fedproman Yes, I saw that, it was good.
@@T_frog1 You are right. For how ridiculous he is on most matters, he is almost reasonable on his KJV onlyism and avoids some of the sillier arguments. I heard he has actual experience with translating languages and understands the issues involved better than most.
‘Reasonable’ and ‘kjv only’ is a contradiction in terms.
For me, if someone wants to only stick with the KJV, then more power to them. They will not be led astray.
I like the NKJV, NASB95, ESV, and the LSB with a little NLT thrown in for fun. As long as the basic doctrines are in tack with the save Grace of Jesus Christ, read on to your choice. Just my opinion.
Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. I am pretty sure this was the intent, of the translation and they translated exactly as it was. Too assume Peter said it the other way based of the english language or saying it was a bad translation is bold.
Fr it would be a contradiction if it said “slew then hanged on a tree.”
The question was:
Is the Infallible, Inspired word of God in our possession today?
You response was yes.
Question - Where is it sir? You have not answered the question.
It's available in the manuscript tradition, with the different manuscripts coming together to give us the inspired word of God.
James, the critical texts are NOT better manuscripts. They differ from one another as much as they differ from the TR.
I think you’ve gotten me off the KJV only position.
However, as I’ve learned about how the Bible was formed, I don’t know why anyone would bother arguing for biblical inerrancy. We don’t have any of the originals, and the copies we have do have errors and minor contradictions. Minor or not, if it’s not perfect there’s no argument to be had for inerrancy.
I am a Holy Bible onlyist.
So I’m not a KJV type of person but I must ask if we have the earliest available manuscripts why are scholars adding verses that didn’t exist in the earliest manuscripts? That causes confusion even for myself God says his word is to be preserved if there’s scripture being added that didn’t exist to me that doesn’t make much sense
you need to scare everyone and one day just come out and say you admit you're wrong and KJV is the only translation. maybe next April? it'd be hilarious
Knowledge is scare tatics...don't be that person.
I'm Douay-Rheims ONLY!
@Mark OnTheBlueRidge Every day!
Outside the Catholic Church there is Absolutely no Salvation Nor Remission of sin! Catholic Dogma!
@Mark OnTheBlueRidge Have you read Denzinger?
@Mark OnTheBlueRidge So have I read the holy Gospels! Why don't you give dogma a chance?
@Mark OnTheBlueRidge What do you think, then, of the Book of James? Luther called it the epistle of straw!
James still cant show us where this inerrant preserved word of God is today that people can read for themself.
Where is it?
You must have a problem listening. He answered that question.
@@chriscravens8318 White avoids giving the answer.
@@stevie6621 You might need to listen to the video again.
I'm sure he'd agree with my answer: Any good translation qualifies as "Inspired, Inerrant, Infallible Word of God". Including the KJV.
KJVOs have an absurd criteria for "infallible" -- one that the KJV can't even stand up to: A number of NT quotations of OT verses come from the Septuagint, and disagree with the KJV OT. It's unedniable. Like Heb 1:6. Try finding that verse in the OT.
(Hint: It's not even in the KJV OT. It's in the LXX and DSS only, in Deut 32)
Its in the greek manuscript tradition. Translations are exactly that, translations.
The New Testament and Old Testament are different than any other work of antiquity. They are God's Word. That makes a huge difference if how you do textual criticism if you believe in the supernatural and if you believe the Word of God was preserved to every generation as it says it is. That makes a huge difference in how you discover what is the true text! I will trust the traditional text passed down over those. like James White, who would delete Jesus words "Forgive them they know not what they do." How could anyone even entertain that thought?
Psalm 12:6-7 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Psalm 33:11 The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.
Psalm 100:5 For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.
Psalm 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Matthew 5:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
1 Peter 1:23-25 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 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: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
Pastors are priests!!!
Actually, Bishops
I myself prefer the King James Bible as its one i grew up on and to me its the best. Notice I said " TO ME" , I did not say to all!
I also feel any church should use just a single bible as a standard and not a dozen different types of English bible.
King James, then be a King James Church. NASB, then be a NASB Church. ESV, be and ESV Church.
Keep a standard on what Bible is used in the church. So many different versions in a single church, leads to confusion. IMO.
My church uses King James, what does your church use as a standard?
Thank God for the King James Bible HIS preserved, infallible, inspired, inexorable word!
Hahahahah
So the original greek and Hebrew are not? Because the kjv is not infalliblty translated
But of course you have no idea you only have brainwashed human works based traditions instead of rebirth by the spirit and actual faith.
Don’t forget about ESV only and NIV only ness which are quickly joining KJV only ness.
Never mind each has newer versions based on the newer manuscripts and older versions.
People will always find something on both sides to feel superior than others and to put down others.
The pride of man!
Some people are still unironically Vulgate only... not joking.
@@scuzlol Both the Latin Vulgate and the KJV are more accurate than the NIV and ESV
@@T_frog1 And how is that?
@@scuzlol Because the NIV and ESV take stuff out, like part of 1 John 5:7. There are other verses too, and they replace "Lucifer" with "Morning Star" or "Day Star" in Isaiah 14:12
Kjv has no errors
Is the earth flat or a sphere? I believe it’s a sphere but a KJVO pastor said it’s flat. Also I believe there are 3 that bear witness in heaven. Father Word and Holy Spirit even though that may not be what 1John 5:7 actually says. I love the King James Version too but I will use it and others. Is the NIV a bad version? The LSB? I like the NASB, John MSB too. I just want God’s word to be God’s word.
Idk about the rest but the NIV is a bad translation
If the KJB had errors, mistakes, whatever you want to believe about the KJB. They would have made the corrections and then released it as the updated version. And the certainly wouldn't keep printing and selling the Bible with the mistakes in it.
What would you believe out of a Egyptian text type?
You could consider how many Translaters worked, and cross referenced their work.
Why do people critize KJVO?
There is a valid argument against using multitude translations in order to fit Gods Word to your liking.
The Geneva Bible was influenced by Augustine, Wycliff followed the teaching of Augustine of Hippo.
If you Just want a Catholic version buy it.
The KJV relies on the TR, which was the work of Erasmus, a Catholic Priest. So better chuck the KJV too, if you're gonna be consistent.
I am ESV only.
Whether or not kJV only is right or not, the biggest problem with all these translations is that, they’re not the same and that creates doubt and a stumbling block for a lot of Christians. The word says that Gods word will be preserved, and if I believe in an all powerful, all knowing God, And then the Word isn’t preserved, well that’s a problem. It creates confusion, which is attributed to who?
I mean if you do a side by side comparison, you’ll see very quickly that within all of the modern versions, that are reputable for being translated well, you’ll see that they all basically say the same thing just with different wording or descriptors depending on the style of translation (word for word or phrase by phrase)
You nailed it.
Satan has one goal concerning the Bible and that is to undermine people's faith that any Bible is perfect enough to judge HIS children by. 1 John 3:9-10 KJV
If the KJV was good enough for Jesus and the disciples, it ought to be good enough for us!
So called "bible" publishers add some words, take away some words, copyright it and make them some money. Anyone can write what they want, call it a bible and make them some money. I am staying with my King James bible. The same peopke that preach from the perverted versions tell people to turn from their sins to be saved. Have people repeating a sinners prayer. Tell them to commit their lifento Christ. Make Jesus Lord of their life, etc. ie works for salvation.
@@douglasgraham2101 So you believe that if the KJV was good enough for Jesus and the disciples, it should be good enough for us?
Uh, no, Jesus didn't approve the KJV.
It wasn't around on Earth when He was.
Jesus spoke Aramaic.
Yeshua Hamashiach is the Word. John 1:1
I like the KJV because it speaks to my heart withy authority and I need that.
I have a 1611-1885 parallel. It was created in the late 1800's.
It was Gutenberg pressed and it's beautiful, but not as beautiful as the words inside!
Sola Scriptura!
@@canigetachannel ;-)
1611?
I see a lot of people who hate the final authority of God’s Word in this comment section. How can you claim the promises of God’s Word when you cannot even determine what His Word even is? I think most of you are just intimidated by the faith of King James Only believers so instead of seeing the obvious truth and submitting to God’s final authority, you do your own thing and live to try and shake our faith. It’s pretty pathetic to be honest.
YES KJV ONLY !
I have been a deeply committed evangelical believer since 1985, when I'd gotten saved out of Catholicism. I was raised/discipled on the NIV and then later with the ESV. All those many years, I was a deeply committed follower of Jesus Christ and a believer in the inerrancy/infallibility of His Word. Nevertheless, in 2019 I switched to KJV/TR-only. So, would I call non-KJV-ers "heretics?" Well,... assuming that you follow a similar faith to my "pre-KJV-only" faith, then I would say emphatically, No! Nevertheless, I believe that followers of James White are deeply misinformed regarding the Canon of Scripture and that their stance on bibliology leads to a huge amount of doubt and confusion among both believers and near-believers/seekers. They tragically “cause these little ones to stumble.” (Mt 18:6)
So,… why not go back to the real McCoy - to the Traditional Text and to its English translation, the KJV? Why taint your cup of water with just a "little" poison when you can so easily drink from a pure cup. James White will NEVER change his stance - like I had changed only two years ago after so many years - because he has such a vested interest career-wise in maintaining it.
For example, imagine that someone conclusively proved Codex Sinaiticus to be a fraud. (as does David Daniels here... th-cam.com/video/HqNCarZwZ-s/w-d-xo.html …and here… th-cam.com/play/PLhmAbEGx-AnT8VmEOfkIc4U8Zx7cozYEv.html) Would not James White fight to the death (intellectually) in his attempts to label such an argument as a laughable conspiracy theory? If you're honest, you'd say yes,...no matter how plausible the argumentation. And why would White argue so emphatically? I'll give you a hint, it has NOTHING to do with empirical evidence and everything to do with maintaining the very foundation of his entire career. His vested interest has become SO STRONG that any newly introduced evidence doesn't stand a change against the freight-train of White's multi-decade career/reputation momentum.
James White will NEVER change his stance (like I had changed just a few years ago) because he has monumentally strong vested interest in maintaining it. So, barring a miracle, he will go to his grave propagating his [flawed] arguments. I might recommend a visit to the "King James Bible Research Council" TH-cam channel to wend your way out of the confusion sown by James White....
Outside the Catholic Church there is absolutely no Salvation nor remission of sin! Catholic Dogma! Why did you depart?
@@josephmyers9843 I very much wish you well, so if you are depending upon your own works to save you -- as the RCC clearly teaches via its sacramental system -- then you will be sorely disappointed at the Great White Throne Judgment. I make this statement pleadingly toward, not mockingly at all. You need to trust in Christ's finished work upon the Cross, His substitutionary atonement, for your sins -- plus nothing -- in order to be saved. Isaiah reminds us that our own righteous works are as filthy rags in His sight.... "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." (Isaiah 64:6)
Here are some other verses for you to gravely consider. Your very eternal destiny hangs in the balance....
"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." (1 Timothy 2:5-6)
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9
@@Matt-vk9sb Thanks for getting back to me. Out of the Word of God's mouth goes a sharp two edged sword: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. You need both! Maybe you left the Catholic Church because you did not possess the Catholic Faith?
@@Matt-vk9sb Also, Protestants believe works based salvation too! Faith is defined as work. Protestants just nitpick over interpretations and words, be it Greek or Hebrew!
"Couldn't he just have reinspired the Bible in 1611? Well, that means he didn't care about the people before 1611 as he did afterwards..."
Mr. James White
1. I don't think it does. Our God works in long, gradual stages that provide thorough spiritual preparation of the people and culture before his perfectly timed dispensations. The accusation against God that follows from that logic, if true, would apply to the giving of the Law to Moses, the Incarnation, the Reformation, etc.
2. Did Erasmus mention anything about being inspired by God when he was doing any translation? Or was such a thought out of the question to him?
“My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jerome’s text, with notes, that I seem to myself inspired by some god.”
Erasmus
3. It seems to me the question is not what Erasmus and the KJV translators would have said about their work in 1611, had you been there, but what they would say about their work TODAY, looking at the glut of translations inspired by the love of filthy lucre, their effect on the God-seeking populace of the world, the current general lack of faith in the inerrancy of the Bible, of the many warring denominations, of the average piety and worldliness of Christians, of the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, the potential and technology available for manuscript forgeries and fakes, and a host of other important considerations, in other words, looking at the current big picture, would they agree with you? I doubt it. You don't even agree with what you were saying in 1995 on the John Ankerberg show about the world needing more translations of the Bible, and that's a mere 27 years. I'm sure even in the short time you've lived and published, you have a different assessment of your own works than you used to have.
4. What would Erasmus, Luther etc. think about the modern translators themselves and their connections to big, for profit publishing houses and universities?
Erasmus said that only as an independent scholar could he hope to reform religion.
Facing the common notion (still current) that anyone who knows two languages can translate, Luther listed some qualifications for a translator - specifically, a Bible translator: “It requires a devout, righteous, true, diligent, God-fearing, Christian, learned, educated, experienced heart. This is why I consider it impossible for someone who is not a true Christian or for a factionalist to be a faithful translator.”
What a crazy manifetso who is going to spend their entire week reading some no name self proclaimed youtube experts mile long rant
You millennials are totally warped insane on your own narcissism
What you are saying is - for instance, that the Apostle Matthew wasn't as accurate at recording the events of Jesus' life which he had witnessed, as translators working 1600 years later. The eye witnesses are not as accurate as the interpreters?????? This argument has zero credibility.
Of course, this comes from a calvanist.
This man must be Roman Catholic.
He's far from it. He has debated Roman Catholics. He is a Reformed Baptist who likes the KJV but does not believe it is the sole English version
The KJV relies on the TR, which is the work of Erasmus, a Catholic priest. So I guess KJV onliers are closet Roman Catholics.
@@TearingDownIdols not the full story though
@@80steen44 Hendrik's assessment of White is not only not the full story, it's not the story at all.
@@TearingDownIdols I was referring to Erasmus
It is amazing how "critical theory" is taught as if it is science, I don't care how many TLAs you put in front of your name, "critical theory" is not science. You don't need to have a PhD to compare the AV with the Revision to realize the AV is the most Biblically accurate English Bible we have, this is not in dispute; given, the reason for the Revision was to put back the errors introduced by Lucian, the starting premise is absurd; thus, the foundation of the theory for Revision is not based in reality.
Alright, such as?
I hope your teachings in the end times make you a rich man. A very, very rich man. See you later.
A great example of the love of kjv cultists towards others.
James White you need to repent from deceiving the people even if it costs you your career, reputation and the money you make off of this. We know the facts and truth so stop lying. God preserved his word through the true church throughout history and didn’t just find it all of a sudden in the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which were never in use.
So it was found in 1611 instead?
Is the church of England the true church?
@@terriblehaute5100 all true believers in the finished work of Jesus Christ are in his body and are his church. The denomination has nothing to do with being the church.
So nobody had the Word of God in any way, shape, or form prior to 1611?
@@TearingDownIdols David won't answer. He can't..
James “ I think” white
Ummm...I think it's James the scholar White....
@@craigamore2319 we all know what Jesus said about scholars (ie, scribes)
@@mrpeanut517, yes, we do, but that very scripture you use to make that claim against White was originally written in Greek and or Aramaic, not English. White, like all reasonable believers who steep themselves in the Word, knows that to claim a single English translation as the lone true Word is ludicrous on its face. The translation of God's Word from the original language, to other languages, not just English, is a process that requires a knowledge of the history and variance of known extant copies in a number of different languages. To claim that that the KJV is the only legitimate true Word of God is as ignorant and foolish a claim as 2+2=5, both of which originate from the same self-deifying relativistism.
@@craigamore2319 so you are really saying we cannot be sure what exactly the Bible says. Gotcha.
@@mrpeanut517 , of course I'm not saying that, but to suggest that one translation holds all cards is arrogance of the highest and most ignorant order.
The KJV is THE HOLY BIBLE for the English speaking world. All the other inferior translations accomplish is to sow confusion, and GOD is not the author of confusion.
Im not KJV only but i do put a limit on the various translations that I read and reference as some translations appear to be watered down. For example check out NIV which misses out or completely reverses texts
NIV vs NKJV or ESV
Colossians 2:18
Genesis 27:39
Revelation 1:11 missing from NIV
Acts 8:37 missing from NIV
Mathew 18:11 missing from NIV
Soo much more. You can quickly see how this can become a problem and lead to watered down verses.
We should remember the crux of the bible is the Gospel. What Jesus did for us on the cross. I noticed brother white didnt provide his preference of translation on this subject matter.
@@samlawrence2695 KJV: Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. NIV: Isa 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! Rev 22:16 I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star. NIV made satan into Jesus based off this translation. That their is confusions but their are many more that are just as bad change one word and make God into a liar.
@@samlawrence2695 provide the scripture that various English translations will do?
That verse is Cor 14 is talking about conducting meetings in an orderly fashion.
God confused the language of the people at the Tower of Babel.
@@terrillclark6486 The NIV verse is closer to the original text. "Lucifer" comes from the latin vulgate. The proper noun is not in the hebrew but instead it translates literally to daystar or morning star. In fact the word lucifer means light bringer or torch bearer, so by your argument the verse would be blasphemous anyway since Jesus is the light bringer. Nebuchadnezzar was also called king of kings. The reason he is using this epithet is explained in that passage, which is that lucifer tried to make himself like the most high, so of course he would use the same epithets God uses.