Why I preach from the NKJV, NASB or KJV. I like them because they are word for word. I love the NKJV the most because it’s literal, it’s textus receptus and it’s readable.
You have been lied to about the NKJV. They say it's textus receptus but they also used the critical text. Very dishonest of the publishers to make people think it's a straight textus receptus version. Also, it uses the Biblia Hebraica which is based on the work of an antisemitic German named Rudolf Kittel whose son Gerhardt Kittle was literally a convicted Nazi war criminal (who also make a Greek new testament dictionary that is widely used).
His statement about all the words leaves me with one very important question: which English translation gives us All the words found in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts? The answer is, not a single one. The most noble effort among the modified-literal translations was the ASV1901, and even it lacks some of the words contained in the original. The same point applies to ALL English versions. So, if a person is going to argue for the faithfulness of English versions on the basis of giving the reader all of what the original contains, then all English versions must be rejected. Who argues for such?
Hey, I noticed you mentioned the ASV1901. Do you have any information to help me with what you are stating? I am confused as to which Bible to use, so I use several. I would love to hear more about why the ASV is the better translation. God bless.
@@EdgeOfEntropy17 Thanks for your question. The ASV1901 is legendary in it a attempt to give the English reader a large percentage of the words found in the manuscripts. It is more modified-literal than any edition of the NASB. It is more accurate than any edition of the NASB. The main problem with the ASV1901 is that it uses old archaic English and some if it's textual choices are inaccurate. Nevertheless it is a wonderful translation if you are wanting to know what the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek say in English form.
@@EdgeOfEntropy17 I meant to add, using multiple translations for study is a commendable practice. Getting the opinions of several committees is always advisable. I like to use the ASV1901, ESV2016, and the CSB. The NIV2011 is also good, especially as a late night and early morning reader.
Thank you so much! I have been drawn towards the ASV1901, as it sounds similar to the KJV. I had been looking for a more accurate version of the KJV, one that does not translate Passover as Easter, and such. To hear you talk about the work that went into the translation made me more interested in it. I am even more interested now that you say it is more literal than the NASB. Would this include the NASV1977? Some claim that it is very literal. Thanks and God bless.
@@EdgeOfEntropy17 yes the ASV1901 is definitely more modified-literal than even the NASB-1977. The ASV1901 is more consistent with its renderings than any edition of the NASB. My Hebrew and Greek professors stated, "If a person wants an English version that gives the best opportunity to go from English back to Hebrew and Greek, the ASV1901 is the one." It isn't perfect, but it is likely the best available version for close textual study of the scriptures. (By the way, I know someone who has a larger print, wide margin, black genuine leather edition for sale. It was published by Nelson and has been out of print for decades.) If you're interested, leave a phone number.
I think that leaning that hard on individual words is incompatible with any reasonable strategy for reconciling contradictions between the gospels. Inevitably details like that are going to have to be flattened out.
Christianity had a settled text for hundreds of years in what we call the Byzantine text or the Textus Receptus. It’s only been in the past 150 years or so that scholars, some of which not even professed Christians, have challenged that notion.
They aren’t in the original text tho? Just because they are in the textus receptus doesn’t mean they are correct. We have footnotes with the verses tho.
"Get a Bible with all the words" Be careful, Pastor John, those ignorant on Bible Translation will end up leaving most translations and will end up in a KJVonly movement with the idea that modern translations remove "whole verses"
Thank you! The final TNIV removes the word "saints" replacing it with "God's Holy People". Also, in the Book of John, the word "miracles" has been replaced with "Good Works"? Jesus performed "Good Works"? Give me a break!
Saints could be more accurately translated as "holy ones", words that have deep roots in the old testament. Unfortunately, translations lose that connection between the testaments when they use saints.
Ernesto Rodríguez No, that’s a really bad idea. They WON’T have a clear, accurate understanding of the word of God. In response to Brad, I would suggest the NLT.
Get an ilustrated bible, or each vidios of storybible....I got 2 ilustrated bibles for up to age 8....you havev to check on vidio content as well....something kids dont understand so you have to be careful what information you give to them....a lady from a church told me to read your own bible and kids bible and give an exact iformation about it....My doughter like the story of David and Goliath but there is more to the story of david on the adult bibles....I think a beautiful ilustrated bible will work....and prayer habit or a book on prayer for kids....teach them to have that connection with the Lord....to pray evry night. Here are sime I like....WHAT EVRY CHILD SHOULD KNOW ABOUT PRAYER BY NANCY GUTHRIE.....2.HOW GREAT IS OUR GOD ....and INDESCRIBABLE BY LOUIE Giglio.........I like the most Duck Commander Devotions for kids by Korie Robertson and Chrys Howard....you can also buy a kids prayer book....just read the reviews....my favorite stores for christian book Is amazon becouse I can read all reviews and Christian book .com..
One would think, if an entire sermon by a well-known pastor is being built on "two words" that can come and go depending on your translation, how secure a foundation can Sola Scriptura be?
It depends on what his sermon is covering. Just because words might be hard to come by when addressing one specific topic doesn't mean Sola scriptura is invalid
It's called "translating". Look it up. It's hard to convert words in one language to become words in another language that makes sense to them. Go read Young's Literal translation and see if it sounds all that great in English. Secondly, nobody's salvation is based on whether they read the word "for" beginning in a sentence, and has no baring on sola scriptura at all.
Acts 8:36-38 KJV See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? _37_ And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. ESV "See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” _37_ 38 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. ACTS 8:37: _MISSING_ from the ESV The word "some" is ~disingenuous~ blatantly dishonest here. To its credit, at least the NASB includes this verse, even if in brackets. So yeah Mr Piper, get a bible with all the words.
The reason scholars omit the verse is because they determined the manuscripts (which omit the verse) carry far more weight/credibility than other manuscripts. Also realize, even with Acts 8:37 gone, salvation is still clearly guaranteed by grace through faith in modern English Bibles. A Bible without Acts 8:37 is still well equipped to lead someone to the knowledge of true salvation. Also, the KJV is not inspired. Rather, the original autographs in their original languages were inspired. When determining why versions differ, the KJV is not the standard. The rich collection of manuscripts in the original languages are the standard.
@@Tax_Buster I’ve heard most people say or use the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV are your best bet for accuracy. That’s coming from Piper, John MacArthur, Paul Washer, and RC sproul also liked the ESV.
@Curt Christensen Isaiah 59:19 KJB, "So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him." Isaiah 59:19 ESV, "So they shall fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun; for he will come like a rushing stream, which the wind of the LORD drives."
@Curt Christensen I have scores of examples but you don't seem like you care. Your mind is already made up and I won't argue with someone who already has decided on this issue. Respectfully. Cheers
@Curt Christensen Welcome to the Bible Babble Buffet. Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. And every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
@Curt Christensen Once Jerry and 16 midgets set off on a journey. They were looking for the great treasure of Ecrapolis. On their way they got lost and camped inside a giant elephant. they awoke the next morning to find that the elephant had walked them to Los Angeles. Being from an underground secret city, Jerry and the midgets had no idea what to think of this. They all went out exploring the city, and got into all sorts of fat trouble. Jerry tried surfing and was thrown off his board into the sand, mouth-first. He proceeded to munch the sand down, saying it as the best food he'd had in ages. suddenly he while digging through this delectable muck, he hit something hard. IT WAS A TREASURE CHEST! He opened it slowly as the 16 midgets crowded around him. Unable to fathom what was inside he tore it open. Inside was a note, "Ha Ha! There's no real treasure You stupid egg goblin!!" With that note, Jerry and the midgets turned purple and floated into outer space, doomed to wander the universe. eventually jerry and his midgets came across shronkey 12D adventure basement and rocketed inside on there daily existent shregways. and low and behold the three stooges riding a three horsed merry-go-round jerry and his 16 migets wanted to ride but the maximum capacity was one. so they created a one horsed merry-go-round. but than they realized they forgot to install the horse. so they walked away when they ran into a giant gopro with legs and hands (no arms or feet) but than the gopro exploaded and shronkes 12D adventure basement inploaded and everything was inside out including the tree
Dude actually the kjv manuscripts add verses that’s why some modern translations don’t have some verses bc those manuscripts add verses. The most reliable manuscripts do not have the verses kjv and nkjv have (only 16-17)
@@travistackett57 That's true but it takes out certain phrases in verses like in 1 John 5:7 NASB "For there are three who testify." 1 John 5:7 KJV "For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one."
What Bible does Piper use? Hopefully not ESV. He says he wouldn’t put parentheses in? Well that’s what all your modern translations do! The ESV adds words but it doesn’t put them in italics or parentheses. At least the NASB will show you italics.
I wonder why, after 4 years, this vitriolic caricature of other people's valuable (and by him misunderstood) work is still online. Ghastly on all accounts!
@@joshportie do these so called corrupt bibles say anything different from your bible? No anyone who uses the NIV or any modern translation is just as much a Christian.
@Kile yes there are slight differences in maniscrpts and as the niv uses older manuscripts it can be argued that there were additional verses and words added to verses down the centuries as the maniscrpts where hand written, what would make more sense to you that scribes added verses and words wether by mistake or intentional or that scribes removed verses and words? The former would be more likely, even with the slight difference among maniscrpts it doesn't effect any doctrine and its amazing how they agree more than disagree.
Your quip is already moot since all Protestant Bibles have the epistle of James. At the end of the day, even Luther didn’t remove it. St. Jerome didn’t want the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals either but he still included it in his Vulgate, didn’t he?
The man says to get a Bible with all the words and goes on to list several but NOT the 1611 King James??? Seriously Piper ??? Guess what, ESV NASB and the other critical text versions you listed DON'T HAVE ALL THE WORDS EITHER !!!
Don't forget about Luther's "version" of the Bible, which he changed Romans 3:28 to alone! He also called the Book of James, the epistle of straw. If only Protestants would be honest and say, "we care about certain words of the text, and not all"!
Wow. This is just plain old ad hominem attacks. Yes, he might have done that but we don't look up to Martin Luther as God. The Roman Church didn't officially start until the 13th century, so there were Christians before him and then for a certain time God allowed the antichrist (Pope) to blind the eyes of people through the work of his father the devil. When Martin Luther came along God used him as a means of grace to open the peoples blinded eyes to the wickedness of the Roman church who murdered people for owning and translating the Bible.
I pray God gives me this much passion behind my preaching.
Just purchased John MacArthur NAS Study Bible 2nd edition, it is a premium bible, I cannot wait to receive it! So excited!
The best bible is the one you read daily.
I hope your journey has been fruitful. 👐🕊️
@@kylestenger5318 Not necessarily, can't trust all of them. But I agree. 🤗
@@perfidious333 It's a challenge for sure.
Why I preach from the NKJV, NASB or KJV. I like them because they are word for word. I love the NKJV the most because it’s literal, it’s textus receptus and it’s readable.
You have been lied to about the NKJV. They say it's textus receptus but they also used the critical text. Very dishonest of the publishers to make people think it's a straight textus receptus version. Also, it uses the Biblia Hebraica which is based on the work of an antisemitic German named Rudolf Kittel whose son Gerhardt Kittle was literally a convicted Nazi war criminal (who also make a Greek new testament dictionary that is widely used).
His statement about all the words leaves me with one very important question: which English translation gives us All the words found in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts? The answer is, not a single one. The most noble effort among the modified-literal translations was the ASV1901, and even it lacks some of the words contained in the original. The same point applies to ALL English versions. So, if a person is going to argue for the faithfulness of English versions on the basis of giving the reader all of what the original contains, then all English versions must be rejected. Who argues for such?
Hey, I noticed you mentioned the ASV1901. Do you have any information to help me with what you are stating? I am confused as to which Bible to use, so I use several. I would love to hear more about why the ASV is the better translation.
God bless.
@@EdgeOfEntropy17 Thanks for your question. The ASV1901 is legendary in it a attempt to give the English reader a large percentage of the words found in the manuscripts. It is more modified-literal than any edition of the NASB. It is more accurate than any edition of the NASB. The main problem with the ASV1901 is that it uses old archaic English and some if it's textual choices are inaccurate. Nevertheless it is a wonderful translation if you are wanting to know what the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek say in English form.
@@EdgeOfEntropy17 I meant to add, using multiple translations for study is a commendable practice. Getting the opinions of several committees is always advisable. I like to use the ASV1901, ESV2016, and the CSB. The NIV2011 is also good, especially as a late night and early morning reader.
Thank you so much! I have been drawn towards the ASV1901, as it sounds similar to the KJV. I had been looking for a more accurate version of the KJV, one that does not translate Passover as Easter, and such. To hear you talk about the work that went into the translation made me more interested in it. I am even more interested now that you say it is more literal than the NASB. Would this include the NASV1977? Some claim that it is very literal.
Thanks and God bless.
@@EdgeOfEntropy17 yes the ASV1901 is definitely more modified-literal than even the NASB-1977. The ASV1901 is more consistent with its renderings than any edition of the NASB. My Hebrew and Greek professors stated, "If a person wants an English version that gives the best opportunity to go from English back to Hebrew and Greek, the ASV1901 is the one." It isn't perfect, but it is likely the best available version for close textual study of the scriptures. (By the way, I know someone who has a larger print, wide margin, black genuine leather edition for sale. It was published by Nelson and has been out of print for decades.) If you're interested, leave a phone number.
I think that leaning that hard on individual words is incompatible with any reasonable strategy for reconciling contradictions between the gospels. Inevitably details like that are going to have to be flattened out.
Sola scriptura means nothing if Christianity does not have a settled text.
Christianity had a settled text for hundreds of years in what we call the Byzantine text or the Textus Receptus. It’s only been in the past 150 years or so that scholars, some of which not even professed Christians, have challenged that notion.
@@RoastBeefSandwich I agree with your assessment. Sadly, most educated Protestants now only have a qualified belief in the veracity of scripture.
They aren’t in the original text tho? Just because they are in the textus receptus doesn’t mean they are correct. We have footnotes with the verses tho.
So . . . when's that sermon on Matthew 12:47 from the ESV coming??
You and Don Piper should (probably) meet each other. Imagine John Piper and Don Piper together.
Neither of them could pick pickled peppers like their brother Peter.
"Get a Bible with all the words"
Be careful, Pastor John, those ignorant on Bible Translation will end up leaving most translations and will end up in a KJVonly movement with the idea that modern translations remove "whole verses"
If you are using a critical text version, it DOESN'T MATTER which one because they are all based on the same forgery text.
Evil roots produce evil fruit.
The ESV comes to mind.
Thank you! The final TNIV removes the word "saints" replacing it with "God's Holy People".
Also, in the Book of John, the word "miracles" has been replaced with "Good Works"?
Jesus performed "Good Works"? Give me a break!
warminster100 🤔 what are Saints?
Saints could be more accurately translated as "holy ones", words that have deep roots in the old testament. Unfortunately, translations lose that connection between the testaments when they use saints.
Any suggestions on Bibles for 10 year olds?
King James Version: They will learn the Word of God and they will learn English.
Ernesto Rodríguez No, that’s a really bad idea. They WON’T have a clear, accurate understanding of the word of God. In response to Brad, I would suggest the NLT.
Get an ilustrated bible, or each vidios of storybible....I got 2 ilustrated bibles for up to age 8....you havev to check on vidio content as well....something kids dont understand so you have to be careful what information you give to them....a lady from a church told me to read your own bible and kids bible and give an exact iformation about it....My doughter like the story of David and Goliath but there is more to the story of david on the adult bibles....I think a beautiful ilustrated bible will work....and prayer habit or a book on prayer for kids....teach them to have that connection with the Lord....to pray evry night. Here are sime I like....WHAT EVRY CHILD SHOULD KNOW ABOUT PRAYER BY NANCY GUTHRIE.....2.HOW GREAT IS OUR GOD ....and INDESCRIBABLE BY LOUIE Giglio.........I like the most Duck Commander Devotions for kids by Korie Robertson and Chrys Howard....you can also buy a kids prayer book....just read the reviews....my favorite stores for christian book Is amazon becouse I can read all reviews and Christian book .com..
Most Bible translations will work fine except the king James version. In fact I do not recommend a king James version for anyone. Try NIV, CSB or ESV
@@warrenrhinerson6373 Why don't you recommend it? It's very literal and very accurate.
Does anyone know which verse he’s talking about?
The Troll Patrol same questions here was scrolling through comments to find out
Some little liberal subtracted words from the Bible in a certain versions… Don’t use those versions for serious study
John 4: 43-54
One would think, if an entire sermon by a well-known pastor is being built on "two words" that can come and go depending on your translation, how secure a foundation can Sola Scriptura be?
That isn't a problem with sola scriptura. It's a problem for people who don't believe in the KJV.
It depends on what his sermon is covering. Just because words might be hard to come by when addressing one specific topic doesn't mean Sola scriptura is invalid
@ DJ Corner ...says someone who I assume believes in papal infallibility. How’s that working out for you right now?
It's called "translating". Look it up. It's hard to convert words in one language to become words in another language that makes sense to them.
Go read Young's Literal translation and see if it sounds all that great in English.
Secondly, nobody's salvation is based on whether they read the word "for" beginning in a sentence, and has no baring on sola scriptura at all.
Acts 8:36-38
KJV See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? _37_ And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
ESV "See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” _37_ 38 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
ACTS 8:37: _MISSING_ from the ESV
The word "some" is ~disingenuous~ blatantly dishonest here. To its credit, at least the NASB includes this verse, even if in brackets.
So yeah Mr Piper, get a bible with all the words.
The reason scholars omit the verse is because they determined the manuscripts (which omit the verse) carry far more weight/credibility than other manuscripts. Also realize, even with Acts 8:37 gone, salvation is still clearly guaranteed by grace through faith in modern English Bibles. A Bible without Acts 8:37 is still well equipped to lead someone to the knowledge of true salvation.
Also, the KJV is not inspired. Rather, the original autographs in their original languages were inspired. When determining why versions differ, the KJV is not the standard. The rich collection of manuscripts in the original languages are the standard.
Dr. Piper said to get a Bible with all the words, not a Bible with extra words/verses.
@@Tax_Buster I’ve heard most people say or use the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV are your best bet for accuracy. That’s coming from Piper, John MacArthur, Paul Washer, and RC sproul also liked the ESV.
It was in the ones they had. Anglicans baptize infants so the bias would be to remove. But the OP is wrong in saying most manuscripts have the verse.
It's not in the NIV either
Just always use the pure and true kjv why all the confusion ?
What verse was he referring too?
John 4: 43-54
@Desiring God --- can we have the context of this clip? What is the passage he is referring to?
John 4:43-44
Exactly correct 🙏
ESV or NASV or NKJV? Do you know how much they contradict each other?
@Curt Christensen Isaiah 59:19 KJB, "So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him."
Isaiah 59:19 ESV, "So they shall fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun; for he will come like a rushing stream, which the wind of the LORD drives."
@Curt Christensen I have scores of examples but you don't seem like you care. Your mind is already made up and I won't argue with someone who already has decided on this issue. Respectfully. Cheers
@Curt Christensen Welcome to the Bible Babble Buffet. Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. And every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
@Curt Christensen Water the piano for it to grow
@Curt Christensen Once Jerry and 16 midgets set off on a journey. They were looking for the great treasure of Ecrapolis. On their way they got lost and camped inside a giant elephant. they awoke the next morning to find that the elephant had walked them to Los Angeles. Being from an underground secret city, Jerry and the midgets had no idea what to think of this. They all went out exploring the city, and got into all sorts of fat trouble. Jerry tried surfing and was thrown off his board into the sand, mouth-first. He proceeded to munch the sand down, saying it as the best food he'd had in ages. suddenly he while digging through this delectable muck, he hit something hard. IT WAS A TREASURE CHEST! He opened it slowly as the 16 midgets crowded around him. Unable to fathom what was inside he tore it open. Inside was a note, "Ha Ha! There's no real treasure You stupid egg goblin!!" With that note, Jerry and the midgets turned purple and floated into outer space, doomed to wander the universe. eventually jerry and his midgets came across shronkey 12D adventure basement and rocketed inside on there daily existent shregways. and low and behold the three stooges riding a three horsed merry-go-round jerry and his 16 migets wanted to ride but the maximum capacity was one. so they created a one horsed merry-go-round. but than they realized they forgot to install the horse. so they walked away when they ran into a giant gopro with legs and hands (no arms or feet) but than the gopro exploaded and shronkes 12D adventure basement inploaded and everything was inside out including the tree
So why not a translation with all the verses in them?😂😂😂😂
Dude actually the kjv manuscripts add verses that’s why some modern translations don’t have some verses bc those manuscripts add verses. The most reliable manuscripts do not have the verses kjv and nkjv have (only 16-17)
I agree. That’s why I like the NASB so much because it gives me those verses but in brackets. I wish more translations did that.
@@travistackett57 the HCSB did this as well. Other translations simply include the verses as footnotes
@@rysloan no it wasn’t a joke. The manuscripts used by more modern translations are far more reliable
@@travistackett57 That's true but it takes out certain phrases in verses like in 1 John 5:7 NASB "For there are three who testify." 1 John 5:7 KJV "For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one."
What Bible does Piper use? Hopefully not ESV.
He says he wouldn’t put parentheses in? Well that’s what all your modern translations do! The ESV adds words but it doesn’t put them in italics or parentheses. At least the NASB will show you italics.
Jonathan Grandt he uses ESV.
Not all verses, just in last chapter of Mark
I have ESV and NKJV
I wonder why, after 4 years, this vitriolic caricature of other people's valuable (and by him misunderstood) work is still online. Ghastly on all accounts!
I love the niv 1984 version now I can understand the bible.
I like the Geneva, old KJV, and NSAB.
I prefer Gods word to the corrupted gnostic bibles. Nasb, niv, and so on.
@@joshportie do these so called corrupt bibles say anything different from your bible? No anyone who uses the NIV or any modern translation is just as much a Christian.
@Kile yes there are slight differences in maniscrpts and as the niv uses older manuscripts it can be argued that there were additional verses and words added to verses down the centuries as the maniscrpts where hand written, what would make more sense to you that scribes added verses and words wether by mistake or intentional or that scribes removed verses and words? The former would be more likely, even with the slight difference among maniscrpts it doesn't effect any doctrine and its amazing how they agree more than disagree.
@Kile I never mentioned that the niv is better I just prefer it for clarity and readability.
More literal & against dynamic
Why did Luther call the Holy Book of James, the epistle of straw? Seems as though true Protestants do not want all the books!
Why do Catholics worship Mary? Paul never did
Your quip is already moot since all Protestant Bibles have the epistle of James. At the end of the day, even Luther didn’t remove it. St. Jerome didn’t want the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals either but he still included it in his Vulgate, didn’t he?
Hcsb apologetics bible!!!
The man says to get a Bible with all the words and goes on to list several but NOT the 1611 King James??? Seriously Piper ??? Guess what, ESV NASB and the other critical text versions you listed DON'T HAVE ALL THE WORDS EITHER !!!
9
Don't forget about Luther's "version" of the Bible, which he changed Romans 3:28 to alone! He also called the Book of James, the epistle of straw. If only Protestants would be honest and say, "we care about certain words of the text, and not all"!
Wow. This is just plain old ad hominem attacks. Yes, he might have done that but we don't look up to Martin Luther as God. The Roman Church didn't officially start until the 13th century, so there were Christians before him and then for a certain time God allowed the antichrist (Pope) to blind the eyes of people through the work of his father the devil. When Martin Luther came along God used him as a means of grace to open the peoples blinded eyes to the wickedness of the Roman church who murdered people for owning and translating the Bible.
Fool
Get a Douay-Rheims!
This guy is so smug and arrogant. Unwatchable
This guy is literally the least smug or arrogant of all the TH-cam pastors
@@ead630 sure Jan
smelly is me@@davegarciaofficial