@@makarov138 oh yes, 100% man. Those are also a great resource. I’m just saying us English speakers are blessed to have the Bible in our tongue. There are still many languages that have never had the Bible translated. Have a blessed day ❤️
@marcjohnson7669 True. Far from everyone has the Bible in their mother tongue. I am German, and I became a Christian whilst still living in Germany and I am very grateful to have the Book of Books in my native language. Nowadays, funnily, I have more English Bibles than German ones.
I'm not KJV-only, but I appreciate the kindness you approached this issue with. You were able to communicate your position very well, thank you brother.
Thank you! This was a great explanation, given with a great attitude. I love my King James Bible! The pages of mine have been dampened with tears of sadness as I’ve read it searching for comfort and I found it! They’ve been dampened with tears of joy and thankfulness as I read of how my Savior died in my place. I’m so grateful for my copy of Gods living word. #kjv4life
Amen Pastor ! I agree with you The king James Bible has always been the only Bible for me and I love my Bible I won’t ever turn away from the King James Bible .
@@jasonhamilton8307 it's says our God. Our!. We have a God that loves us and blessed us with a perfect Word. No man can write what God wrote . Consider the lilies! No man has ever considered the lilies. But Jesus Christ did
I started with NLT, and experienced the voice of God in it, then I read the whole Bible in nkjv but as soon as I picked up the KJV it was clear that the depth of the words and structure holds the weight of Gods voice within its text. It is now my choice for me. I feel “robbed” if I ever read other translations.
Thank you! This is a very specific and direct answer to some of my prayer questions! The timing of me watching this video is perfect! Thank you for making it; and, if you ever make a more lengthy video about this, please let us all know!
I appreciate you sharing this video and your perspective. I have great respect for all congregations that hold firmly to the KJB. During COVID, the only two churches in my area that remained open were independent Baptist churches. It didn’t go unnoticed that both exclusively used the KJB and still held evening services and midweek prayer meetings. As a child I was taught to read using the book of Psalms and encouraged to look up difficult words, which helped prepare me to read Pilgrim's Progress and older sermons. At one time, this issue used to frustrate me, but now I see it as helpful in discerning who to avoid. We only have so much time and I’ve noticed that churches not using the KJB often lean toward less literal interpretations and more socially liberal viewpoints.
I am thankful for the Received Text, the Textus Receptus. I am thankful for my King James Version of the Bible. Back before 2020, I would read various versions of the Bible not knowing the history/truth of various versions. In 2020, a person at the place I worked, pulled me aside one day and told me, he felt God wanted him to tell me to look into the history of the various versions. He is a pastor at a church that reads KJV (TR) only. I felt kind of indifferent or neutral towards that. Then a complete stranger near the place I worked on another day in 2020, came up to me and said, they felt like God wanted them to tell me to really look into the history of the versions of the Bible. And over that week I was hearing on various Christian radio stations of the talk of different translations and versions of the Bible. I thought ok, God is really getting my attention on all of this. So, I started looking into it. I learned how many things were changed and even REMOVED from so many other versions. I was like why on earth would they remove entire verses? I then learned, the origins of the other translations of the Bible. There is the Latin Vulgate -> the Sinaiticus, the Vaticanus. One was found in a trash can, one was found in a library. Both of which were in Catholic churches/locations. That is a whole other discussion about the Catholic church. Anyways, they are documents that do not even agree with each other. They are manipulated by people (Wescott and Hort) who did not believe in the deity of Christ. The more I look into the teams that worked on the Latin Vulgate, the darker it gets. The KJV (TR) is the Word of God and the Received Text, was the same in all languages regardless of which language it was translated from. Also keep in mind, in order for these companies to get money from different versions they MUST be so much % different. That is a bit of my story of why I read KJV only. (Or at least anything that is actually TR)
Thank you for the balanced explanation. This is a topic I have studied extensively and I agree that the Masoretic and Received Texts are preferred and that equivalence should be as formal as possible. I believe that I have read most of the authors from James R. White to Peter Ruckman. I still believe that the best book on the subject is the first one, The King James Version Defended by Edward F Mills.
The Bible’s text is the issue! A settled text assures doctrinal steadfastness. The ever-changing critical text allows doctrinal wiggle room. Dangerous.
@@keithm1689I would like to second that question. Every time I have compare the KJV with a good modern translation, I have felt blessed because the message and the gospel has remained unchanged through the centuries. Praise God for all the dedicated Christian scholars and Bible translators who have brought as the Word of God in understandable English.
@@keithm1689 Modern bibles imply in the notes the longer ending of Mark Is not legitimate . The longer ending speaks of tongues and deliverance and healing are signs all signs of believers .
I have reviewed the modern versions and they change words, for example fornication is changed to sexual immorality. I like the KJV even though I am Hispanic, and thank God I am using AI to understand the reason for the words written in the KJV. I take the opportunity to learn English and when I translate English words, God speaks to me. God bless you.
I'm not KVJ-only, and one thing that's always confused me is when KVJ-only folks claim that new translations "lose some of the meaning of the original text" or something else to that effect. Often in my studies if I reach a difficult passage, I'll read it in a variety of translations to see what multiple groups of translators thought about it. It can help me find the meaning of the usage of a certain word, but I've never found a passage in the NASB/ESV that has any "less meaning" than the KJV, or that wasn't equivalent. I also like to offer a couple of other defenses, first, I think the accusation of newer translations saying "you should" rather than "thou shalt" is moderately dishonest. Unless you're reading a poorly made thought-for-thought (which I discourage in general), the newer translations maintain just as much authority as the KJV, just without the archaisms. Random example is Isaiah 1:12-15, read that in a modern translation and you'll see they aren't pulling punches. Second, you mention proponents of newer translations "whining" about readability. Our issue isn't with the "thees and thous," its more to do with defunct words that the pastor ends up defining them in modern terms anyway. To use that Isaiah example again, how often do you hear pastors say something along the lines of " "bring no more vain oblations..." that word oblations means offerings, so "bring no more vain offerings." "? I'd argue to consistently hold that the KJV is written in a superior way, you should never rephrase it to explain it. If "dumbing it down," as you put it, does nothing but detract from the text, then you should never explain a verse in anything less than King James English, because anything else has been dumbed down. I hope this doesn't come across the wrong way. I believe you're in a brother in Christ, I just disagree on this. :)
I agree. I love my KJV but you need to understand that it was written about the same time the WCF and the LBCF were. Words have changed in our understanding. For example, did God create EVIL as He said he did in Isaiah 45:7? He did not. He causes good things and calamities. Calamity was a definition of evil in the 1600's. The KJV is great but needs clarification in some cases in this 21 century.
@@lionelscout Calmity is in the Bible, and seriously, I could have figured out that God was not the author of evil, he did create evil. He created evil to punish people.
modern bible versions are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts (less then 50 manuscripts, mainly codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus) that alter and omit many verses and even contradict each other. The AV/KJV however, is based on the traditional majority text from Antioch; 6000+ manuscripts that all agree in their reading. Modern versions are corrupt.
Amen. I have plenty of friends and fellow christians that use other versions but ill stick with the kjv its the most accurate. New to the channel. Look forward to other videos!
Thank you for your explanation. One thing I find so frustrating is going to church or any time I listen to a sermon and they are teaching from something other than the King James Bible. It throws me off when trying to follow along and they are reading something different. I feel people do lose the meaning and the importance of what God spoke. The "thees" and "thous" and "hasts" do not bother me at all. When it is all we have read its all we know. Why is it so hard to convince those that are reading other versions that they arent accurate?
That’s how I feel when someone is reading from the KJV. I mean it throws me off because I don’t speak the kings English. I speak modern English. So I always have to look at my modern Bible to see what was being read.
Kjv May be Harder to understand but only the modern Versions stur Up confusion wether or not gods word is reliable. The modern bibles may have users, but only the Kjv has believers.
Well said!! Interesting info to support what you said about understanding the KJV - this is an excerpt: "THE BIBLE PROGRESSIVELY BUILDS-UP AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE MEANING OF WORDS Modern testing using the Flesch-Kincaid research company's computerized 'Grade Level Indicator' verifies that only the KJV Bible progressively builds in understanding from Genesis to Revelation, and maintains the easiest reading level. " The accompanying chart shows that the KJV is easily understood at the 5th grade level compared to the NIV at the 8th grade level. Satan has deceived people to think the degraded English is easier to understand when in fact it just breeds confusion by the author of confusion! Thank you for providing another great witnessing tool!!
No confusion reading the NIV. Which is easier to read than the archaic KJV. Also stronger on the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit than the KJV. Satan the father of lies and confusion. Has indeed deceived many with the KJV only deception
Supporters of the KJV can be confident there are good reasons for using their Bible. Those reasons prioritize God's promises about His Word and defer to His Word instead of prioritizing human preferences.
the King James Bible is not subject to copyright in the UK, however because of Letters Patent issued by the Crown, only the Queen's Printer may print, publish and distribute the KJV Bible within the UK and its Overseas Territories. The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 recognises this unique arrangement in section 171
That is exactly what was happening in our last church. KJV became a dirty word and the pastor and certain gentlemen in the church were trying so hard to get rid of it entirely and bring on something new. Ours wasn't as obvious as ostracizing people in the church, but it was handled in a very two faced and hypocritical manner that all trust and respect was lost for the spiritual leaders. I don't care what you do personally for a version, but don't pretend you're someone else just to get a foot in the door.
Question for you pastor: I've recently switched to the NASB (1995) as my default. I noticed on your "timeline" of word-for-word vs. thought-for-thought that was basically 2nd place to to the KJV. Which of your concerns about accuracy do or do not apply to that version? If you HAD to use something other than KJV would NASB (1995) be your second choice? Thanks in advance!
I'm obviously not the pastor but please allow me to comment on your question. At minute 9:00 of this video Pastor Johnson addressed the NASB specifically with this information: Dr. Frank Logsdon, project member of the translation committee for the New American Standard Version (NASB), has denounced his work on that Bible and urged all Christians to return to the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Bible. My study Bible was NASB for my first 4 years as a Bible believer and God showed me with Luke 4:4 that I wasn't getting what I wanted in the NASB which is "every word of God" found in the King James Bible. compare that reference in the KJV vs NASB. I hope this helps.
@@GodisGracious1031MinistriesWhat about the at least ten different revisions of the KJV that say different things?. They also change things and remove stuff.
I've found that the Scofield Reference, King James Version is more comprehensible than the straight KJV because of, not the Old English pronouns but, the replacement of some of the antiquated words for which there are absolute synonyms, and the explanations of idioms.
We don't have the original manuscripts, and thank God for that. We have hundreds of copies. So instead of making holy sacred idols of a piece of paper, we have the messages themselves preserved for all time. There is no hidden agendas, only good historical work in both the TR and CT. We can have a copy from 300 years after an epistle was sent that was used for the TR, but more modern archaeological discoveries uncover a copy from 100 years after with less words. It is discovered more recently, but is more likely to be accurate. And as we find more and more copies, we can see where copy errors have crept in and get a clearer image of what all the copies were copying from. So getting more historical evidence strengthens every believer. Comparing 'Thou shalt not...' in a commanding voice, and 'you shouldn't do that..' in an effeminate voice is disingenuous and manipulative. Not to mention, no translation uses the words 'you shouldn't do that' No, I wouldn't update Shakespeare to modern English, but then we should be happy learning to read biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek. If one thinks that the power of the Holy Spirit is bound to the words written by the biblical authors, you shouldn't be KJV-only, you should be Hebrew-Greek-only. But like the manuscripts themselves, the power of God's word isn't held in one document. His power is shown in that his word is maintained through thousands of years, staying consistent through thousands of copies, and through hundreds of translations. I mean, when I'm reading and I come to a passage that gives me pause, i stop and look it up online to compare versions. And you know what i find... ...they all say the same thing. I agree, that I prefer formal equivalence and so gravitate more to ESV and NASB, but given the fact that Hebrew and Greek can be idiomatic, I appreciate having dynamic equivalent translations on hand to also compare. "...literary scholars of the English language, even secular ones, are in unanimity that the King James Bible is the apex of the English language" ...do we have a source on that. Quite a bold claim, I find it hard to believe that scholars from any school are in unanimity about anything... "We know that it was holy men of God that spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" ...yes, when they wrote it in Hebrew. "the modern movement through the modern versions to 'dumb down' the English language" ...nobody is dumbing down when they translate something. You can dumb things down, but just doing a new translation doesn't mean things are dumber. That is a false dichotomy. "he constantly whined about the readablility of the King James" ...that is a an ad hominem attack on a brother. You don't bolster your point by belittling the other side. You can just say he complained or opined without adding insulting commentary. "We have done our children a great disservice by 'dumbing down' our language..." For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. Romans 8:18-21 ESV For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God Romans 8:18-21 KJV ...how is this dumbed down? ...or even markedly different? 'reckon' isn't "smarter" than 'consider'. And you need meditate on either version to really grasp the 'futility' and the 'corruption', and to rejoice in the freedom' or 'liberty' You can like the word 'reckon' better than the word 'consider', but there is no need to call people who prefer the other dumb. "I figured out what 'propition' means" ...good, so then the ESV isn't dumbed down for you... He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:2 ESV Copyrighted works. I do long for the day when some of my favorite translations are in the public domain, but I don't begrudge them getting paid for their work. For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. 1 Timothy 5:18 KJV It is hard work doing biblical research and graphic design and distribution, and all the myriad other vocations that are involved in producing a translation of the bible. And it is not mine (or yours) place to assign sin when we don't know the intentions behind somebody's heart. Just because the KJV scholars were fed and funded by the crown, doesn't make them any more altruistic. I'm much more keen to assign Peter's admonition of people making 'merchandise of you' to those in the faith healing movement manipulating people out of their money. Not brothers and sisters in the Lord trying in any way to make God's word more accessible. When you say that the KJV is 100% correct, are you saying you've never had to explain to anyone what a passage meant? I don't think that's what you mean, and that is all other translations are trying to do. "nonsense of the modern versions" ...I don't see any examples of that. Finally, you asked why we are thankful for the King James Version. Personally, I very much enjoy the poetic tone in many passages and i read it frequently. And I'm thankful for it in the same way I'm thankful for the other English translations, and the Spanish, and French, and German, and Danish, and Chinese, and the hundreds of other languages that God's inspired word has been translated into... ..those men in 1611 translated the Hebrew and Greek to the language of their day so more people could read God's word, just like all the translators are doing today.
Excellent rebuttal. Many of these points are ones I wanted to add myself. There are so many deceptive arguments that good men are listening to and perpetuating. It breaks my heart. The copyright lie, the “dumbing down” claim and “apex of English” nonsense. So sad!!! I was in a KJV only church for 35+ years. Their position on it wasn’t ugly but shared many of the same reasons as this video. The pastor was an intelligent and kind man and shared many of his books on the issue with people including myself so I was well read on the arguments of why we were KJV only. I personally owned many books on the topic including New Age Versions. The breakdown for me occurred when I discovered the rank dishonesty of a few of the arguments perpetuated in the KJVO circles. If you sit and look up the sources for these books, so many of them were just repeated from other KJV onlyists and had no original source. Gail Riplinger’s book was the most shocking to discover the deliberate misquoting of her sources. And some of the sources she claimed were even nonexistent. Many of the “good” books, like Oulette, were just repeating old arguments that had their beginnings with men like Ruckman who was an extremely hateful and dishonest man. All my life I’d been told that Wescott and Hort were not to be trusted and anything that came from them was to be avoided. Yet here I was with a shelf full of books with argumentation that originated from men that were also not to be trusted. I began the painful process of weeding out every argumentation that lacked proper sourcing (copyright claims, greater readability claims, attacks on the character of the modern translators) and found that the only argumentation I was left with was claims about verses being “removed” and textual preference. So then I began to compare and ask why the modern translations differ. Instead of comparing to the KJV as my standard, I appealed to the original languages (which I do no read so I had to still trust lexicons and multiple other resources). It was hours of wading through information that was beyond me and I began to discover that once again I was at the mercy of trusting translators who did actually understand all this stuff. So in my next step, I began to ask, since I clearly must trust someone, who can I trust? Anyone who gleaned any of their information from someone like Riplinger or Ruckman was off limits. I’ll shorten the story and say, ultimately I realized that God was the one I should be trusting all along. The manuscripts that he chose to preserve all had their reasoning and I wanted to have access to it all. So I use multiple modern translation alongside my KVJ and have found that the claims about “missing” verses all have legitimate reasoning behind them. Sometimes I disagree and prefer to use the missing parts in my reading anyways. But what KJV only Infographs never tell you when they make their “missing verses” claims is that the missing verses are actually still there. If they aren’t in brackets, they will be in footnotes. And it’s not as tho, “these verses have less merit because they aren’t in the oldest manuscripts so they shouldn’t be trusted” they are included because these people are like me and we want it all. If God preserved it somewhere in any manuscript, I wanna see it and study it as Gods preserved Word. The bracketing just gives me more details as to its origin, same as the italics in the KJV. Also, one last thought to add about the literal vs dynamic translation point…. First, modern translations are done in a variety of ways so you can have your cake and eat it too. Some are more dynamic while others like the ESV follow the same principles as the KJV translators (standing on the shoulders of their great work as the ESV preface claims) while others are more dynamic for understandability reasons. Let me give a personal example of why this can be good. In Proverbs (forgot the address) I was reading in the KJV about the way of the traveler leading to poverty. And in my mind, I took it to mean that traveling and vacationing and exploring will cost money and lead to poverty so we should avoid that. I taught this to my kids because it came from the Bible. And yes, I looked up the Hebrew Word for “traveler” and it meant , one who moves about. But one day reading a modern translation, they used the word, vagabond or robber. It took me by surprise to think they would blatantly twist the meaning like that. This was not a literal translation of that word. I knew cuz I had looked it up! So I did some digging and it turns out I had misunderstood the literal meaning of the word because I didn’t understand how that word was being used. In its context and in the original language, it wasn’t just a traveler but someone who had no home and wandered about from place to place making their living by dishonest means…. or, a vagabond. So even tho I had a literal translation of the word, it didn’t help me understand the meaning because it was being used in a way that meant something else. Anyone who understands languages knows that words can have a shift in meaning simply by how they are used. “Did you GET it” vs “Did you GET hit”. Again my conclusion is, why not use both in Bible study. When you know what your translation tends to use, you can use the tools you have properly. Also, even the KJV at times uses dynamic translation. The phrase “God forbid” is not the words of the original language. But they conveyed a stronger, more emphatic “no” as the original was trying to convey and the translators rightly used a phrase that meant the same thing to the readers of their day even tho those words were not there in the original. My biggest frustration with KJV onlyism isn’t that they use the KJV for themselves. I do too. It’s that they bind the conscience of others by using old arguments that have been proven to be falsified. All they are left with is a matter of preference and nostalgia which is fantastic for making a personal choice. But it’s a terrible reason to make a kid with autism learn archaisms. I love my brothers in Christ but I wish they would dig deeper into the sources of these lies they repeat.
@@bensbab thank you for sharing that personal story. I'm an outside observer, but it is truly heart-breaking seeing brothers and sisters being misled in the name of the Lord.
I'm teaching my son, whose first language is not English because of being born and living in another country, to read the KJV. He's nine, and yes it is difficult because of his age and because there are just words he doesn't know in a bilingual home, but he is growing in both his Bible and English knowledge and I explain the words to him as I explain what the passage means. The KJV is not out of the intellectual grasp of anyone who speaks English well and really wishes to learn God's Word.
I am glad that the KJV used formal equivalence. And frankly, it could have been more formal without becoming a stilted literal translation for study only. But formality does not mean they understood all the words properly. For instance, the one or two Hebrew words for vanity, uselessness, Meaningless, etc. do not occur in the book of Ecclesiastes. It is a word that means vapor, temporal, transitory, impermanence, fleeting. If vanity is the correct translation, we have some very important direct contradictions to scripture and within the book itself. But when we translate The Hebrew word, which is also the name Abel, who was not vain, meaningless, or useless, as vapor and transitory,l, the book's meaning explodes to the surface accurately, and as a very positive wisdom book rather than a book with the supposed Eric conclusions of a backslidden king. The book itself says it was written after returning from being Backslidden. Anyway
First off I would like to say I believe the every word of the Bible is true. The Bible says of itself, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. This means the Bible contains instructions and principles that will prepare a believe for every important decision, like what Bible to use. As I was reading a few years back in Deut 17:18-19, God helped me see a directive that I believe applies to choosing which Bible to use. God instructs Israel through Moses, that when a new king (which Israel did not have a king at that time) takes the throne over Israel, he should make a copy of the book that is before the Levites (or that Bible as it existed to that point) for reading all the days of his life. So God was granting authority/permission to human kings to make a copy for daily reading. King James, when he came to sit on his throne, commissions the creating a copy of the Bible for daily reading for all people and not just his personal reading. I think it is cool that the KJV is also known as the authorized version, because I believe God authorized kings, including King James, to make a copy. Obviously, God has blessed men for over 400 years now because the daily reading of this authorized version which confirms its authority. Many revivals have occurred through the preaching of this version. NO other version of the Bible can claim to be authorized by a king like the authorized version. And God's word again proves true because it does instructs us on this good work, if we are willing to follow it.
I actually like the KJV for its difficult places. KJV scholar David Norton defends some of the ambiguity in the text by saying, “Equally what may appear bad through incomprehensibility or sheer ugliness often comes from its earnest fidelity to the originals.” Robert Alter commenting on the Hebrew text says, “the Bible itself does not generally exhibit the clarity to which its modern translators aspire: the Hebrew writers reveled in the proliferation of meanings, the cultivation of ambiguities, the playing of one sense of a term against another, and this richness is erased in the deceptive antiseptic clarity of the modern versions…”
There's power in a kings word...they take away from the Word of God. The Gospel can he received through word of mouth but doctrine must come through the Word of God. In other versions they skip verse 37 on the scripture below. Acts 8:36-38 KJV And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, 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.
I love the KJV, but the men of God who translated it were not KJV Only... Below is just one of many comments they made in their preface to the KJV "The Translators to the Reader." "Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most Holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered [Gen 29:10]. Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which was deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with"
I like a lot of your reasons like the language being more high and reverend but I also think the KJV has some translation mistakes and needed to be fixed so I like to read the NKJV especially for personal reading but in some contexts I like to use the KJV to make Christ's word sound more reverend for he is the most holy so your video was helpful in seeing other people's views.
The NKJV removes: - "Hell" 22 times - "blood" 23 times - "repent" 44 times - "Heaven" 50 times - "God" 50 times - "Lord" 66 times - "Jehovah" entirely - "New Testament" entirely - "damnation" entirely It also implies false doctrine in Matthew 7:14 when it calls salvation "difficult".
Making a genuine idol out of the KJV has become one of Christian culture's punching bags. It's more of a meme than an issue that needs to be addressed.
The KJV is THE HOLY BIBLE for all English speaking people. Nothing good came from so-called new and improved Bibles. Westcott and Hort have been a curse to Christianity.
Scripture please that says KJV is the Holy Bible for English speaking people. There isn't one. KJV onlyism is a curse to Christianity. Not Westcott and Hort. So many lies said about them from the KJV only cult.
I do not disagree with you, but my one criticism is that I would be careful with the Shakespeare versus King James argument. I believe it is a bit of a straw man argument. Shakespeare was originally in English, where has the Bible wasn't. So I do not believe it is equivalent to make the point that no one would change Shakespeare but would change translations.
As a King James Bible defender for years and having heard that language barrier argument many times, I personally thought that was a brilliant way to show the fallacy of the claim that the KJV is too archaic. The same parents who applaud their children for memorizing Shakespeare knowing how it elevates them academically, will argue that the KJV is just too hard to understand. I plan to use that point in every future conversation where the subject arises about choosing an easier version.
The gospel is the power of God unto salvation - NOT a translation. I only use the KJV myself but I don’t deny those who use other versions can know God.
Love the KJV. Some say that is a hard version to read. English is my second language, Romanian being my first. I have no problem comprehending any of the words found in the KJV Bible. PS. I had and read other versions and do not trust them.
I concur brother. I do have other versions, but over the years as I've studied the differences between those versions and the KJV, I find more and more that when I read from the KJV I have no doubt that I'm reading the word of God without corruption. When I read from those other versions there are always questions and doubts about the accuracy of the text, even in the NKJV; which claims that their New Testament is based on the Textus Receptus. It may claim that, but I still find subtle differences in how it's translated that just don't sit right with me. But what do I know? I'm just a nobody telling everybody about Somebody who can save anybody. God bless.
Count evry words in kjb 1611...there are 823.543 words..it is 7⁷....n look at acts 16:11...samothrake av mount fengari that heigh is 1611 mtrs, n when make lines from the places that mention in that verse..it point london as the place where first kjb 1611 was printed... i shared what truth is christ channel av found..
This my first time seeing your videos ,so thanks.The points you made here are very good ,it reminds me of a calvinist (im not Calvinist )pastor named Joel Beeke on why use the KJV, between you and him (Mr.Beeke),have gave me much to think on I've already made up my decision before watching this video . As I was going through the other translations of the Bible particularly the LSB translation I found much to be desired, which has always been the logical conclusion is to go back to the King James translation, and the thought always came back why do I always go back to this translation where I can know and trust what's being taught. And what really gets me is that if I decided to copy the Bible from like say the LSB translation for the NIV translation of the nasb translation and I decided to copy the whole entire Bible I can get in trouble for doing that. But it's amazing how I can get in trouble for copying the whole King James translation of the Bible. Most Christianity has become a franchise, schooling has become a franchise, the Bible has become a franchise, Christian books have become a franchise. We get angry at those who see Christianity as a franchise rather then see a people's sold out for Christ.
Why are most kj only people very angry people? In my experience, trying to have brotherly dialogue mostly ends up with them raising their voices and getting angry? I thought only those losing an argument and being insecure acted like that?
Thank you for sharing your views. Some responses: First, the TR is not 2000 years old. That's the whole point of critical Bibles. We now have many NT manuscripts that are much older than what the TR is based on. The TR is one early modern compiling of the available texts at the time. Second, mainstream linguists do not believe there is an "apex" of any language, and certainly not English. Language is always changing. 17th century English is a "corruption" of previous forms of English, Old and Middle. Third, the reason we don't change Shakespeare is that those are the words he wrote. But the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, not English. By reading English, you are "changing the words of Holy Scripture" and "dumbing things down." I'd respect your position more if you put as much effort into teaching children those languages as you do into preserving a 17th century Bible. Fourth, you are underestimating the serious problems with the readability of the KJV. And there are many, many "false friends" in that Bible, words that people think they know, but really don't because their meaning has changed substantially over the last 400 years. Fifth, the New King James has all the primary qualities you mentioned as vital: using the TR, literal translation, a high register of language. Not being willing to (also) use even the NKJV by appealing to some vague sense of "tone" is simply a form of nostalgia, of clinging to the past, not reverence for the Bible itself. Sixth, your citation from Matthew 4:4 was interesting to me on two counts: (1) The KJV translation of the Greek in Matthew does not correspond precisely to the quoted Hebrew verse as found in the Masoretic Text (which KJV uses). The Hebrew says: "...anything that comes forth from the mouth of God"; it doesn't say "word." And that makes sense because God is talking about how He sustained Israel with manna and not bread. But the Greek ῥήματι can also be used to mean "thing," which would bring it much closer to the MT. Conclusion: no translation is perfect. (2) The quote you put on the screen is not from the KJV-which says "proceedeth," not "proceeded."
@@loganvaughn3920Of course not. It is rejecting the Lord Jesus Christ as saviour not what bible translation you read that will take you to hell. What did people do before 1611? KJV onlyism indefensible umbilical cancer that Satan has raised up.
The Church (Body of Christ) established by Christ in 33 AD, which was responsible for composing the first Bible, the Canon of Scripture is the authority, not the Bible.
Psalm 12:6-7 says, "The words of the LORD are pure words: As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever". Thank God he preserved his pure words in the King James Bible!!
The KJV has many mistranslations, and added uninspired verses. Also the archaic English where so many words have changed meaning or not even in use. Makes it more inaccurate. Which is why God has blessed us with more accurate modern translations in English we can understand. KJV onlyism is idolatry.
Brother, I can tell that you have a great zeal for the people of God . I would ask of you to dig a bit deeper on this topic . Please read Dr Mark Wards book “ Authorized “ the use and misuse of the KJV . Have you taken the time to read the Letter to The Reader that was written by Myles Smith and was printed as an introduction originally to the KJB ? A good small work on this is by Joshua Brazon . Keep Digging Brother, love your kind and forward approach .
Ecc 2:8 I gathered me also silver and gold, and the peculiar treasure of kings and of the provinces: I gat me men singers and women singers, and the delights of the sons of men, as musical instruments, and that of all sorts. KJV The original manuscripts say nothing about musical instruments.
The same word is in the text twice, once translated "musical instruments" and second "that of all sorts." It' looks like that word is difficult to translate. Hebrew is harder to translate word-for-word than Greek is.
1. The KJV only used the TR as a supporting text, the KJV mainly utilized existing english translations as the basis of translation, most notably the Bishops Bible for which the KJV was ordered to be a revision of. This is stated in the preface. 2. Where are you getting the idea that the church utilized the received text for 1900 years? Firstly, the Latin Vulgate was not based on the Byzantine text types. Secondly, the oldest pieces of manuscripts we have in our possession, such as P75, P52, and several others that predate the 3rd century, are of the Alexandrian Text type. We don't have Byzantine Text manuscripts from nearly this early. There is absolutely zero evidence for your claim. 3. In terms of Church history, the KJV has only existed for about 20% of the NT Church existence. In the context of church history, the KJV is modern as well. Your idea of what makes a modern translation is too subjective in the grand scheme of church history. 4. No, most modern versions are not dynamic equivalent. The scale you show literally shows this. Nobody uses the Living bible, and nobody uses the Message bible on a significant scale enough for you to reference those. The only Dynamic equivalent bibles relevant to this conversation is the NLT and the NIV. The ESV, CSB, NKJV, MEV, and the NASB, which make up the majority of modern bible users, are all formal equilevant. 5. Your points on authoritative language is too subjective. "You shall not" is found countless times in many modern versions. You're being dishonest. 6. "Dumb down the language" Where do you get this? Modern english is dumbing down the language? If English has progressively gotten "dumbed down", was it at it's height during the Wycliffe Translation? 7. No, you're blatantly wrong on the "heightened language". The KJV translators say in their preface that the KJV was to be translated for the laymen. The common folk. And they reitereated the use of multiple translations: There as St Augstine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures. The KJV follows the same readability of the Bishops bible, the Geneva Bible, the Great, Matthews, and Tyndale bibles because they're all revisions of eachother. The KJV uses english that was already falling out of use because the parent translation it was to revise had used it, the Bishops Bible. This is stated in their preface. 8. Your subjective stories of how some kids were able to understand your translation is a logical fallacy. Anecdotal experiences do not trump data, nor the facts of the common man. 9. lol. Shakespeare has been revised a dozen times over into our modern tongue. 10. "Translated in the right way" How so? You're not a textual critic. I'm eager to learn how you would know the textual translation decisions the translators made if you cannot ready Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew. I wonder if you have a 1611 KJV, because it it's original form, it had difference senses in the footnotes and the margins. Different words that could be translated different ways. Want me to provide you with a photo of mine? It's there. Clearly you've never seen it. 11. "The modern versions are all copyrighted". Yes, because you reside in America. Where the modern translations are taking place. How is the UK supposed to enforce their national copyright laws on the KJV in America? Also, there's multiple modern versions not under copyright law in America because of expiration. Tell me. Would you believe it would be right if someone changed the verse in the KJV "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" to "Believe on the Evil Jesus Christ and thou shalt never be saved" and then that editor publish that new text and advertise is the KJV? Would that be right? Would you support that? That's what copyright protects modern versions from. Ignorance is bliss. 12. "Nonsense of the modern versions". How so? Nonsense that they provide the strongest Trinitarian verse intepretation in John 1:18? Really? To conclude. Sir, this is one of the worst videos I have seen on this topic, next to Robert Breaker's Math Science and prophesy reasoning of using the KJV. This is divisive. This is intellectual dishonesty. You have either not critically reasoned with this argument, or simply have not studied it. I consider you a brother in Christ. And I can respect you. But when you attack modern version readers so abruptly, I can't help but believe you are cultic in your belief. Shameful..
What is your view of New King James version (NKJV)? Our Churches have strayed little by little and now the lines are blurred. We were firm King James only and now use we versions as resources. I like your reasoning.
I recently have been convicted. I'm currently reading A Testimony Founded Forever by James H. Sightler, M.D. I, also own Gail's New Age Bible Versions.
I Only TRUST The KJV! THE HOLY SPIRIT Gives Revelation. Not Translators. REPENT Means What It Means. Newer Versions Change GOD"S Inspired WORD... Example: Variations Include RELENT! So We Must "Relent" And Believe The Gospel? Are They Serious? Amen! 8:36 They Change It For A Money Grab! Copyrights (Man's Law) Which Transgress GOD'S Commandments! In The KJV - Proverbs 119 "Quicken" Is Mentioned 11 Times! It's Very Important To Be Lead By The Holy Spirit! Please Take Note: In The KJV - John 6 : 63 “It Is THE SPIRIT That QUICKENETH: The Flesh Profiteth Nothing:
Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism. I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin, but not the Greek so out it goes. Good will towards men Doxology in Matthew Without cause God manifest in the flesh Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin, so out they go The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek and Latin so out they go. Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8 some throw out. If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem, what would you see as a problem?
Thank you. You are not “King James Ugly.” Thank you for your sincerity and respect. Though I use the KJV almost exclusively, I decided long ago to not be counted among the KJV-Onlyers. Why? 1-I said, “almost exclusively.” I do, occasionally, consult some parts of other translations. I do not do that often, because I have access to the Greek and Hebrew. ---- ----- 2- The KJV Only movement is represented horribly. Many proponents and defenders would do the movement more good by saying nothing. Why? Many KJV onlyers do not seem to know the difference between verifiable facts and opinions. Opinions are acceptable, but not when presented as fact. The rank and file of KJO seem oblivious to the difference of fact and opinion not only in themselves, but in their teachers! And do not teachers come under the greater judgement in this matter? ----- ------ 3- There is also a difference between opinion and bias. An opinion is not only acceptable but should be encouraged to be properly formed and used. Every court in the nation accepts “expert witnesses” for opinions based upon at least some verifiable facts but also including other elements, such as experience, observation, the opinion of respected others and so forth. Opinions, then, may rise or fall individually by the degree of veracity involved. ---- ---- Bias, however, is another story. An accurate description is difficult to collate. It is a messy subject as is often the mind in which it thrives. It is difficult to convince a person who displays bias because not all of its evils are always present. Among its many salient features are: (a) no solid foundation for the belief, (b) inability to show a logical process in which the belief was formed as a conclusion - or when, (c) stubbornness, refusing to accept verifiable facts that threatened the bias, (d) demonizing, by statement or implication, anyone who does not agree, (e) shielding, even blocking, others from hearing another side, (f) silencing, overtly or clandestinely, those of a different point of view and so on. That’s bias and some of its fruit. You shall know them by their fruit. --- --- 4 In my experience, many KJVO’s do not know the first thing about logical fallacies. Especially, the fact (fact) that arguing from authority is a logical fallacy. ----- ---- Conclusion: As a young man, I read D.O. Fuller’s landmark book, “Which Bible?” way back in the early ‘70’s. I have sometimes been counted as a KJV-only person by some who know me. It’s because I support KJV unashamedly and refute the silly arguments offered against it. However, if I find out that someone counts me as KJVO,, I flatly correct the notion. I mostly use the KJV, but NOT exclusively. There is a huge difference between “consulting other sources” for specific information and elevating those sources. Whether the majority text is best is “verifiable,” to some, and with others, “opinion.” ----- ---- Years ago, publishers put footnotes in “modern” versions saying that “some” or “oldest” manuscripts did not include _____. Then publishsers started noting that “the best manuscripts” did not include ____. Now, publishers have no shame in simply deleting the passages altogether! If any publisher reads this, I encourage you to check the warning at the end of the Book of Revelation, unless you have deleted that too! *** Brother, I’m an old timer, but I know we are not sent to pull tares out of the wheat. At the harvest, God’s angels will know what to do.
@dthomson8619 Concerning the insertion of footnotes by the “editors” - keep in mind the a cautious warning: From Scripture to margin to footnote small; to footnote large, to now no need of Scripture at all.
My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
@@strengthforlifepensacola Then, brother, how is it that I can read and listen to dozens/hundreds of KJV-Only books, articles, tracts, sermons, debates, and TH-cam videos and find that the NKJV and MEV are almost never mentioned? Why use the KJV exclusively if the underlying text is the real issue?
@@markwardonwords The NKJV and the MEV are unnecessary. And, the NKJV is riddled with critical text influence according to it's margins in the N.T. I'm sure you're familiar with the letters "nu." Have you ordered Ouellette's book as is suggested in this video? It's terrific. Please pick up a copy today. We get no commission for suggesting his book, just want to help you understand these issues. Dr. Ouellette will help you understand these things in a more comprehensive way than a YT comment section can. Also, well-respected author, Dr. David Sorenson, has a book entitled "God's Perfect Book." We hope that helps. thank you for your comment and feedback.
@@strengthforlifepensacola Brother, I have carefully read through Ouellette’s book, and I have referenced it repeatedly to make sure I understood what he was saying. I have also read carefully through Sorenson’s book that you mention. I have written a lengthy review of Ouellette’s book on my blog, but I don’t think I can link to it or TH-cam will kill my comment. I have also done a review of Sorenson’s book on my TH-cam channel. I found both books unpersuasive, to say the least. I get the way you must feel: people like me just won’t listen. Perhaps you can imagine that I feel the same way about you. It’s so sad, because we share so much-a belief in biblical inerrancy, in the gospel, in Christ’s blood, in the necessity of evangelism (to name just a few). The one area where I wonder if we can make some progress and listen to one another is in the area of readability. You dismissed readability arguments as “lame,” but for me they are very important-because I just want to know what God said, and I want others to know it as well. Growing up on the KJV, and memorizing hundreds of verses and phrases in it, I knew as you know that there are “dead words” inside: words I knew I didn’t know, like “besom,” “chambering,” and “emerod.” Those words can be looked up. But what I didn’t realize until I studied the original languages and started using contemporary versions (like the NKJV) was that there are “false friends” in the KJV, words and phrases I didn’t know I didn’t know-not because I was a dummy, not because the KJV translators made mistakes, but because of language change over the centuries. I feel certain that you, too, are being tripped up by most of these false friends. Do you want to understand all the English words in the KJV you read and preach from? Ouellette and Sorenson won’t teach you. They also dismiss readability arguments. But I will teach you if you want to know. “Except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.” (1 Cor 14:9 KJV) (The NKJV is not “riddled with critical text influence.” It uses the TR, not the critical text. If you object to textual footnotes being in the margins of your Bible, then you must object to the KJV translators who did the same thing. I have a blog post on this as well.)
@@strengthforlifepensacola Brother, I have carefully read through Ouellette’s book, and I have referenced it repeatedly to make sure I understood what he was saying. I have also read carefully through Sorenson’s book that you mention. I have written a lengthy review of Ouellette’s book on my blog, but I don’t think I can link to it or TH-cam will kill my comment. I have also done a review of Sorenson’s book on my TH-cam channel. I found both books unpersuasive, to say the least. I get the way you must feel: people like me just won’t listen. Perhaps you can imagine that I feel the same way about you. It’s so sad, because we share so much-a belief in biblical inerrancy, in the gospel, in Christ’s blood, in the necessity of evangelism (to name just a few). The one area where I wonder if we can make some progress and listen to one another is in the area of readability. You dismissed readability arguments as “lame,” but for me they are very important-because I just want to know what God said, and I want others to know it as well. Growing up on the KJV, and memorizing hundreds of verses and phrases in it, I knew as you know that there are “dead words” inside: words I knew I didn’t know, like “besom,” “chambering,” and “emerod.” Those words can be looked up. But what I didn’t realize until I studied the original languages and started using contemporary versions (like the NKJV) was that there are “false friends” in the KJV, words and phrases I didn’t know I didn’t know-not because I was a dummy, not because the KJV translators made mistakes, but because of language change over the centuries. I feel certain that you, too, are being tripped up by most of these false friends. Do you want to understand all the English words in the KJV you read and preach from? Ouellette and Sorenson won’t teach you. They also dismiss readability arguments. But I will teach you if you want to know. “Except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.” (1 Cor 14:9 KJV) (The NKJV is not “riddled with critical text influence.” It uses the TR, not the critical text. If you object to textual footnotes being in the margins of your Bible, then you must object to the KJV translators who did the same thing. I have a blog post on this as well.)
As you read this comment, please understand that I respect you as a fellow Christian. It is because of my love for you that I will push back on the things I disagree with. Also, I use the KJV all the time - when I open my Logos software, it opens with the KJV on the left and the ESV on the right. My church uses exclusively the KJV as well, and my pastor is one of the most intelligent men I've met. But trial by fire is the best way to purify metals, so here I go. If your church has been indoctrinated to believe something that is not true, then it is your mortal duty as their pastor to preach the truth. How you got to be their pastor is no longer relevant. If you lied or pretended to get to that position, then that was wrong, but it's also possible for a pastor to change his position after becoming a pastor, in which case he should undoubtedly change his preaching. Refusing to change your preaching for the sake of appeasing your current congregation is morally evil. Or, if you don't know the right answer with confidence, then do not preach on that topic until you've studied it more. I'm confused why you believe that we had the TR for "almost two millennia." The book you held up, I think, was Scrivener's TR, which was written after the KJV was published. Scrivener himself did not like the KJV, and so he wrote that compilation specifically guessing at which manuscripts the KJV translators used. So... it's a translation back into Greek from the KJV, which is itself a translation from the Greek. Also, how do you think the KJV authors knew what to write? They used textual criticism, which you can read about in their preface and their footnotes. They had very little to use back then, but today we have thousands of manuscripts - 6000 Greek New Testament manuscripts and over 10000 Latin New Testament manuscripts, all public for any scholar to see. I actually agree with you that scholars put too much emphasis on the importance of older manuscripts over the majority of slightly new manuscripts, but you cannot deny that the KJV translators, if they had lived today, would have used every one of those manuscripts in order to judge which variant was correct. I highly recommend Mark Ward's "KJV Parallel Bible" website. If you believe the Critical Text has been corrupted, then this site will surely change your mind. The Differences between the CT and the TR are completely inconsequential. Mark's TH-cam channel also has an entire video about defending Wescott and Hort, which I will not get into now, as well as dozens of videos on this next point - false friends. The King James Version naturally hampers one's ability to understand the Bible. If reliability entirely trumps legibility, then you should be reading from Scrivener's TR, not the KJV. Clearly, reading from a language that people do not understand is worthless - people need the Bible in their understood language in order to receive edification. I tell you, the KJV was written in a language that no one alive still speaks. The version you use was a revision from a decade and a half later. That translation is ALSO unreadable in certain places to modern speakers, in two main ways. Firstly, there are "dead" words, which are words that cannot be understood on their own because they are completely gone from modern English. I could replace the word "besom" with the word "wgarth'na" and it would have no discernible impact on a person's ability to understand that passage of scripture, because both words mean the same thing to them - they mean nothing, and they will either try their best based on context clues, or they will seek a trustworthy dictionary to learn that word... and, if you're using a dictionary, that is not far from using a commentary or the NKJV. But the more troubling type of word in the KJV is far more threatening to a person's edification than dead words. These are called "false friends." In Spanish, the word "embarazada" sounds very similar to our English word "embarrassed." This is a false friend. That word, in Spanish, means "pregnant." It's impossible to have known that, assuming you do not speak Spanish, and yet it is very likely for you to have assumed that word to mean something very different from what it actually means. The KJV is full of these - Mark's channel is going on one-hundred different words, used thousands of times throughout the KJV. While much of the KJV is understandable given enough repetition and context clues, these false friends are invisible, because you think you know what the word means when you actually do not. For example, if someone is "careful" that does not mean that they take their time to make sure they do something correctly. It means they are "care-full," or anxious. That was a valid and common definition of the word in 1611, when the KJV was written, but we do not use the word in that context anymore. So when Jesus rebukes someone for being careful, unless you have a commentary or another translation, you are almost guaranteed to interpret that incorrectly. Why did you site Matthew 4:4 as evidence for word-for-word translation being superior? If you take that to its logical conclusion, then we should be using the TR, not the KJV. Anyway... You are correct that the KJV is a "word-for-word" translation. So is the NKJV. So is the ESV. However, they are not entirely word-for-word as you would expect, and that is out of complete necessity. To illustrate, let me make up a scenario in reverse. Let's imagine that the inspired Word of God came from English, and we needed to translate it into Greek. In the manuscripts, we find an English idiom, "pushing up daisies" in reference to a dead person, but there is also some symbolic representation of the word "daisies" that could be relevant. In a perfect world, our translation should reflect both sides of this idiom - the Greek readers should understand that the person is dead, and they should also understand the symbolic interpretation of the daisies. Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world, and that idiom makes no sense in Greek. If we were to translate this passage word-for-word, they would have no idea the person was dead. If we were to just say "dead," they would not understand the symbolism of the daisies. We have to either compromise on one or the other, or get creative with our translation, or supply a footnote which explains the idiom. My point is this - word-for-word is probably the worst option here, objectively speaking, because it does not convey the most important aspect of the passage, which is that the man is dead. At the same time, however, there are a lot of "phrase-for-phrase" translations like the NIV which can hardly call themselves "translations" anymore, as they are closer to "paraphrases" or even commentaries. I'm afraid your argument regarding the "tone" of the KJV has fallen on deaf ears this time. I do not care what the "tone" of the Bible is. I care what it says. What did the original authors intend to say to their original audience? I want THAT tone. I agree that the KJV is beautiful, almost poetic at times, but that is not evidence of anything except the amount of time and effort and talent put into making it. I'm sorry, I have to stop watching after you say "the readability argument is lame." Edification requires intelligibility, brother. I got through 80% of it, and I hope you find this response edifying.
By some miracle, AS I WAS TYPING THIS COMMENT, Mark Ward released a very important video titled "A Year of Silence from my KJV-Only Brothers." I highly recommend it.
Any other bible translation will NOT give you the correct doctrine. Major doctrine changes are shattered thru out new versions. Yes, some things are easier to understand, but studying and praying and getting answers of difficult scripture is joyful. I grow and change with the KJB.
Absolutely not true not one doctrine is changed in the more accurate modern translations. Absolute lie from the a KJV only cultist. The deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit is far stronger in modern translations than the KJV. This KJV only cult is idolatrous.
I thank God for the modern translations I like also KJV, but the words are so archaic hard to communicate God's word to a plowboy it is better to communicate the word of God in their own native language...I disagree on this..
I’m leaving this comment before I watch this. (I am planning on watching the entire video) The issue is, if you hand a brand new believer a King James Version, they will be completely lost and more apt to never pick it up again because we simply don’t speak this way anymore! Think about if it was in a different language(which it most certainly was at one point) it would need to be translated right? So you King James only ears are going to argue that this translation, because it most definitely was a translation from another language, is the only one that can be translated correctly. I do believe we need to pray that The Holy Spirit guides us while reading any translation of God’s word and that we need to discern what the text is speaking about or trying to teach us.
I actually disagree. I was a new believer at 18 and started reading a KJV. It was refreshing to me. It was also clear that I wasn't reading something written yesterday. Robert Alter argues, "The degree of temporal distance from inversion at which we stand may actually be an advantage for Bible translation because the switching of expected word order can give the translation a slightly antique coloration and create some resistance to the unfortunate impression conveyed by modern translations that the Bible was written the day before yesterday." Also remember the KJV was not current or modern when it was first printed. Adam Nicolson wrote, “[The King James Bible’s] English is there to serve the original not to replace it. It speaks in its master’s voice and is not the English you would have heard on the street, then or ever...These scholars were not pulling the language of the scriptures into the English they knew and used at home... It was, in other words, more important to make English godly than to make the words of God into the sort of prose that any Englishmen would have written...” Leland Ryken agrees, “The vocabulary is predominantly noncolloquial...The goal of the King James translators was to be answerable to the reverence with which they believed people should approach a sacred text. In their view, the Bible should sound like the Bible, not something as casual as a gossip session in the corner coffee shop.”
So thankful for having the Bible translated in my language
Uh? The ESV, and NASB are in your language.
@@makarov138 oh yes, 100% man. Those are also a great resource. I’m just saying us English speakers are blessed to have the Bible in our tongue. There are still many languages that have never had the Bible translated.
Have a blessed day ❤️
@marcjohnson7669 True. Far from everyone has the Bible in their mother tongue.
I am German, and I became a Christian whilst still living in Germany and I am very grateful to have the Book of Books in my native language. Nowadays, funnily, I have more English Bibles than German ones.
I'm not KJV-only, but I appreciate the kindness you approached this issue with. You were able to communicate your position very well, thank you brother.
Thank you! This was a great explanation, given with a great attitude. I love my King James Bible! The pages of mine have been dampened with tears of sadness as I’ve read it searching for comfort and I found it! They’ve been dampened with tears of joy and thankfulness as I read of how my Savior died in my place. I’m so grateful for my copy of Gods living word. #kjv4life
I have always read from the King James Bible, and always will.
This is a great help. Im starting a Sunday School lesson on where our Bible came from and why we use the King James Bible
Amen Pastor ! I agree with you
The king James Bible has always been the only Bible for me and I love my Bible I won’t ever turn away from the King James Bible .
Although, people could get saved from other translations, when you go deeper, there could be problems
It’s so true that if people changed Shakespeare people would be outraged. The King James is my favorite too.
Shakespeare wrote in English. The God breathed scripture was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Not written in English so the KJV is a translation.
Also, numerically mire sound, than the ither translations
@@henrylaurel1188
Its more than a translation
It has a numerical pattern
@@kathleenking47Numerology is the spirit of divination or witchcraft. The KJV is just an imperfect uninspired translation.
@@henrylaurel1188Exactly! Therefore, you cannot compare Shakespeare with the King James Version of the Bible.
I like what you said about the tone of the Bible. Strict commands for me to follow through out my life. I love my KJV and will not use anything else.
Great , me too.
Thx so much for making and posted this!!@ its a great kinda in a nut shell explanation
Thank you. I love my King James Bible. I appreciate your spirit and your great explanation. You are speaking the truth in love.
I love the verse in Isaiah which says “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.”
Isaiah 40:8
@@jasonhamilton8307 it's says our God. Our!. We have a God that loves us and blessed us with a perfect Word. No man can write what God wrote . Consider the lilies! No man has ever considered the lilies. But Jesus Christ did
Those verses in Isaiah 40 has nothing to do with the KJV only heresy
I started with NLT, and experienced the voice of God in it, then I read the whole Bible in nkjv but as soon as I picked up the KJV it was clear that the depth of the words and structure holds the weight of Gods voice within its text. It is now my choice for me. I feel “robbed” if I ever read other translations.
Same this way
@TrueCelt Honestly God can speak through any of His Translations.
Great explanation, Pastor Johnson
Thank you for sharing!
I still like the KJV. Thanks brother.
I believe the KJV is the Holy Word of God preserved in the language of the last days (English).
Have you got a scripture to support your assertion?.
Thank you! This is a very specific and direct answer to some of my prayer questions! The timing of me watching this video is perfect! Thank you for making it; and, if you ever make a more lengthy video about this, please let us all know!
One of the foundational truths I learned early in my walk. Still cherish the AV after 34 years since I bought my first Bible for 5.00.
I appreciate you sharing this video and your perspective. I have great respect for all congregations that hold firmly to the KJB. During COVID, the only two churches in my area that remained open were independent Baptist churches. It didn’t go unnoticed that both exclusively used the KJB and still held evening services and midweek prayer meetings. As a child I was taught to read using the book of Psalms and encouraged to look up difficult words, which helped prepare me to read Pilgrim's Progress and older sermons. At one time, this issue used to frustrate me, but now I see it as helpful in discerning who to avoid. We only have so much time and I’ve noticed that churches not using the KJB often lean toward less literal interpretations and more socially liberal viewpoints.
I am thankful for the Received Text, the Textus Receptus.
I am thankful for my King James Version of the Bible.
Back before 2020, I would read various versions of the Bible not knowing the history/truth of various versions.
In 2020, a person at the place I worked, pulled me aside one day and told me, he felt God wanted him to tell me to look into the history of the various versions. He is a pastor at a church that reads KJV (TR) only.
I felt kind of indifferent or neutral towards that.
Then a complete stranger near the place I worked on another day in 2020, came up to me and said, they felt like God wanted them to tell me to really look into the history of the versions of the Bible.
And over that week I was hearing on various Christian radio stations of the talk of different translations and versions of the Bible.
I thought ok, God is really getting my attention on all of this.
So, I started looking into it.
I learned how many things were changed and even REMOVED from so many other versions. I was like why on earth would they remove entire verses?
I then learned, the origins of the other translations of the Bible.
There is the Latin Vulgate -> the Sinaiticus, the Vaticanus.
One was found in a trash can, one was found in a library. Both of which were in Catholic churches/locations.
That is a whole other discussion about the Catholic church.
Anyways, they are documents that do not even agree with each other.
They are manipulated by people (Wescott and Hort) who did not believe in the deity of Christ.
The more I look into the teams that worked on the Latin Vulgate, the darker it gets.
The KJV (TR) is the Word of God and the Received Text, was the same in all languages regardless of which language it was translated from.
Also keep in mind, in order for these companies to get money from different versions they MUST be so much % different.
That is a bit of my story of why I read KJV only. (Or at least anything that is actually TR)
Thank you for the balanced explanation. This is a topic I have studied extensively and I agree that the Masoretic and Received Texts are preferred and that equivalence should be as formal as possible. I believe that I have read most of the authors from James R. White to Peter Ruckman. I still believe that the best book on the subject is the first one, The King James Version Defended by Edward F Mills.
The Bible’s text is the issue! A settled text assures doctrinal steadfastness. The ever-changing critical text allows doctrinal wiggle room. Dangerous.
Can you name one doctrine that it changes?
@@keithm1689I would like to second that question.
Every time I have compare the KJV with a good modern translation, I have felt blessed because the message and the gospel has remained unchanged through the centuries.
Praise God for all the dedicated Christian scholars and Bible translators who have brought as the Word of God in understandable English.
@@keithm1689
Modern bibles imply in the notes the longer ending of Mark Is not legitimate . The longer ending speaks of tongues and deliverance and healing are signs all signs of believers .
@@keithm1689 Not all modern Bibles deviate from the TR
I have reviewed the modern versions and they change words, for example fornication is changed to sexual immorality. I like the KJV even though I am Hispanic, and thank God I am using AI to understand the reason for the words written in the KJV. I take the opportunity to learn English and when I translate English words, God speaks to me. God bless you.
One God, One Way to him, One Book!!
What was the one book in 1452?
I'm not KVJ-only, and one thing that's always confused me is when KVJ-only folks claim that new translations "lose some of the meaning of the original text" or something else to that effect. Often in my studies if I reach a difficult passage, I'll read it in a variety of translations to see what multiple groups of translators thought about it. It can help me find the meaning of the usage of a certain word, but I've never found a passage in the NASB/ESV that has any "less meaning" than the KJV, or that wasn't equivalent.
I also like to offer a couple of other defenses, first, I think the accusation of newer translations saying "you should" rather than "thou shalt" is moderately dishonest. Unless you're reading a poorly made thought-for-thought (which I discourage in general), the newer translations maintain just as much authority as the KJV, just without the archaisms. Random example is Isaiah 1:12-15, read that in a modern translation and you'll see they aren't pulling punches.
Second, you mention proponents of newer translations "whining" about readability. Our issue isn't with the "thees and thous," its more to do with defunct words that the pastor ends up defining them in modern terms anyway. To use that Isaiah example again, how often do you hear pastors say something along the lines of " "bring no more vain oblations..." that word oblations means offerings, so "bring no more vain offerings." "? I'd argue to consistently hold that the KJV is written in a superior way, you should never rephrase it to explain it. If "dumbing it down," as you put it, does nothing but detract from the text, then you should never explain a verse in anything less than King James English, because anything else has been dumbed down.
I hope this doesn't come across the wrong way. I believe you're in a brother in Christ, I just disagree on this. :)
The new one removes stuff.
@@GodisGracious1031Ministries What does it remove?
I agree. I love my KJV but you need to understand that it was written about the same time the WCF and the LBCF were. Words have changed in our understanding. For example, did God create EVIL as He said he did in Isaiah 45:7?
He did not. He causes good things and calamities. Calamity was a definition of evil in the 1600's. The KJV is great but needs clarification in some cases in this 21 century.
@@lionelscout Calmity is in the Bible, and seriously, I could have figured out that God was not the author of evil, he did create evil. He created evil to punish people.
modern bible versions are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts (less then 50 manuscripts, mainly codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus) that alter and omit many verses and even contradict each other. The AV/KJV however, is based on the traditional majority text from Antioch; 6000+ manuscripts that all agree in their reading.
Modern versions are corrupt.
Amen. I have plenty of friends and fellow christians that use other versions but ill stick with the kjv its the most accurate. New to the channel. Look forward to other videos!
Dr Mark Ward has many great videos on this subject. Could you please interact with his material?
We've had contact with him. 👍
@@strengthforlifepensacola
I’m sure that Brother Mark would be a great guest on your program!
@@michealferrell1677 No doubt it would be popular.
I stand on it. I'll preach it. Thank you Jesus Christ. Please Lord I'm ready
Thank you for your explanation. One thing I find so frustrating is going to church or any time I listen to a sermon and they are teaching from something other than the King James Bible. It throws me off when trying to follow along and they are reading something different. I feel people do lose the meaning and the importance of what God spoke. The "thees" and "thous" and "hasts" do not bother me at all. When it is all we have read its all we know. Why is it so hard to convince those that are reading other versions that they arent accurate?
That’s how I feel when someone is reading from the KJV. I mean it throws me off because I don’t speak the kings English. I speak modern English. So I always have to look at my modern Bible to see what was being read.
Great video! Thank you!
Thank you for your friendly explaination. I am a 🇳🇱 Dutch 📖 StatenBijbel only.
As an Anglican, I love the Anglican King James Bible. It has so much High Church Anglo Catholic language and implied Anglican doctrine ( not Baptist).
Amen brother! ☝🏼
Kjv May be Harder to understand but only the modern Versions stur Up confusion wether or not gods word is reliable. The modern bibles may have users, but only the Kjv has believers.
Well said!! Interesting info to support what you said about understanding the KJV - this is an excerpt: "THE BIBLE PROGRESSIVELY BUILDS-UP AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE MEANING OF WORDS
Modern testing using the Flesch-Kincaid research company's computerized 'Grade Level Indicator' verifies that only the KJV Bible progressively builds in understanding from Genesis to Revelation, and maintains the easiest reading level. "
The accompanying chart shows that the KJV is easily understood at the 5th grade level compared to the NIV at the 8th grade level. Satan has deceived people to think the degraded English is easier to understand when in fact it just breeds confusion by the author of confusion!
Thank you for providing another great witnessing tool!!
No confusion reading the NIV. Which is easier to read than the archaic KJV. Also stronger on the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit than the KJV. Satan the father of lies and confusion. Has indeed deceived many with the KJV only deception
Well said! Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Supporters of the KJV can be confident there are good reasons for using their Bible. Those reasons prioritize God's promises about His Word and defer to His Word instead of prioritizing human preferences.
the King James Bible is not subject to copyright in the UK, however because of Letters Patent issued by the Crown, only the Queen's Printer may print, publish and distribute the KJV Bible within the UK and its Overseas Territories. The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 recognises this unique arrangement in section 171
That is exactly what was happening in our last church. KJV became a dirty word and the pastor and certain gentlemen in the church were trying so hard to get rid of it entirely and bring on something new. Ours wasn't as obvious as ostracizing people in the church, but it was handled in a very two faced and hypocritical manner that all trust and respect was lost for the spiritual leaders. I don't care what you do personally for a version, but don't pretend you're someone else just to get a foot in the door.
The textual argument is strong. Which book (Oulette or other) would you recommend to dig deeper into that aspect of the KJV versus other versions?
Gail Ripplinger - New Age Versions
There is a LOT of Dr. Peter S Ruckman books I’d recommend for this. I mean a lot.
I have a lot of links on my website.
@@KarenSargentHeavenpainterGail Riplinger proven liar and false teacher. Satan has truly used her with the KJV only deception.
@@jonathanthornton6443Peterson Ruckman another false teacher and KJV only heretic
Nice video. I moved back to KJV after many years in the critical text
Great video!
There is a lot tinkering in the critical text circles. NA29 is coming soon, soon after that you will hear about NA30.
I read from the KJVER and NKJV and I agree with everything you said here
Yhis is what i think of my kjv. "From my cold dead hands"
Question for you pastor: I've recently switched to the NASB (1995) as my default. I noticed on your "timeline" of word-for-word vs. thought-for-thought that was basically 2nd place to to the KJV. Which of your concerns about accuracy do or do not apply to that version? If you HAD to use something other than KJV would NASB (1995) be your second choice? Thanks in advance!
I'm obviously not the pastor but please allow me to comment on your question. At minute 9:00 of this video Pastor Johnson addressed the NASB specifically with this information: Dr. Frank Logsdon, project member of the translation committee for the New American Standard Version (NASB), has denounced his work on that Bible and urged all Christians to return to the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Bible.
My study Bible was NASB for my first 4 years as a Bible believer and God showed me with Luke 4:4 that I wasn't getting what I wanted in the NASB which is "every word of God" found in the King James Bible. compare that reference in the KJV vs NASB. I hope this helps.
The NASB old one and the new one change stuff, they don't even match each other. They also change and remove stuff.
@@GodisGracious1031MinistriesWhat about the at least ten different revisions of the KJV that say different things?. They also change things and remove stuff.
How does Isaiah 28:10 lineup or relate to this discussion on the difference between word for word versus thought for thought?
How does Isaiah 28:10 lineup or relate to this discussion on the difference between word for word versus thought for thought?
I've found that the Scofield Reference, King James Version is more comprehensible than the straight KJV because of, not the Old English pronouns but, the replacement of some of the antiquated words for which there are absolute synonyms, and the explanations of idioms.
The King James Version is the most attacked translation there ever was and still stands strong. There’s a reason for that.
I do not attack the KJV. But KJV onlyism is an indefensible umbilical man made tradition with no scriptural support.
EXXXXXACTLY!!!
We don't have the original manuscripts, and thank God for that. We have hundreds of copies. So instead of making holy sacred idols of a piece of paper, we have the messages themselves preserved for all time. There is no hidden agendas, only good historical work in both the TR and CT. We can have a copy from 300 years after an epistle was sent that was used for the TR, but more modern archaeological discoveries uncover a copy from 100 years after with less words. It is discovered more recently, but is more likely to be accurate. And as we find more and more copies, we can see where copy errors have crept in and get a clearer image of what all the copies were copying from. So getting more historical evidence strengthens every believer.
Comparing 'Thou shalt not...' in a commanding voice, and 'you shouldn't do that..' in an effeminate voice is disingenuous and manipulative. Not to mention, no translation uses the words 'you shouldn't do that'
No, I wouldn't update Shakespeare to modern English, but then we should be happy learning to read biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek. If one thinks that the power of the Holy Spirit is bound to the words written by the biblical authors, you shouldn't be KJV-only, you should be Hebrew-Greek-only. But like the manuscripts themselves, the power of God's word isn't held in one document. His power is shown in that his word is maintained through thousands of years, staying consistent through thousands of copies, and through hundreds of translations. I mean, when I'm reading and I come to a passage that gives me pause, i stop and look it up online to compare versions. And you know what i find... ...they all say the same thing.
I agree, that I prefer formal equivalence and so gravitate more to ESV and NASB, but given the fact that Hebrew and Greek can be idiomatic, I appreciate having dynamic equivalent translations on hand to also compare.
"...literary scholars of the English language, even secular ones, are in unanimity that the King James Bible is the apex of the English language" ...do we have a source on that. Quite a bold claim, I find it hard to believe that scholars from any school are in unanimity about anything...
"We know that it was holy men of God that spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" ...yes, when they wrote it in Hebrew.
"the modern movement through the modern versions to 'dumb down' the English language" ...nobody is dumbing down when they translate something. You can dumb things down, but just doing a new translation doesn't mean things are dumber. That is a false dichotomy.
"he constantly whined about the readablility of the King James" ...that is a an ad hominem attack on a brother. You don't bolster your point by belittling the other side. You can just say he complained or opined without adding insulting commentary.
"We have done our children a great disservice by 'dumbing down' our language..."
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
Romans 8:18-21 ESV
For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God
Romans 8:18-21 KJV
...how is this dumbed down? ...or even markedly different? 'reckon' isn't "smarter" than 'consider'. And you need meditate on either version to really grasp the 'futility' and the 'corruption', and to rejoice in the freedom' or 'liberty'
You can like the word 'reckon' better than the word 'consider', but there is no need to call people who prefer the other dumb.
"I figured out what 'propition' means" ...good, so then the ESV isn't dumbed down for you...
He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 2:2 ESV
Copyrighted works. I do long for the day when some of my favorite translations are in the public domain, but I don't begrudge them getting paid for their work.
For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
1 Timothy 5:18 KJV
It is hard work doing biblical research and graphic design and distribution, and all the myriad other vocations that are involved in producing a translation of the bible. And it is not mine (or yours) place to assign sin when we don't know the intentions behind somebody's heart. Just because the KJV scholars were fed and funded by the crown, doesn't make them any more altruistic. I'm much more keen to assign Peter's admonition of people making 'merchandise of you' to those in the faith healing movement manipulating people out of their money. Not brothers and sisters in the Lord trying in any way to make God's word more accessible.
When you say that the KJV is 100% correct, are you saying you've never had to explain to anyone what a passage meant? I don't think that's what you mean, and that is all other translations are trying to do.
"nonsense of the modern versions" ...I don't see any examples of that.
Finally, you asked why we are thankful for the King James Version. Personally, I very much enjoy the poetic tone in many passages and i read it frequently. And I'm thankful for it in the same way I'm thankful for the other English translations, and the Spanish, and French, and German, and Danish, and Chinese, and the hundreds of other languages that God's inspired word has been translated into... ..those men in 1611 translated the Hebrew and Greek to the language of their day so more people could read God's word, just like all the translators are doing today.
Excellent rebuttal. Many of these points are ones I wanted to add myself. There are so many deceptive arguments that good men are listening to and perpetuating. It breaks my heart. The copyright lie, the “dumbing down” claim and “apex of English” nonsense. So sad!!!
I was in a KJV only church for 35+ years. Their position on it wasn’t ugly but shared many of the same reasons as this video. The pastor was an intelligent and kind man and shared many of his books on the issue with people including myself so I was well read on the arguments of why we were KJV only. I personally owned many books on the topic including New Age Versions.
The breakdown for me occurred when I discovered the rank dishonesty of a few of the arguments perpetuated in the KJVO circles. If you sit and look up the sources for these books, so many of them were just repeated from other KJV onlyists and had no original source. Gail Riplinger’s book was the most shocking to discover the deliberate misquoting of her sources. And some of the sources she claimed were even nonexistent. Many of the “good” books, like Oulette, were just repeating old arguments that had their beginnings with men like Ruckman who was an extremely hateful and dishonest man.
All my life I’d been told that Wescott and Hort were not to be trusted and anything that came from them was to be avoided. Yet here I was with a shelf full of books with argumentation that originated from men that were also not to be trusted.
I began the painful process of weeding out every argumentation that lacked proper sourcing (copyright claims, greater readability claims, attacks on the character of the modern translators) and found that the only argumentation I was left with was claims about verses being “removed” and textual preference.
So then I began to compare and ask why the modern translations differ. Instead of comparing to the KJV as my standard, I appealed to the original languages (which I do no read so I had to still trust lexicons and multiple other resources). It was hours of wading through information that was beyond me and I began to discover that once again I was at the mercy of trusting translators who did actually understand all this stuff.
So in my next step, I began to ask, since I clearly must trust someone, who can I trust? Anyone who gleaned any of their information from someone like Riplinger or Ruckman was off limits. I’ll shorten the story and say, ultimately I realized that God was the one I should be trusting all along. The manuscripts that he chose to preserve all had their reasoning and I wanted to have access to it all. So I use multiple modern translation alongside my KVJ and have found that the claims about “missing” verses all have legitimate reasoning behind them. Sometimes I disagree and prefer to use the missing parts in my reading anyways. But what KJV only Infographs never tell you when they make their “missing verses” claims is that the missing verses are actually still there. If they aren’t in brackets, they will be in footnotes. And it’s not as tho, “these verses have less merit because they aren’t in the oldest manuscripts so they shouldn’t be trusted” they are included because these people are like me and we want it all. If God preserved it somewhere in any manuscript, I wanna see it and study it as Gods preserved Word. The bracketing just gives me more details as to its origin, same as the italics in the KJV.
Also, one last thought to add about the literal vs dynamic translation point….
First, modern translations are done in a variety of ways so you can have your cake and eat it too. Some are more dynamic while others like the ESV follow the same principles as the KJV translators (standing on the shoulders of their great work as the ESV preface claims) while others are more dynamic for understandability reasons. Let me give a personal example of why this can be good. In Proverbs (forgot the address) I was reading in the KJV about the way of the traveler leading to poverty. And in my mind, I took it to mean that traveling and vacationing and exploring will cost money and lead to poverty so we should avoid that. I taught this to my kids because it came from the Bible. And yes, I looked up the Hebrew Word for “traveler” and it meant , one who moves about. But one day reading a modern translation, they used the word, vagabond or robber. It took me by surprise to think they would blatantly twist the meaning like that. This was not a literal translation of that word. I knew cuz I had looked it up! So I did some digging and it turns out I had misunderstood the literal meaning of the word because I didn’t understand how that word was being used. In its context and in the original language, it wasn’t just a traveler but someone who had no home and wandered about from place to place making their living by dishonest means…. or, a vagabond. So even tho I had a literal translation of the word, it didn’t help me understand the meaning because it was being used in a way that meant something else. Anyone who understands languages knows that words can have a shift in meaning simply by how they are used. “Did you GET it” vs “Did you GET hit”. Again my conclusion is, why not use both in Bible study. When you know what your translation tends to use, you can use the tools you have properly. Also, even the KJV at times uses dynamic translation. The phrase “God forbid” is not the words of the original language. But they conveyed a stronger, more emphatic “no” as the original was trying to convey and the translators rightly used a phrase that meant the same thing to the readers of their day even tho those words were not there in the original.
My biggest frustration with KJV onlyism isn’t that they use the KJV for themselves. I do too. It’s that they bind the conscience of others by using old arguments that have been proven to be falsified. All they are left with is a matter of preference and nostalgia which is fantastic for making a personal choice. But it’s a terrible reason to make a kid with autism learn archaisms. I love my brothers in Christ but I wish they would dig deeper into the sources of these lies they repeat.
@@bensbab thank you for sharing that personal story. I'm an outside observer, but it is truly heart-breaking seeing brothers and sisters being misled in the name of the Lord.
I'm teaching my son, whose first language is not English because of being born and living in another country, to read the KJV. He's nine, and yes it is difficult because of his age and because there are just words he doesn't know in a bilingual home, but he is growing in both his Bible and English knowledge and I explain the words to him as I explain what the passage means. The KJV is not out of the intellectual grasp of anyone who speaks English well and really wishes to learn God's Word.
Agree 💯!
Personally I use the CEPHER
It’s similar to your kjv
But translated for messianic Jews 10:16
Are you Messianic Jewish?
@@strengthforlifepensacola yes I am
I use a translation I can understand that uses the correct Greek text I don’t like the modern Greek text
I am glad that the KJV used formal equivalence. And frankly, it could have been more formal without becoming a stilted literal translation for study only. But formality does not mean they understood all the words properly. For instance, the one or two Hebrew words for vanity, uselessness, Meaningless, etc. do not occur in the book of Ecclesiastes. It is a word that means vapor, temporal, transitory, impermanence, fleeting. If vanity is the correct translation, we have some very important direct contradictions to scripture and within the book itself. But when we translate The Hebrew word, which is also the name Abel, who was not vain, meaningless, or useless, as vapor and transitory,l, the book's meaning explodes to the surface accurately, and as a very positive wisdom book rather than a book with the supposed Eric conclusions of a backslidden king. The book itself says it was written after returning from being Backslidden. Anyway
is your church southern baptist or american baptist or Independent Fundamental Baptist or reformed or full gosple or Free Will or Primitive?
We're IFB
@@strengthforlifepensacola hope dont think tm weird there just so many kinds is why i asked i was raised southern baptist
First off I would like to say I believe the every word of the Bible is true. The Bible says of itself, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. This means the Bible contains instructions and principles that will prepare a believe for every important decision, like what Bible to use. As I was reading a few years back in Deut 17:18-19, God helped me see a directive that I believe applies to choosing which Bible to use. God instructs Israel through Moses, that when a new king (which Israel did not have a king at that time) takes the throne over Israel, he should make a copy of the book that is before the Levites (or that Bible as it existed to that point) for reading all the days of his life. So God was granting authority/permission to human kings to make a copy for daily reading. King James, when he came to sit on his throne, commissions the creating a copy of the Bible for daily reading for all people and not just his personal reading. I think it is cool that the KJV is also known as the authorized version, because I believe God authorized kings, including King James, to make a copy. Obviously, God has blessed men for over 400 years now because the daily reading of this authorized version which confirms its authority. Many revivals have occurred through the preaching of this version. NO other version of the Bible can claim to be authorized by a king like the authorized version. And God's word again proves true because it does instructs us on this good work, if we are willing to follow it.
I actually like the KJV for its difficult places. KJV scholar David Norton defends some of the ambiguity in the text by saying, “Equally what may appear bad through incomprehensibility or sheer ugliness often comes from its earnest fidelity to the originals.” Robert Alter commenting on the Hebrew text says, “the Bible itself does not generally exhibit the clarity to which its modern translators aspire: the Hebrew writers reveled in the proliferation of meanings, the cultivation of ambiguities, the playing of one sense of a term against another, and this richness is erased in the deceptive antiseptic clarity of the modern versions…”
I'm king James only
Cynthia Walker
There's power in a kings word...they take away from the Word of God. The Gospel can he received through word of mouth but doctrine must come through the Word of God. In other versions they skip verse 37 on the scripture below.
Acts 8:36-38 KJV
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, 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.
I love the KJV, but the men of God who translated it were not KJV Only... Below is just one of many comments they made in their preface to the KJV "The Translators to the Reader."
"Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most Holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered [Gen 29:10]. Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which was deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with"
👍
I like a lot of your reasons like the language being more high and reverend but I also think the KJV has some translation mistakes and needed to be fixed so I like to read the NKJV especially for personal reading but in some contexts I like to use the KJV to make Christ's word sound more reverend for he is the most holy so your video was helpful in seeing other people's views.
The NKJV removes and change stuff. No errors in KJV.
The NKJV calls salvation "difficult", which is damnable heresy.
@@GodisGracious1031MinistriesMany errors in the imperfect uninspired KJV. Which more accurate modern translations correct.
I agree thats why I use the New King Version. I dont find the 95 NASB dumbed down though
The NKJV removes stuff and waters down.
@@GodisGracious1031MinistriesWhat does the NKJV remove? Also what do you mean by waters down?
@@henrylaurel1188 Its better to do this over email instead of doing it over youtube comments.
The NKJV removes:
- "Hell" 22 times
- "blood" 23 times
- "repent" 44 times
- "Heaven" 50 times
- "God" 50 times
- "Lord" 66 times
- "Jehovah" entirely
- "New Testament" entirely
- "damnation" entirely
It also implies false doctrine in Matthew 7:14 when it calls salvation "difficult".
When a church has made a particular translation its idol , then it’s time to address that wouldn’t you think ?
Making a genuine idol out of the KJV has become one of Christian culture's punching bags. It's more of a meme than an issue that needs to be addressed.
@@strengthforlifepensacola
I’m only emphasizing the zeal that some might have but point well taken .
@@michealferrell1677 Yessir there are those with blind zeal.
The KJV is THE HOLY BIBLE for all English speaking people. Nothing good came from so-called new and improved Bibles. Westcott and Hort have been a curse to Christianity.
Scripture please that says KJV is the Holy Bible for English speaking people. There isn't one. KJV onlyism is a curse to Christianity. Not Westcott and Hort. So many lies said about them from the KJV only cult.
King James Bible all the way to heaven.
The Lord Jesus Christ is the way to heaven not the KJV. Really shows how blasphemous and idolatrous the KJV only cult truly is.
@@henrylaurel1188 John 1:1
I do not disagree with you, but my one criticism is that I would be careful with the Shakespeare versus King James argument. I believe it is a bit of a straw man argument. Shakespeare was originally in English, where has the Bible wasn't. So I do not believe it is equivalent to make the point that no one would change Shakespeare but would change translations.
As a King James Bible defender for years and having heard that language barrier argument many times, I personally thought that was a brilliant way to show the fallacy of the claim that the KJV is too archaic. The same parents who applaud their children for memorizing Shakespeare knowing how it elevates them academically, will argue that the KJV is just too hard to understand. I plan to use that point in every future conversation where the subject arises about choosing an easier version.
Hymns are old fashioned and we sitll sing.
I use the KJV and the (CSB) Christian Standard Bible only.
The gospel is the power of God unto salvation - NOT a translation.
I only use the KJV myself but I don’t deny those who use other versions can know God.
Agreed
Love the KJV. Some say that is a hard version to read. English is my second language, Romanian being my first. I have no problem comprehending any of the words found in the KJV Bible.
PS. I had and read other versions and do not trust them.
I concur brother. I do have other versions, but over the years as I've studied the differences between those versions and the KJV, I find more and more that when I read from the KJV I have no doubt that I'm reading the word of God without corruption. When I read from those other versions there are always questions and doubts about the accuracy of the text, even in the NKJV; which claims that their New Testament is based on the Textus Receptus. It may claim that, but I still find subtle differences in how it's translated that just don't sit right with me. But what do I know? I'm just a nobody telling everybody about Somebody who can save anybody. God bless.
The NKJV removes stuff.
@@GodisGracious1031MinistriesThe KJV adds stuff
Count evry words in kjb 1611...there are 823.543 words..it is 7⁷....n look at acts 16:11...samothrake av mount fengari that heigh is 1611 mtrs, n when make lines from the places that mention in that verse..it point london as the place where first kjb 1611 was printed... i shared what truth is christ channel av found..
This my first time seeing your videos ,so thanks.The points you made here are very good ,it reminds me of a calvinist (im not Calvinist )pastor named Joel Beeke on why use the KJV, between you and him (Mr.Beeke),have gave me much to think on I've already made up my decision before watching this video . As I was going through the other translations of the Bible particularly the LSB translation I found much to be desired, which has always been the logical conclusion is to go back to the King James translation, and the thought always came back why do I always go back to this translation where I can know and trust what's being taught. And what really gets me is that if I decided to copy the Bible from like say the LSB translation for the NIV translation of the nasb translation and I decided to copy the whole entire Bible I can get in trouble for doing that. But it's amazing how I can get in trouble for copying the whole King James translation of the Bible. Most Christianity has become a franchise, schooling has become a franchise, the Bible has become a franchise, Christian books have become a franchise. We get angry at those who see Christianity as a franchise rather then see a people's sold out for Christ.
I meant to say I can't get in trouble for for copying the King James translation.
Why are most kj only people very angry people? In my experience, trying to have brotherly dialogue mostly ends up with them raising their voices and getting angry? I thought only those losing an argument and being insecure acted like that?
Do we seem angry, or are you asking for another reason?
I trow and chode that a crisping (in a wimple) is not suited for cracknels or naughty figs, but for ligures and ouches.
You probably had fun stringing that sentence together haha
@strengthforlifepensacola I did have fun with the words. Scripture says a merry heart does good, like a medicine.
Thank you for sharing your views. Some responses:
First, the TR is not 2000 years old. That's the whole point of critical Bibles. We now have many NT manuscripts that are much older than what the TR is based on. The TR is one early modern compiling of the available texts at the time.
Second, mainstream linguists do not believe there is an "apex" of any language, and certainly not English. Language is always changing. 17th century English is a "corruption" of previous forms of English, Old and Middle.
Third, the reason we don't change Shakespeare is that those are the words he wrote. But the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, not English. By reading English, you are "changing the words of Holy Scripture" and "dumbing things down." I'd respect your position more if you put as much effort into teaching children those languages as you do into preserving a 17th century Bible.
Fourth, you are underestimating the serious problems with the readability of the KJV. And there are many, many "false friends" in that Bible, words that people think they know, but really don't because their meaning has changed substantially over the last 400 years.
Fifth, the New King James has all the primary qualities you mentioned as vital: using the TR, literal translation, a high register of language. Not being willing to (also) use even the NKJV by appealing to some vague sense of "tone" is simply a form of nostalgia, of clinging to the past, not reverence for the Bible itself.
Sixth, your citation from Matthew 4:4 was interesting to me on two counts: (1) The KJV translation of the Greek in Matthew does not correspond precisely to the quoted Hebrew verse as found in the Masoretic Text (which KJV uses). The Hebrew says: "...anything that comes forth from the mouth of God"; it doesn't say "word." And that makes sense because God is talking about how He sustained Israel with manna and not bread. But the Greek ῥήματι can also be used to mean "thing," which would bring it much closer to the MT. Conclusion: no translation is perfect. (2) The quote you put on the screen is not from the KJV-which says "proceedeth," not "proceeded."
The king James version Bible is the only Word of God.
Definitely. We all know Moses, David and Paul spake in ye Old English.
@@itsm00tGod spoke all creation into existence in KJV English. If you believe the lies and deceptions of the KJV only cult.
Which of the at least ten different revisions of the KJV is the word of God? Where was the word of God before 1611?
@@henrylaurel1188
It was in languages other than english, of course.😏
The KJV is so good that people use it to correct the original Hebrew and Greek 😂
The King James is the best!!;
King Jesus bibpe
Will I go to hell if I read other translations?
No. But you’re definitely not going to grow as much in your walk with the Lord.
Would say if we read a different version of God, we should ask yourself do we love the truth.
If get the wrong gospel.
@@loganvaughn3920Of course not. It is rejecting the Lord Jesus Christ as saviour not what bible translation you read that will take you to hell. What did people do before 1611? KJV onlyism indefensible umbilical cancer that Satan has raised up.
@@jamesperkins5752Anybody who loves the truth will reject the lies of the KJV only cult.
“How ugly is she?” “Oh man, she’s King James ugly!”
We accidentally created a meme
The Church (Body of Christ) established by Christ in 33 AD, which was responsible for composing the first Bible, the Canon of Scripture is the authority, not the Bible.
Psalm 12:6-7 says, "The words of the LORD are pure words: As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever". Thank God he preserved his pure words in the King James Bible!!
4:35-4:43 that statement is not true
Kjv has a few mistranslations though lol
The KJV has many mistranslations, and added uninspired verses. Also the archaic English where so many words have changed meaning or not even in use. Makes it more inaccurate. Which is why God has blessed us with more accurate modern translations in English we can understand. KJV onlyism is idolatry.
Brother, I can tell that you have a great zeal for the people of God . I would ask of you to dig a bit deeper on this topic .
Please read Dr Mark Wards book “ Authorized “ the use and misuse of the KJV . Have you taken the time to read the Letter to The Reader that was written by Myles Smith and was printed as an introduction originally to the KJB ?
A good small work on this is by Joshua Brazon .
Keep Digging Brother, love your kind and forward approach .
Thank you for the gracious pushback.
It’s not the words that you don’t know and need to look up but rather the words you don’t know that you don’t know therefore you won’t look them up .
Ecc 2:8 I gathered me also silver and gold, and the peculiar treasure of kings and of the provinces: I gat me men singers and women singers, and the delights of the sons of men, as musical instruments, and that of all sorts. KJV
The original manuscripts say nothing about musical instruments.
The same word is in the text twice, once translated "musical instruments" and second "that of all sorts." It' looks like that word is difficult to translate. Hebrew is harder to translate word-for-word than Greek is.
Where do you find the original manuscripts? I’d love to see them.
We don't have the originals, trust the KJB. Look up Truth is Christ.
1. The KJV only used the TR as a supporting text, the KJV mainly utilized existing english translations as the basis of translation, most notably the Bishops Bible for which the KJV was ordered to be a revision of. This is stated in the preface.
2. Where are you getting the idea that the church utilized the received text for 1900 years? Firstly, the Latin Vulgate was not based on the Byzantine text types. Secondly, the oldest pieces of manuscripts we have in our possession, such as P75, P52, and several others that predate the 3rd century, are of the Alexandrian Text type. We don't have Byzantine Text manuscripts from nearly this early. There is absolutely zero evidence for your claim.
3. In terms of Church history, the KJV has only existed for about 20% of the NT Church existence. In the context of church history, the KJV is modern as well. Your idea of what makes a modern translation is too subjective in the grand scheme of church history.
4. No, most modern versions are not dynamic equivalent. The scale you show literally shows this. Nobody uses the Living bible, and nobody uses the Message bible on a significant scale enough for you to reference those. The only Dynamic equivalent bibles relevant to this conversation is the NLT and the NIV. The ESV, CSB, NKJV, MEV, and the NASB, which make up the majority of modern bible users, are all formal equilevant.
5. Your points on authoritative language is too subjective. "You shall not" is found countless times in many modern versions. You're being dishonest.
6. "Dumb down the language" Where do you get this? Modern english is dumbing down the language? If English has progressively gotten "dumbed down", was it at it's height during the Wycliffe Translation?
7. No, you're blatantly wrong on the "heightened language". The KJV translators say in their preface that the KJV was to be translated for the laymen. The common folk. And they reitereated the use of multiple translations: There as St Augstine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures. The KJV follows the same readability of the Bishops bible, the Geneva Bible, the Great, Matthews, and Tyndale bibles because they're all revisions of eachother. The KJV uses english that was already falling out of use because the parent translation it was to revise had used it, the Bishops Bible. This is stated in their preface.
8. Your subjective stories of how some kids were able to understand your translation is a logical fallacy. Anecdotal experiences do not trump data, nor the facts of the common man.
9. lol. Shakespeare has been revised a dozen times over into our modern tongue.
10. "Translated in the right way" How so? You're not a textual critic. I'm eager to learn how you would know the textual translation decisions the translators made if you cannot ready Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew. I wonder if you have a 1611 KJV, because it it's original form, it had difference senses in the footnotes and the margins. Different words that could be translated different ways. Want me to provide you with a photo of mine? It's there. Clearly you've never seen it.
11. "The modern versions are all copyrighted". Yes, because you reside in America. Where the modern translations are taking place. How is the UK supposed to enforce their national copyright laws on the KJV in America? Also, there's multiple modern versions not under copyright law in America because of expiration.
Tell me. Would you believe it would be right if someone changed the verse in the KJV "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" to "Believe on the Evil Jesus Christ and thou shalt never be saved" and then that editor publish that new text and advertise is the KJV? Would that be right? Would you support that? That's what copyright protects modern versions from. Ignorance is bliss.
12. "Nonsense of the modern versions". How so? Nonsense that they provide the strongest Trinitarian verse intepretation in John 1:18? Really?
To conclude. Sir, this is one of the worst videos I have seen on this topic, next to Robert Breaker's Math Science and prophesy reasoning of using the KJV. This is divisive. This is intellectual dishonesty.
You have either not critically reasoned with this argument, or simply have not studied it. I consider you a brother in Christ. And I can respect you. But when you attack modern version readers so abruptly, I can't help but believe you are cultic in your belief.
Shameful..
So then, why do you not like the GENEVA BIBLE that was published in just 61 years earlier? I use its 1599 version.
What is your view of New King James version (NKJV)? Our Churches have strayed little by little and now the lines are blurred. We were firm King James only and now use we versions as resources. I like your reasoning.
He mentioned that the copyright requires a certain % change of wording. NKJV has a copyright
The NKJV changes, removes and adds.
@@jamesperkins5752The KJV has a copyright as well. Another stupid argument from the KJV only cult.
Amennnnn
I recently have been convicted. I'm currently reading A Testimony Founded Forever by James H. Sightler, M.D. I, also own Gail's New Age Bible Versions.
How is Gail’s book? I’m planning on getting it soon, as I’m really curious how it is. I’ve watched her lectures and they are very interesting
KJV is the most accurate
why is Aragorn talking about the Bible?
I Only TRUST The KJV! THE HOLY SPIRIT Gives Revelation. Not Translators. REPENT Means
What It Means. Newer Versions Change GOD"S Inspired WORD... Example: Variations Include RELENT! So We Must "Relent" And Believe The Gospel? Are They Serious? Amen! 8:36 They
Change It For A Money Grab! Copyrights (Man's Law) Which Transgress GOD'S Commandments!
In The KJV - Proverbs 119 "Quicken" Is Mentioned 11 Times! It's Very Important To Be Lead
By The Holy Spirit! Please Take Note: In The KJV - John 6 : 63 “It Is THE SPIRIT That QUICKENETH: The Flesh Profiteth Nothing:
Meaning the Holy Spirit never gave the KJV translators revelation. Especially as the KJV is under copyright. All that money for the British crown
Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism.
I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin,
but not the Greek so out it goes.
Good will towards men
Doxology in Matthew
Without cause
God manifest in the flesh
Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin,
so out they go
The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek
and Latin so out they go.
Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8
some throw out.
If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem,
what would you see as a problem?
Thank you. You are not “King James Ugly.” Thank you for your sincerity and respect. Though I use the KJV almost exclusively, I decided long ago to not be counted among the KJV-Onlyers. Why?
1-I said, “almost exclusively.” I do, occasionally, consult some parts of other translations. I do not do that often, because I have access to the Greek and Hebrew.
---- -----
2- The KJV Only movement is represented horribly. Many proponents and defenders would do the movement more good by saying nothing. Why? Many KJV onlyers do not seem to know the difference between verifiable facts and opinions. Opinions are acceptable, but not when presented as fact. The rank and file of KJO seem oblivious to the difference of fact and opinion not only in themselves, but in their teachers! And do not teachers come under the greater judgement in this matter?
----- ------
3- There is also a difference between opinion and bias. An opinion is not only acceptable but should be encouraged to be properly formed and used. Every court in the nation accepts “expert witnesses” for opinions based upon at least some verifiable facts but also including other elements, such as experience, observation, the opinion of respected others and so forth. Opinions, then, may rise or fall individually by the degree of veracity involved.
---- ----
Bias, however, is another story. An accurate description is difficult to collate. It is a messy subject as is often the mind in which it thrives. It is difficult to convince a person who displays bias because not all of its evils are always present. Among its many salient features are: (a) no solid foundation for the belief, (b) inability to show a logical process in which the belief was formed as a conclusion - or when, (c) stubbornness, refusing to accept verifiable facts that threatened the bias, (d) demonizing, by statement or implication, anyone who does not agree, (e) shielding, even blocking, others from hearing another side, (f) silencing, overtly or clandestinely, those of a different point of view and so on. That’s bias and some of its fruit. You shall know them by their fruit.
--- ---
4 In my experience, many KJVO’s do not know the first thing about logical fallacies. Especially, the fact (fact) that arguing from authority is a logical fallacy.
----- ----
Conclusion: As a young man, I read D.O. Fuller’s landmark book, “Which Bible?” way back in the early ‘70’s. I have sometimes been counted as a KJV-only person by some who know me. It’s because I support KJV unashamedly and refute the silly arguments offered against it. However, if I find out that someone counts me as KJVO,, I flatly correct the notion. I mostly use the KJV, but NOT exclusively. There is a huge difference between “consulting other sources” for specific information and elevating those sources. Whether the majority text is best is “verifiable,” to some, and with others, “opinion.”
----- ----
Years ago, publishers put footnotes in “modern” versions saying that “some” or “oldest” manuscripts did not include _____. Then publishsers started noting that “the best manuscripts” did not include ____. Now, publishers have no shame in simply deleting the passages altogether! If any publisher reads this, I encourage you to check the warning at the end of the Book of Revelation, unless you have deleted that too!
***
Brother, I’m an old timer, but I know we are not sent to pull tares out of the wheat. At the harvest, God’s angels will know what to do.
@dthomson8619
Concerning the insertion of footnotes by the “editors” - keep in mind the a cautious warning:
From Scripture to margin
to footnote small;
to footnote large,
to now no need of Scripture at all.
My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
We love 1 Corinthians 14! Reading it in the KJV, we find it easily intelligible.
@@strengthforlifepensacola Then, brother, how is it that I can read and listen to dozens/hundreds of KJV-Only books, articles, tracts, sermons, debates, and TH-cam videos and find that the NKJV and MEV are almost never mentioned? Why use the KJV exclusively if the underlying text is the real issue?
@@markwardonwords The NKJV and the MEV are unnecessary. And, the NKJV is riddled with critical text influence according to it's margins in the N.T. I'm sure you're familiar with the letters "nu." Have you ordered Ouellette's book as is suggested in this video? It's terrific. Please pick up a copy today. We get no commission for suggesting his book, just want to help you understand these issues. Dr. Ouellette will help you understand these things in a more comprehensive way than a YT comment section can. Also, well-respected author, Dr. David Sorenson, has a book entitled "God's Perfect Book." We hope that helps. thank you for your comment and feedback.
@@strengthforlifepensacola Brother, I have carefully read through Ouellette’s book, and I have referenced it repeatedly to make sure I understood what he was saying. I have also read carefully through Sorenson’s book that you mention. I have written a lengthy review of Ouellette’s book on my blog, but I don’t think I can link to it or TH-cam will kill my comment. I have also done a review of Sorenson’s book on my TH-cam channel. I found both books unpersuasive, to say the least.
I get the way you must feel: people like me just won’t listen. Perhaps you can imagine that I feel the same way about you. It’s so sad, because we share so much-a belief in biblical inerrancy, in the gospel, in Christ’s blood, in the necessity of evangelism (to name just a few). The one area where I wonder if we can make some progress and listen to one another is in the area of readability. You dismissed readability arguments as “lame,” but for me they are very important-because I just want to know what God said, and I want others to know it as well.
Growing up on the KJV, and memorizing hundreds of verses and phrases in it, I knew as you know that there are “dead words” inside: words I knew I didn’t know, like “besom,” “chambering,” and “emerod.” Those words can be looked up. But what I didn’t realize until I studied the original languages and started using contemporary versions (like the NKJV) was that there are “false friends” in the KJV, words and phrases I didn’t know I didn’t know-not because I was a dummy, not because the KJV translators made mistakes, but because of language change over the centuries. I feel certain that you, too, are being tripped up by most of these false friends.
Do you want to understand all the English words in the KJV you read and preach from? Ouellette and Sorenson won’t teach you. They also dismiss readability arguments. But I will teach you if you want to know.
“Except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.” (1 Cor 14:9 KJV)
(The NKJV is not “riddled with critical text influence.” It uses the TR, not the critical text. If you object to textual footnotes being in the margins of your Bible, then you must object to the KJV translators who did the same thing. I have a blog post on this as well.)
@@strengthforlifepensacola Brother, I have carefully read through Ouellette’s book, and I have referenced it repeatedly to make sure I understood what he was saying. I have also read carefully through Sorenson’s book that you mention. I have written a lengthy review of Ouellette’s book on my blog, but I don’t think I can link to it or TH-cam will kill my comment. I have also done a review of Sorenson’s book on my TH-cam channel. I found both books unpersuasive, to say the least.
I get the way you must feel: people like me just won’t listen. Perhaps you can imagine that I feel the same way about you. It’s so sad, because we share so much-a belief in biblical inerrancy, in the gospel, in Christ’s blood, in the necessity of evangelism (to name just a few). The one area where I wonder if we can make some progress and listen to one another is in the area of readability. You dismissed readability arguments as “lame,” but for me they are very important-because I just want to know what God said, and I want others to know it as well.
Growing up on the KJV, and memorizing hundreds of verses and phrases in it, I knew as you know that there are “dead words” inside: words I knew I didn’t know, like “besom,” “chambering,” and “emerod.” Those words can be looked up. But what I didn’t realize until I studied the original languages and started using contemporary versions (like the NKJV) was that there are “false friends” in the KJV, words and phrases I didn’t know I didn’t know-not because I was a dummy, not because the KJV translators made mistakes, but because of language change over the centuries. I feel certain that you, too, are being tripped up by most of these false friends.
Do you want to understand all the English words in the KJV you read and preach from? Ouellette and Sorenson won’t teach you. They also dismiss readability arguments. But I will teach you if you want to know.
“Except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.” (1 Cor 14:9 KJV)
(The NKJV is not “riddled with critical text influence.” It uses the TR, not the critical text. If you object to textual footnotes being in the margins of your Bible, then you must object to the KJV translators who did the same thing. I have a blog post on this as well.)
As you read this comment, please understand that I respect you as a fellow Christian. It is because of my love for you that I will push back on the things I disagree with. Also, I use the KJV all the time - when I open my Logos software, it opens with the KJV on the left and the ESV on the right. My church uses exclusively the KJV as well, and my pastor is one of the most intelligent men I've met. But trial by fire is the best way to purify metals, so here I go.
If your church has been indoctrinated to believe something that is not true, then it is your mortal duty as their pastor to preach the truth. How you got to be their pastor is no longer relevant. If you lied or pretended to get to that position, then that was wrong, but it's also possible for a pastor to change his position after becoming a pastor, in which case he should undoubtedly change his preaching. Refusing to change your preaching for the sake of appeasing your current congregation is morally evil. Or, if you don't know the right answer with confidence, then do not preach on that topic until you've studied it more.
I'm confused why you believe that we had the TR for "almost two millennia." The book you held up, I think, was Scrivener's TR, which was written after the KJV was published. Scrivener himself did not like the KJV, and so he wrote that compilation specifically guessing at which manuscripts the KJV translators used. So... it's a translation back into Greek from the KJV, which is itself a translation from the Greek.
Also, how do you think the KJV authors knew what to write? They used textual criticism, which you can read about in their preface and their footnotes. They had very little to use back then, but today we have thousands of manuscripts - 6000 Greek New Testament manuscripts and over 10000 Latin New Testament manuscripts, all public for any scholar to see. I actually agree with you that scholars put too much emphasis on the importance of older manuscripts over the majority of slightly new manuscripts, but you cannot deny that the KJV translators, if they had lived today, would have used every one of those manuscripts in order to judge which variant was correct.
I highly recommend Mark Ward's "KJV Parallel Bible" website. If you believe the Critical Text has been corrupted, then this site will surely change your mind. The Differences between the CT and the TR are completely inconsequential. Mark's TH-cam channel also has an entire video about defending Wescott and Hort, which I will not get into now, as well as dozens of videos on this next point - false friends.
The King James Version naturally hampers one's ability to understand the Bible. If reliability entirely trumps legibility, then you should be reading from Scrivener's TR, not the KJV. Clearly, reading from a language that people do not understand is worthless - people need the Bible in their understood language in order to receive edification. I tell you, the KJV was written in a language that no one alive still speaks. The version you use was a revision from a decade and a half later. That translation is ALSO unreadable in certain places to modern speakers, in two main ways. Firstly, there are "dead" words, which are words that cannot be understood on their own because they are completely gone from modern English. I could replace the word "besom" with the word "wgarth'na" and it would have no discernible impact on a person's ability to understand that passage of scripture, because both words mean the same thing to them - they mean nothing, and they will either try their best based on context clues, or they will seek a trustworthy dictionary to learn that word... and, if you're using a dictionary, that is not far from using a commentary or the NKJV. But the more troubling type of word in the KJV is far more threatening to a person's edification than dead words. These are called "false friends." In Spanish, the word "embarazada" sounds very similar to our English word "embarrassed." This is a false friend. That word, in Spanish, means "pregnant." It's impossible to have known that, assuming you do not speak Spanish, and yet it is very likely for you to have assumed that word to mean something very different from what it actually means. The KJV is full of these - Mark's channel is going on one-hundred different words, used thousands of times throughout the KJV. While much of the KJV is understandable given enough repetition and context clues, these false friends are invisible, because you think you know what the word means when you actually do not. For example, if someone is "careful" that does not mean that they take their time to make sure they do something correctly. It means they are "care-full," or anxious. That was a valid and common definition of the word in 1611, when the KJV was written, but we do not use the word in that context anymore. So when Jesus rebukes someone for being careful, unless you have a commentary or another translation, you are almost guaranteed to interpret that incorrectly.
Why did you site Matthew 4:4 as evidence for word-for-word translation being superior? If you take that to its logical conclusion, then we should be using the TR, not the KJV. Anyway...
You are correct that the KJV is a "word-for-word" translation. So is the NKJV. So is the ESV. However, they are not entirely word-for-word as you would expect, and that is out of complete necessity. To illustrate, let me make up a scenario in reverse. Let's imagine that the inspired Word of God came from English, and we needed to translate it into Greek. In the manuscripts, we find an English idiom, "pushing up daisies" in reference to a dead person, but there is also some symbolic representation of the word "daisies" that could be relevant. In a perfect world, our translation should reflect both sides of this idiom - the Greek readers should understand that the person is dead, and they should also understand the symbolic interpretation of the daisies. Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world, and that idiom makes no sense in Greek. If we were to translate this passage word-for-word, they would have no idea the person was dead. If we were to just say "dead," they would not understand the symbolism of the daisies. We have to either compromise on one or the other, or get creative with our translation, or supply a footnote which explains the idiom. My point is this - word-for-word is probably the worst option here, objectively speaking, because it does not convey the most important aspect of the passage, which is that the man is dead. At the same time, however, there are a lot of "phrase-for-phrase" translations like the NIV which can hardly call themselves "translations" anymore, as they are closer to "paraphrases" or even commentaries.
I'm afraid your argument regarding the "tone" of the KJV has fallen on deaf ears this time. I do not care what the "tone" of the Bible is. I care what it says. What did the original authors intend to say to their original audience? I want THAT tone. I agree that the KJV is beautiful, almost poetic at times, but that is not evidence of anything except the amount of time and effort and talent put into making it.
I'm sorry, I have to stop watching after you say "the readability argument is lame." Edification requires intelligibility, brother. I got through 80% of it, and I hope you find this response edifying.
By some miracle, AS I WAS TYPING THIS COMMENT, Mark Ward released a very important video titled "A Year of Silence from my KJV-Only Brothers." I highly recommend it.
Thanks for the pushback
Any other bible translation will NOT give you the correct doctrine. Major doctrine changes are shattered thru out new versions. Yes, some things are easier to understand, but studying and praying and getting answers of difficult scripture is joyful. I grow and change with the KJB.
Absolutely not true not one doctrine is changed in the more accurate modern translations. Absolute lie from the a KJV only cultist. The deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit is far stronger in modern translations than the KJV. This KJV only cult is idolatrous.
I thank God for the modern translations I like also KJV, but the words are so archaic hard to communicate God's word to a plowboy it is better to communicate the word of God in their own native language...I disagree on this..
I’m leaving this comment before I watch this. (I am planning on watching the entire video) The issue is, if you hand a brand new believer a King James Version, they will be completely lost and more apt to never pick it up again because we simply don’t speak this way anymore! Think about if it was in a different language(which it most certainly was at one point) it would need to be translated right? So you King James only ears are going to argue that this translation, because it most definitely was a translation from another language, is the only one that can be translated correctly. I do believe we need to pray that The Holy Spirit guides us while reading any translation of God’s word and that we need to discern what the text is speaking about or trying to teach us.
I actually disagree. I was a new believer at 18 and started reading a KJV. It was refreshing to me. It was also clear that I wasn't reading something written yesterday. Robert Alter argues, "The degree of temporal distance from inversion at which we stand may actually be an advantage for Bible translation because the switching of expected word order can give the translation a slightly antique coloration and create some resistance to the unfortunate impression conveyed by modern translations that the Bible was written the day before yesterday." Also remember the KJV was not current or modern when it was first printed. Adam Nicolson wrote, “[The King James Bible’s] English is there to serve the original not to replace it. It speaks in its master’s voice and is not the English you would have heard on the street, then or ever...These scholars were not pulling the language of the scriptures into the English they knew and used at home... It was, in other words, more important to make English godly than to make the words of God into the sort of prose that any Englishmen would have written...” Leland Ryken agrees, “The vocabulary is predominantly noncolloquial...The goal of the King James translators was to be answerable to the reverence with which they believed people should approach a sacred text. In their view, the Bible should sound like the Bible, not something as casual as a gossip session in the corner coffee shop.”
A new believer will get lost in heresies and wrong doctrine.
@@GodisGracious1031MinistriesEspecially if they fall for the KJV only deception Then they will get lost in heresies and wrong doctrine.