Three reasons to avoid critical text Bibles. NASB NIV CSB ESV NLT
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ย. 2024
- I believe that God's word has been preserved by God (Ps 12:6-7) and is received by the church (1 Cor 11:23, 1 Cor 15:1-3). That it is why it is inerrant and infallible. (2 Tim 3:16 ). Modern Textual criticism is not (2 Peter 1:20 -21). God has preserved his word by commanding the church to share and spread the word (Col 4:16).
The KJV translators even said that they do not have a perfect Bible and are open on this issue.
No they didn't. That a misinterpretation of what they actually said in their preface. They said it was good to consult other sources to get a sense of certain words. They said absolutely nothing about making textual changes or even hinted to it.
It is NOT what the translators 'think' only GOD!
They did think that they had a good number of good, reliable Greek manuscripts that agreed with each other.
They said they wanted to make one principle one.
In Acts 8:37 in the KJV and NKJV tells about Philip baptizing the Ethiopian eunuch. They record this: (in verse 37) Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” The ESV and most modern translations omit this significant verse! There is NO verse 37 in Acts 8 in some of the modern Bible translations!
I never knew that Paul used a King James Bible?
Correct. Not only that, he preached in 17th century Elizabethan English.
It all makes sense now.
Thr Apostle Paul virtually wrote the King James Bible.
@@cvanhaelst4189 Paul wrote in Greek my friend
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
When you actually know truth and know even the translations of the KJV were not KJV ONLYIEST
Well then how come come preface of KJV that apologist for the critical text often misrepresent explicitly says the KJV was the version to be used in all the Churches? Sounds like onlyism to me.
@@Derby_City_Dasher King James outlawed the Geneva Bible and others in favor of his translation, hence the " authorized version." It's was the only version authorized to be used under the rule of King James. I would encourage you, and everyone else to read the preface of the authors of the kjv, who themselves were not kjv onlyiests.
@@ShooterReview I have read it many times. I don't why apologist for modern versions thinking they have something with it. They plainly said that it was not to be justly excepted against. King James successor his Son King Charles also insisted it be the version read in all the Churches as well. The fact you acknowledge that it was to be the version read by all Churches under the authority of the King ought to tell you that if the preface really said what apologist for modern versions try and make it say it would've never seen the light of day. After it was reviewed by the committees it was to be reviewed by the royal council for final approval.
Even if they did say that which they didn't prefaces are not inspired scripture nor does the scripture teach that someone has to know they are being used by God in order for God to use them.
Critical does NOT mean disapproving. in the context used, 'critical' means studious and careful examination.
I'm sure you are a decent person and a Christian, but your exposure of lack of understanding is quite discouraging. Not suitable for teaching others about the Message of God.
Here's an alternative take. You believe God would preserve his word, keeping anyone from removing anything from it (i.e. the T.R., KJV family, etc), but you apparently don't believe God would preserve his word from removals taken out of NIV, NASB, ESV, etc. How can you use the argument that God would preserve his word when you're at the same time declaring that man removed things from it? At one point you said that it was preserved through the church. What if what you're really doing is trusting more in what was held in the hands of elites, themselves men, rather than in what time preserved apart from man? You describe the people who worked on the critical text as believing in the superiority of man. What if they acted faithfully, and prayerfully? Who are you to say that they didn't? If they did, and God worked with them, then wouldn't that be the fulfillment of God preserving his word?
I never understand why people talk against critical texts, but fail to realize that the OG critical text was, in every way, the KJV.
Two different philosophies.
the textus receptus isn't perfect though and disagrees with the majority text in some places.
Whats been my saving grace:
1: KJV is my primary.
2: NKJV & NASB are my reference when needing to further my understanding of a verse FROM my primary.
3: Trusting in the Lord to guide my studies.
When reading the word it has become insanely clear that not a single modern translation carries the depth of meaning in any one respective verse compared to the KJV. I literally use the modern translations because Im interested in seeing another perspective. And honestly, Im usually left feeling upset at how inadequate or how much was subtracted from a particular verse.
KJV is my primary. I will eventually rid myself of my crutches (NASB & NKJV). God knows i long to.
I read the nkjv. I prefer textus receptus. I understand the argument for nasb, esv. I feel more at ease reading nkjv. Modern Bibles give me great pause
As well they should. The NKJV and the KJVER are based on the TR just like the KJV.
@@BradMcFadden as well as the mev. I can’t help feeling like an nasb or an esv is lacking. I know certain verses aren’t in it, but it’s more than that. If I’m reading a kjv or nkjv, I struggle more with understanding and application, than with doubts that The Bible I’m in is “ inferior “. Btw, my least favorite Bible is the NIV
@@BradMcFaddenactually about 75% of the KJV came directly from Tyndale 1525
@@BradMcFadden The NKJV, in the book of the writing of the New King James one of the editors said there is critical txt in every page. The NKJV did remove, add, and change stuff.
You should do a deep study of the discrepancies between the various editions of the TR. Your view that we have a "perfect" word handed down does not line up with reality. While I'm TR preferred, and I use translations based on the TR primarily, I'm not TR only. God didn't hand down a "perfect" New Testament in that, again, there are discrepancies and variants in the Greek manuscripts of the Reformation era. These don't affect the basic doctrines of Christianity, and many are spelling errors, etcetera. But there are errors.
Again it’s not about man’s preservation. It’s about Gods preservation and I’ve been able to look back all the way to the church fathers of the 3rd century to verify the readings we have in the KJV and Bibles based on the TR
@@BradMcFaddenOnly the 3rd century? So not the God breathed scripture.
@@BradMcFadden Why is Psalm 145 missing a verse in the KJV that was in the Old Testament during the 3rd century?
@@scripturequest The Acryophal?
Yes, there was differences, and that is why we have one final word now.
ALL, old and modern, translations are just that...translations.....
As a lifelong Southern Baptist I will tell as strongly as I know how that the Bible is in more danger in the Preaching House than it ever has been in the Printing House.
I love my Baptist brothers and sisters, but they have fallen into the trap of interpreting Scripture in light of what the Baptist Faith says it means. Read 3 chapters of Paul's epistles daily, and it will change your life. And by all means use the KJV.
IF we maintain KJV is THE 100% perfect and flawless and 100% defect-free Bible for the English-speaking people, then which one Bible version is the equivalent (THE 100% perfect and flawless and 100% defect-free Bible) for
a) the German-speaking?
b) the French-speaking?
c) the Norwegian-speaking?
d) Swedish-speaking (my 1st language)?
e) Finnish-speaking (my 2nd language)?
f) the Italian-speaking?
g) the Spanish-speaking?
h) the Portuguese-speaking?
i) the Dutch-speaking?
j) the Danish-speaking?
k) the Russian-speaking?
Youre not listening
@@BradMcFadden1 Tim 2:4 KJB "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."
If this translation is correct then EVERYONE will be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.
For the text says: "will have all men to be saved" It doesn't say 'wills' all men to be saved. Not surprisingly - Universalists love this translation. Is a KJB Onlyist a Universalist?? - i guess they would have to be if they are being honest with the English rendering for this verse.
Example 2...but there are many
Revelation 20:13 KJB
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
The KJ translators chose the word 'hell' when they should have used the word 'Hades'. Death and Hades gave up their dead. God casts people into hell AFTER the judgement - not before.
Interestingly, Christian Scientists use the King James - as do many Mormons - so being KJ means nothing! You people have simply turned this translation into an idol. KJ Onlyists reduce salvation to an intellectual argument - when in fact salvation is contingent on God's mercy to those He has called.
I try them but to many verse missing so I am going to stay with my nkjv
Excellent presentation.
Many years ago a friend gave me an NIV Rainbow Study Bible. Did not like it at all and tossed it in the can.
I begin to think it's a good thing we don't have the original autographs; we'd probably find a way to make an idol of some sort out of them. Perhaps that's why God buried Moses rather than men also (Dt. 34:6). Just a thought.
So what then is wrong with the 1560 Geneva Bible that preceded the KJV by 60 years, and had the very same textual basis? KJVonlyism is a heresy of men!
Nothing is wrong with it. And I’m not a KJV onliest. Modern Textual Criticism is the heresy. Thanks for listening
@@BradMcFadden On this one we shall agree to disagree, and then enjoy fishing together.
@@BradMcFaddenHow is modern textual criticism a heresy?
@@samlawrence2695 It denies the historic doctrine of the preservation of scripture and posits instead the modern assumption of the corruption of scripture and the quest for its restoration by the heroic efforts and superior intellects of our modern day critics.
Why are you and others talking about KJV onlyism since this video isn't about KJV onlyism?
So where exactly has God preserved his word , con you give me a particular manuscript or printed edition?
That the problem i had with csb bible to many verse missing i went back to my nkjv after only two day i will stay with my nkjv
I've read some of the comments and I'm appalled. PLEASE STOP THIS MADNESS! YOU ARE DIVIDING THE BODY OF CHRIST! YOU ARE HELPING SATAN TO DO HIS DIRTY WORK!
If the same can be said of eg. German, French, Russian, Dutch, Italian, Spanish, etc. editions re "preserving" the Word of God, I''ll take you serious. ALL versions, translations are based on manuscripts, which in turn are based on oral transmissions. We know that what we read in the Word are almost just "highlights" and as the Bible says also that if everything was recorded what our Lord said and did, all the world would not contain the books that would be written (John 21:25). So, just chill a bit and allow the Holy Spirit to interpret the Word to us.
You'd would be giving them to much credit if you think they would accept a reading that disagreed with the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus if there were a manuscript from the mid 300s with it.
The are heavily invested in their position against certain passages. They wouldn't except any manuscript unless it dated 33 or 34 A.D. That had Mark 16 verses 9 through 20. Many of them believe in Markian priority the theory that Mark's gospel was the first one written which goes against the unanimous consent of the early Christian Church and the order of our canon. Matthew was the first gospel written. So even if they found a manuscript predating the 4th century with the last 12 verses they would just claim it was interpolated very early.
Hypothetically if they found a 2nd or 3rd Century papyrus or even a big ole stack of papyrus with the Johannine comma in it they still would not accept it, because if they ever had to admit it is genuine modern textual criticism would be dealt a damaging blow.
Sadly I think you’re right about most of them
Irenaeus quotes the end of Mark circa 180 A.D. but don't care.
Your comment began and ended with an “if”. And rightly so because it deals entirely with speculation. Don’t see the point
"Hypothetically if they found a 2nd or 3rd Century papyrus or even a big ole stack of papyrus with the Johannine comma in it they still would not accept it"
Has a single one ever been found? Why do you think modern editors would be reluctant to accept it?
@@czgibson3086 They've only found 2 papyrus of any part of the book of 1 John period. P9 Which is a 3rd century papyrus, but it only has a handful of verses from chapter 4 missing the rest of the book. The other is p74 which is a late 7th century papyrus it does have chapter 5, but is missing verses 5 through 10 missing the whole section that pertains to the Johannine Comma. So neither papyrus is witness for or against it. So they've never found a papyrus that has the section that pertains to it.
As far as why I don't think they would accept it even if they found an early papyrus with it. Well that's by the way they treat the evidence that supports it's antiquity. Such as the Cyprian citation in the 3rd Century. Where he quoted and said "it is written of" despite that fact he plainly said "it is written" they still deny he quoted it and claim he was allegorizing it.
The often state it's not in the 2 earliest Vulgate manuscripts while often concealing from their audience that the earliest Vulgate manuscript attest to it in it's Prologue under the name Jerome claiming scribes of little faith or enemies of the true faith were removing the verse.
They often state that the earliest Old Latin didn't have it as if that were a fact, but they've never seen their hypothetical Old Latin manuscript without it, because the earliest extant Old Latin manuscripts have it. There are many other reasons too that I don't they'd accept it if an early manuscript was found with it if I listed all the reasons it would be about a books worth.
All I hear in this video is I’m kjv only and refuse to check into how manuscripts work. If you want a perfect Bible learn Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. No passage is left out either they are in footnotes and also not in original manuscripts.
If i listened to all these "preachers" on TH-cam i couldn't attend any kind of church. You can find "preachers" condemning every denomination there is. I also couldn't buy a bible to read according to these "preachers" they all have an opinion which one is "correct".
People ask me what bible to buy, i tell them "buy one you will read".
Finally a TR Lover that doesn't detest the NKJV.
Praise God
How many Eons has 17th. century English been around? KJV is the only word of God?
People need to quit dogmatizing books and sources as the only correct version, own many read and study all , test and compare, use other sources as well , as the translators of the 1611 said they did to the best of their abilities and their sources , read , study , meditate on god , let the holy Spirit be your guide , thats the prize at the end of race here to have a relationship with god ❤️.
If you can learn Koine NT Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, YOU CAN LEARN KING JAMES OLD ENGLISH
Absolutely
It is not Old English.
@@willway9378 Besides being a fair furniture polish, it strikes me as being a far more Germanic language than anything we recognize as 'English'.
The KJV is written in Early Modern English. Old English is Anglo-Saxon, which is completely different.
@@czgibson3086 Thank you. I just meant it SOUNDS OLD. But you're likely correct
I would like for KJV onlyists to explain the following discrepancy in the KJV text. KJV 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads “ Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.” I know that there are some really bad eight year olds, but I don’t think that there are any that you would truly describe as evil. 2 Kings KJV 24:8-9 reads “Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his father had done.” To its credit, the NKJV in its footnote on 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads “Heb. mss., LXX, Syr. eighteen and 2 Kin. 24:8”
CT Bibles use the LXX in 2 Chronicles 36:9 stating that Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and note in footnotes that the Masoretic text states that Jehoiachin was eight years old.
Yeah I’m not a KJVO so I’m not sure how to answer you. Sorry
@@BradMcFadden I'm sorry, Brad, but that response is a bit on the weak side. If we're looking for the preserved words of God, it would be best to know where they may be found and how best to discern truth from error. The recommended NKJV still has the discrepancy (Albeit with a footnote in 2 Chr in my Thomas Nelson printing). My Jewish translation (1955 JPSA) from, of course, the Masoretic, reads 'eight' and 'eighteen'. Josephus (2nd Temple Tradition?) is silent as to his age. So, from where do you, personally, get the accurate age of Jehoiachin/Jeconiah/Coniah and how did you draw the conclusion?
@@mcgeorgerl All Hebrew manuscripts have the reading of 8 years old and so does almost all of the LXX. Most critical text bibles also had this reading until very recently. Interesting how they departed from it, but went back to having the wrong guy killing Goliath in 2nd Samuel. A possible explanation for it can be found in old commentaries and in the notes of the Geneva.
That is, he began his reign at eight years old, and reigned ten years when his father was alive, and after his father's death, which was in his eighteenth year, he reigned alone three months and ten days.
@@Derby_City_Dasher Co-regencies are a common method of "solving" apparent discrepancies among Biblical chronologists. I have a slew of chronology works and the reason there are so many written is that no two chronologists can go for any length of time before slagging off the "shoddy" work of some other chronologist(s).
"We believe the King James Bible is the pure words of God. We believe everything in it is perfect because if you don't then you have no final authority to find out which one's right which ones wrong"
- Dr. Gene Kim
Those chosen before the foundation of the world have the Holy Spirit to help them discern truth from error - they don't have to have a perfect translation like the KJB Onlyists do.
I know the critical issues, but use the AV.
The scriptures the Apostles and Paul used to show other people Christ in the Old Testament.....was the Septuagint. The Masoretic text was solidified 1000 years after Christ, and the Septuagint was around for at least 200 years before Christ. The Septuagint does NOT agree with the Masoretic text in so many key areas it's crazy. This is a massive, massive problem. When the Septuagint says "X" and the Masoretic text says "Not X"...they cannot both be true. Why then...knowing all of the above full well....do you still defer to the KJV. I'm not even mentioning the KJV's major disagreements with the Wycliffe and Geneva. I'm interested in your answer though....
Actually that’s not true. There is no evidence that Jesus or the apostles used the Septuagint. But regardless, that doesn’t negate the argument
@@BradMcFadden The Septuagint was requested by the Jews because shortly after and during the time of Alexander the Great... they in large part and over time no longer found themselves speaking Hebrew on a daily basis, or reading Hebrew. They wanted their old scriptures brought into the language they used...and they spoke and read the common language of trade in the Mediterranean at the time, koine Greek. As did most....
The scriptures were brought from Hebrew into Greek roughly 250 years before Jesus became incarnate.
That’s the biggest, most blatantly obvious reason the New Testament writers, who were mostly all Jews living during the time of Christ...were all writing in Greek.
As a matter of non-arguable fact, quite a bit over 2/3 of the time when the authors of the New Testament quote the Old Testament...they quote the Septuagint...directly.
It is not possible for you to begin forming an argument against anything I have written in response to you about any of this. Anyone reading this can look that up for themselves, and easily, and I’m counting on it.
The book of Daniel has 14 chapters. The KJV is missing verses! Run for the hills! Unless there happens to be good reason to leave text out of Daniel, and then there might be good reason to leave out these other passages...
There is no bible that leaves out the long ending of Mark. It's right there, each time every time
Politely and lovingly disagree.
Here’s an easy one KJV Jesus is Son NKJV Jesus is servant
KJV: Act 3:13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.
NKJV: “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go.”
Acts 3:13 NKJV
If you study out the word Servant it means the same as the Son , they are used interchangeably, Jesus is the Son of God and also the Servant of God in this context of scripture. Jesus as God the Servant completed the work of redemption that the Father ordained . King James and New King James both come from the same translations, different words were used in NKJ , other scriptures in NKJ uses Son of God and Son of Man interchangeably depending on the context of scripture. Jesus was God in human flesh hence the term Son of Man Jesus was also God in his deity hem
Nice Son of God so both KJV and NJV uses both terms interchangeably whereas some of the modern translations do not
@@marcgunz changes the meaning in the English language to the reader, that’s the point
@@destroso it does not change the meaning Jesus is Gods Servant - study that out - Jesus had many Titles: Son of God, Son of Man, Messiah, Christ, Son of David, Suffering Servant- this sermon in Acts that Luke wrote was translated Son in KJV and translated Servant in NKJ to compliment the work of Gods Servant did in going to the cross, fits perfectly with the context of the sermon and KJV is correct also to identify him as the Son of God who secured our salvation on the cross, both versions are correct
@@marcgunz son and servant have completely different meanings in the English language. Do all the mental gymnastics you want your still wrong.
@@marcgunz the only way the Nkjv would be right there is if they put ‘the servant son of God’. Anyway, it’s systematic and of a much bigger picture when you put together all the subtle and not so subtle changes that are made.
How about turning the argument on its head by asking “why is that verse there when it isn’t in the original?”
Which original?
That's what people who believe no perfect Bible exist do all the time. Except they don't believe a perfect Bible and therefore believe they have no equivalent to what the originals were. By their own position they don't know and can't know what the originals said and therefore have no legitimate basis for claiming this or that verse original. The only people who have any legitimate basis for claiming they have the original are people who believe the have the word of God in it's entirety in one volume, because it cannot be proven or disproved what the originals said through empirical. So it comes down to faith.
It seems a little odd that someone who talks about the KJV as being the only translation and about textual criticism and accuracy has made a glaring spelling mistake in the title for the video, the word "perserved", after that all of his arguments lose credibility in my eyes. As does the KJV only argument which only causes division within the body of Christ. God can and will use any translation through the Holy Spirit.
Misspellings annoy me, too. However, you don't seem to be paying close attention to the video or you wouldn't be claiming that he says KJV is the only translation that should be used.
Ok so we should just ignore manuscripts that are older than the ones used to translate KJV and BTW the V is for version ! IE. Translation
Let's look as good students to the oldest available text for interpretation. The KJV Is a translation with roughly 75% coming directly from William Teasdale. The KJ version is not always correct just look at
2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2 and then we can talk.
Waiting for your reply Pastor
God Bless
We should always ignore corrupt attempts to distort the Bible. Ie. New World Translation. Book of Mormon, Ellen White and yes the Sinaticus that disagrees with text the Church has always recognized. The verse you bring up proves God’s preservation Del Tackett, Alan Par, Mike Winger and well pretty much everyone who has a TH-cam channel has explained it. But I’ll make a special video just for you.
@@BradMcFadden Dear Brother I completely agree about the translations you mentioned above and would include several other's in that list as well.. passion, message. Mirror... I'm also realize that the men you mention are not KJV only guys .. so you are making my point ..
God Bless
@@BradMcFadden How are you defining "corrupt attempts" here?
I believe there were five bibles that preceded the kjv. It would do you well to study the man king James and the changes he wanted in the bible. Do you use doctors that only employ medical practices from the time of king James? Do you worship the kjv or our Lord. The word of God referenced in the New Testament was the Old Testament. Seek after the Lord and don’t rest on your own understanding
They were all based on the TR.
We don’t worship a Bible. We however believe in Gods word and have a very high degree of respect for the word of God unlike Bible skeptics which handle it loosely.
Comparing the medical industry to the word of God is actually quite disgusting. Medicine changes. Gods word does not. Stop manipulating the facts.
@@davidchupp4460Bible skeptics that handle the word of God loosely? That describes KJV onlyism very accurately.
@@samlawrence2695 says the dude who can’t handle the fact that God somehow preserved his WORD in a BOOK.
If God gave His word right the first time, why would He do it a 2nd time?
Pastor, the New King James Version is not based on the King James Version. It is missing some text also. And they used different texts in the translation. It should also not be trusted.
I have not found that in my research
Wrong..I hav 4 nkjv and all have all scripture.. Please don't falsify reports about bibles..Toni's husband
This is wrong. Nkjv and the MEV both are direct literal translations from the TR just like KJV.
@@chris2fur401 dude this little liar is seeking out anyone who says the nkjv is wrong and then if you answer him, he calls you a devil and blocks you. The nkjv has nothing to do with the Kjv, is corrupt.
th-cam.com/video/WW6sEvpSAUA/w-d-xo.html this is some examples of how bad the nkjv is
I do find it funny KJV Onliest push the KJV and some will place it over the original text. Now one thing about the KJV is it technically was a "government authorized" version since King James I didn't like the footnotes in the Geneva Bible. Mind you both come from Textus Receptus. If we look at Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus we find they don't have the verses 1 John 5:7 or Mark 16:9-20 that were added by church scribes. Mind you both codexes are dated from the 4th Century CE. Also with translations there is no such thing as a perfect translation since they are subject to translator bias with some honest and dishonest translations of verses. I always recommend people study the original languages of the text
No original survives on this earth. We only have copies. You might find "The Revision Revised" by John William Burgon interesting. Burgon was there when Wescott and Hort conspired together.
@@paulflannigan888 You're right we have none of the originals and none of those originals survived. But one should definitely study the original languages of the text because if one doesn't they become a victim to translator bias. I'll have to check out John William Burgon
Stop lying and deceiving people. It’s really quite disgusting. If you want to believe your damn lies at least keep them to yourself. The words were NOT added but were always there. Stop flipping the scrip. Exactly like the devil does. Truth is fiction and fiction truth.
Which church scribes added Mark 16: 9-20 since that was being quoted from as an authoritative part of Mark as early as the second century which by the way was hundreds of years before the oldest supposedly most reliable manuscripts which did not include that ending?
@@andrewgeissinger5242 Mark 16:9-20 was not being quoted in the 2nd Century CE. Also our oldest manuscripts Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus dating from.the 4th Century CE does not contain Mark 16:9-20. The general consensus among Biblical Scholars is that it was later added
This is one of the first well-formulated arguments I've heard for the non-NU Bibles. I have used NKJV for a long time, but wanted to start using another as well. This helps me think over it.
I would say that we have to remember that the Bible is literally written by man. Historically, physically speaking, man wrote the text of the Bible. However, deeper than that, it is God's text; through the text He reveals to us the true Word of God (aka Christ). So even a few particular words are different throughout the centuries, we can still know that the Bible reveals to us the Word.
Neither my faith, nor my knowledge of God, is altered in the slightest by reading different translations of the Bible. To me it shows God's grace even more, in using our human abilities throughout history to pass on the Word of God through the text of the Bible.
The NKJV added and changed.
I am saying this as an advocate for the majority text possition. Almost everything this guy said was false. The textus receptus is not the majority text. The majority text possition looks at all the manuscripts, which includes the textus receptus but it is not limited to only those few manuscripts. Please do not throw out your NASB or NIV etc, they are good translations. See Peter Gentry and Peter Gurry for actual scholars who believe in inerrancy and are not textus recetptus only guys.
No.
@@inquisitor4635 no?
Hi everyone, there is a similar problem with the Spanish translations, only the Reina-Valera 1960 Spanish version is the most reliable, TR (Textus Receptus) and MT (Masoretic Text) based on bibles translations is the correct way, cause God lead the Reformers in that way of translate the Scriptures, so we cannot be deceived by erroneous Critical Text wrong Bible translations.
Hello, I disagree with you on the 1960 RV. It departs from the TR in many places and it uses the Critical Text in those instances. The best TR Spanish bibles are the Reina Valera Gomez 2010 and the Reina Valera 1602 Purificada (though this one has OT translation errors from what I understand).
@@ricardofloresCRS I understand what you mean, but, sometimes or let's say, many times, we think that we know things better than God, but, it is not that way, I have a question, if the Reina-Valera Gomez is the best Spanish bible translation, Why the Reina-Valera 1960 is still the *_main_* Spanish translation used among christians? Will it be that for God it got out of his hands? Of course not, if since 1960 until this day Sunday 18/ February/2024 has been used for 64 years it means that *_God has chosen for the Spanish native Christian speaker the Reina-Valera 1960,_* if it were not the case, we all were using the Reina-Valera Gomez, but, that's not *_God case._* As from 1960 we can see.
@@joseramonperez9609 With all the respect in the world let me answer your questions.
1. You stated that TR based Bibles are the best because the translation of their Greek text is the “correct way” and you mentioned the Critical Text is “erroneous” and creates “wrong Bible translations”. If you believe in the words you wrote then the Reina Valera 1960 fails to meet your standards because it departed from the TR in favor of the CT 191 times. The Reina Valera Gomez departs from the TR 0 times. If the KJV is your standard for an English translation due to it’s Greek TR text then logically the Reina Valera Gomez would be it’s Spanish equivalent due it’s 0 departures from said Greek text.
2. If you reject the CT readings in favor of the TR then you probably have the belief that the older Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts aren’t the best for a multitude of reasons. But to simplify “Older doesn’t always mean better”. I mention this because you’re appealing the length of use that the Reina Valera 1960 has enjoyed in the Spanish speaking world as the primary Bible. At the time of its publication there was no demand for the 1960. The Spanish speaking world was comfortable and steadfast in its devotion for the 1909 version, enjoying a total of 51 years as the primary Spanish speaking Bible. The 1865 version enjoyed 44 years as the primary Spanish speaking version. The 1602 version enjoyed a staggering 263 years at top! The Gomez version is currently creating a great revival in the Spanish speaking world thanks to the efforts of many missionaries. I myself will use it one day on missions (Lord willing of course). 100 years from now perhaps another Spanish Bible yet to be printed will be the long reigning most used version and this argument is null and void. Currently, I believe the RV1960 holds its position primarily due to human tradition rather than reason.
3. Now here is where I must STRESS something of utmost importance. Every single of those Bibles I’ve mentioned contain the Gospel of Jesus Christ in them. The 1602, 1865, 1909, 1960, and the Gomez 2010 all bring people to the Lord. You believe the matter of preserving God’s words did not get out of His hands in regard to the RV 1960. Did it get out of His hands in the 1909 version? The 1865? The 1602? Did it get out of His hands with the KJV? Were there not 6 other primary TR based English Bibles that came before the 1611 KJV? Perhaps the RVG Bible is the fulfillment of Gods word in Spanish akin to the KJV in English given that the RVG departs from the TR 0 times?
Just something to think about! Would love to hear your response. If you feel you can respond better in Spanish that’s fine with me.
God bless you!
Edit - I want to add that I was saved with a bilingual KJV/RV1960 Bible. It always bothered me that they were different in readings. But the 1960 Bible is still a very good Bible. Just no longer my preferred Spanish Bible as I prefer a Bible that does not depart from the TR.
@@ricardofloresCRSThere's something described in the Bible which is, *_discernment,_* this means that If God uses the *_Reformers_* to give us the Scriptures in our own languages, English, Spanish, France, Italian, Portuguese, and German, _as we all know they did,_ and those translations were *_the pioneers_* for being the ones which taught us, why should we be unwise for not following and using those translations?? Brother Ricardo, don't be deceived.
@@joseramonperez9609 you seem to be confused. I use TR Bibles. I use the KVJ/NKJV for my English readings. And the RVG for my Spanish readings. Prior to using the RVG I was using the RV1960. The problem with the RV1960 is that it deviates too much from the Textus Receptus in favor of the Critical Text. Hence why I use the Gomez edition.
Hermano, I quoted your own words against you in my response. You stated your belief as to why the Critical Text is not the best and I agree with you. But you have to concede that the Reina Valera 1960 is NOT a Textus Receptus Bible as it has close to 200 Critical Text readings in it. In other words, the TR Text given to the reformers has been altered in the 1960 close to 200 times.
The Gomez and/or 1602 Purificada Bibles do not depart from the text given to the reformers. Would it be wiser to use a Bible that does not depart from the reformers TR? Why would you use a Bible that has 191 CT readings in it?
I’m only bringing this information to you based on YOUR convictions! This is what you BELIEVE in according to your initial comment.
Mira, aquí tienes para que compares y veas con tus propios ojos las diferencias en la Gómez y la 1960.
www.thekjvstore.com/content/SamplePages/RVGVerseComparisonsofRVGandKJV.pdf
www.thekjvstore.com/content/SamplePages/RVGSpanishBibleComparrisonRexCobb.pdf
And to clarify. Both the Reina Valera Gomez and Reina Valera Purificada are Reina Valera Bibles! The Gomez sees itself as the continuation to the 1909 version. Whereas the Purificada goes back and works with the 1602 text.
Look at 2 Samuel 21; 19 KJB says David Slough Galiath also in 1st Chronicles 20; 5 and 1st Samuel 17; 50. The NASB says something totally different in those passages. In 2 Samuel 21; 19 says that Ilahanan slough Goliath.
KJV oldest source text was 10th century. Translators only had 6 manuscripts to work from and none entirely in parts of Revelation.
If you want a more accurate scripture based on thousands of much older biblical sources, versus 6 late incomplete sources, then choose a modern version translated from all the manuscripts available today.
Modern Bibles didn't "remove" anything from KJV, they weren't copied from KJV in the first place, they were translated from entire corpus of sources available and those sources didn't have it. So really, KJV added to scripture which is now rectified.
It's time to let 1611 go. There are more accurate and complete English translations to read.
This is extremely misleading. The KJV scholars had resources like the TR which represents 100 years of work on hundreds of mss.
@@BradMcFadden It's misleading to suggest TR/KJV is built on vast resources. It wasn't.
@@vigilantezack It basically agrees with the majority of Greek manuscripts with a few Western readings, the Comma of John being the most famous. Tommy Wassermann on page 186 of his book cast the first stone admits the provenance of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are unknown. Blessings.
LOL
The key letter in "KJV" is that V=VERSION! All "versions" are partially,more or less, PER-versions. Hundreds of clauses in KJV are not accurate translations,but suggestions.
God's "word" may well be "inerrant" but is only slowly,and by research, grasped.
At all times remember that God is essentially UNKNOWABLE to mortals. He is "immortal, INVISIBLE"!!!!
You are taking Psalm 12:6-7 completely out of context. Words and phrases were ADDED in the very few, and very late printed manuscripts, that the KJV translators used. I guess you don't realize that the KJV translators created a critical text out of multiple manuscripts. Avoid legalism, especially the brand that arises out of verses taken out of context, and backed by a man made standard. Jesus last instruction from earth was to go, teach, and make disciples - yet there wasn't even a New Testament that they could take with them. Your premise is baseless and pointless. Repent from your idol worship of a man made TRANSLATION.
Where does it say that in the Bible? And how is God’s promise to preserve his word out of context?
Says another Bible doubter who’s been brainwashed by textual criticism.
@@davidchupp4460Not a Bible doubter just being truthful. It I the KJV only who cause doubt, if the translation is not their idol the KJV.
@@samlawrence2695 you don’t have an honest bone in your body. Everything out of your mouth are lies upon lies. Stop serving the father of lies in Jesus Name.
Just want to say thanks for making the video sir. I’m still learning but tend to agree with what you’re saying. God bless you.
Please don't. May God help his understanding, but at this time and regarding this topic, he has missed the mark far and away.
I got saved,with KJV,I studied,KJV the holy spirit,taught me in KJV ,it was rough,at first,I tried other Bible's but the best for me was KJV,and I trust it as God's word now,not because someone said that it was the truth,but I have eaten it,and I know it's true, ! The spirit of truth will guide us through,but we must have the spirit in us to guide us in all truth in Christ Jesus our Lord and savior,! You must be born again, that's where the power of God truelly is ,born in spirit, look at what Jesus , taught,! And you will find!!! KJV
What did people find before the KJV was published? The Holy Spirit will never lead you to something that is not according to scripture. The man made tradition of KJV onlyism is not according to scripture. So the Holy Spirit who is the Spirit of truth is not behind the KJV only cult. The spirit of deception is behind the KJV only cult. That is why God has blessed us with more accurate modern translations in English we can understand. Excellent transactions like the NIV, NASB, ESV and NLT. Translations that God is using and blessing to bring many to Christ. So much for the lies of the KJV only cult.
@@samlawrence2695So true!
@@samlawrence2695said the liar who Is claiming to be led by the spirit into corrupted Bible translations. And of course the Spirit told you to didn’t it? It also shows you all the truth left out of modern translations doesn’t it? Talk about a habitual liar.
@@detellszone this dude is on here spreading his demonic lies and propaganda of Satan. Nothing like flipping the scrip on the truth.
I grew up with the KJV, read and memorize from the KJV, and think that it sounds like scripture compared to modern translations that use regular English. I have a few other translations, but I always come back to the KJV, where there are no missing verses.
So those ancient texts preserved for 1000 years in the caves near the Dead Sea, untouched by man for a millennia, don't have God's word in them? All the while when the texts used by the KJV translators have none older than 1200AD and have been copied numerous times? I think you are wrong on this one sir.
Well your entitled to your opinion. The Byzantine Priority is the only theory that preserves Gods word WITHIN the church. It’s the Bible we have always had. The Case for the Byzantine Priority g.co/kgs/kshSGh
@@BradMcFadden Well, what about the Douay-Rheims Bible that was translated into English from the Latin Vulgate way back before the KJV? And did the Latin Vulgate preserve God's word? Was God's word not preserved while the Church used Latin as the Clergy spoke to the congregants way back then? Prior to the Reformation, all Churches conducted their services using Latin. It was not until Tyndale translated his NT into English and published it in 1537 that a Greek text was used. I see many holes in your theory.
@@BradMcFadden I use the standard KJV version, but the New King James Version is being changed, the same as NIV, NASB, ESV ETC,
Romans 8:20 in KJV says creature, NKJV, NIV, ESV ETC, use a totally different word creation, and this difference is very important.
If you don’t understand that you cannot give Gods Grace to yourself, and know then that it is the faith of the verse below, that is “ not of yourself, perhaps you don’t understand that the leaders of the Catholic and Anglican Church are openly praising Islam,another religion that even Denys Christ died on the cross, and who’s revered prophet gives an example himself of a most vile fornication, best to read the Bible and ask Jesus for understanding.
Ephesians 2:8
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:”
1 John 3:24
“And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.”
1 Corinthians 2:14
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
Hebrews 12:25
“See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:”
John 4:24
“God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”
John 4:23
“But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.”
1 John 2:27
“But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”
1 John 3:24
“And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.”
John 15:5
“I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.”
1 John 4:13
“Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.”
Romans 8:9
“But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”
John 1:13
“Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
1 Corinthians 2:4
“And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:”
1 Corinthians 2:5
“That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.”
1 Corinthians 2:11
“For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.”
Romans 10:17
“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
John 14:21
“He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.”
1 Corinthians 16:22
“If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.”
Psalms 111:10
“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.”
John 15:14
“Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.”
Luke 11:27
“And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.”
Luke 11:28
“But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.”
John 15:10
“If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.”
1 John 2:3
“And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.”
1 John 2:4
“He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”
@@makarov138 You seem to imply that the Douay-Rheims was translated "way back" (Your words) before the KJV. In reality, it was just slightly before. Jerome's Latin Vulgate upon which the Douay-Rheims purports to have as its source, is not without issues. I'll give you the Preface passage from my Douay-Rheims (1941) that may be of interest here: "The Council [of Trent] well knew that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and the Greek of the New, WERE OLDER AND NEARER TO THE ORIGINAL WRITINGS THAN EVEN THE OLDEST LATIN TRANSLATIONS. IT HAD NO INTENTION TO MAKE THE VULGATE SUPERCEDE THE OLDER MANUSCRIPTS FOR PURPOSES OF STUDY. [Emphasis mine] But the Church's liturgy, her use of the pulpit, her theological writings and discussions were filled with biblical passages in Latin, and these must be kept to one form in which all could agree. It was with this aim that the Council fixed upon the Vulgate as the standard Latin Bible for purposes of common reference."
So, it is evident that the Catholic Church's translation using the Vulgate was more for convenience and constancy of purpose than for textual accuracy.
@@mcgeorgerl I simply reject the idea that the Critical Text bibles are either better or worse than the Byzantine Text ones. I use the 20+ translations that I have not excluding any of them. That is where I stand. God's word is preserved in all of them.
The Bible wasn’t delivered. The church debate, and the Holy Spirit moved through the church to create the 27 books of the NT. We haven’t “always had” the Bible as you say. We first had a church, and then tradition, and then a Bible. All of the churches that Paul planted were instructed by word of mouth first. And those teachings were as authoritative as his letters. churches didn’t stop doing what Paul verbally said once he left or die. That’s why we see in the NT the focus on preaching (hearing not reading), handing down what was taught by someone else, and a recognition of the authority of apostles. It’s unfortunate that this video dumbs down the beautiful history of how the Bible came about. I’m afraid this video conveys a cartoonish, modern belief common among evangelicals that the Bible dropped down from on high just as Jesus was taken away. 😢
Here’s another really weird one:
KJV
Gal 5:12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
NKJV
Gal 5:12 I could wish that those who trouble you would even [a]cut themselves off!
What does cut themselves off even mean? Is Paul implying they should circumcise themselves instead that does that teach circumcision be cut off from the church? Crazy!
Don’t read these perverse modern translations!
When Josiah rediscovered the book of the law he didn't disregard it. When evidence presents itself it should be examined not discarded because it challenges one's faith. Your analysis is flawed.
If one version was Gods perfect word, why would one need to change it? Why would the church publish a translation and pass it off as authentic when it wasn't? Can we believe any church authority?
Funny, bible scholars agree that the NASB 95 or older is the most accurate translation
Dear Sir
Please guide me for The Complete Jewish Study Bible by David Stern.
you had me at "avoid critical text bibles" LOL
much love Pastor Brad and may God Bless and keep you always
Yeah you would not want to use an accurate text, nw would you?
@@nbenefiel they don't. They prefer their cathalic priest Bible.
@@jwatson181 I was educated by the Jesuits. They taught me Latin and Greek and I read the Bible in both languages. The “Catholic” Bible was first compiled at the Council of Rome in 155 CE. Why would anyone want to avoid an accurate, scholarly translation of the Bible? I use the Anchor Bible, myself. It was put together by 800 scholars, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Orthodox, Muslim, and secular. It is comprised of 30 some volumes and tends to have 2 lines of text and 2 pages of footnotes. When you work your way through it, you feel you have really learned something. The KJV, written in 1611, is a poor translation of a mediocre Latin translation of a Greek text. As 17th century English literature, it is lovely. As scripture, it sux
@@jwatson181 Your bibles are translated from manuscripts that are literally the sole property of guess what? Catholics! Furthermore Erasmus didn't translate the KJV he died almost 100 years before it.
@@nbenefiel If your going to a bunch of unbelievers like Muslims and secularist to get an accurate Bible. Your barking up the wrong tree.
NASB is good, not the best but it's good. the others aren't good at all.
When comparing translations, it is impossible to determine which translation is better. The only honest conclusion is that the translations are different. We have no perfect bible. The KJV is based on the Latin vulgate. Your assumptions and representations about the motives of the translators I’d disturbingly arrogant and self serving.
Sure it is, I just explained how.
@@BradMcFadden And you are wrong. There is NO direct word for word translation because languages are never word for word. What is the word Ford translation of the English word “ love” into Greek?
@@cityboywithhorses6233 I’m not really understanding your argument. I don’t think I claimed a word for word translation, if I did I was wrong or misspoke. The KJV is not BASED on the vulgate. The KJV went from Greek to English not Latin to English. Not to say they were not influenced by other work of many scholars before them.
@@BradMcFadden I was doing some research fairly recently and the KJV is based on the Latin vulgate. It’s a good translation, but it does not stand as the absolute perfect translation. It is, in fact, a bit out of date. The big problem I have seen is that people tend to use modern definitions for words translated in 1611. For instance, a lot people today take the word firmament to mean some sort of dome. In 1611 the word was used to describe an expanse. When using the KJV, it is extremely important to have a KJV dictionary at hand to avoid misunderstanding. I tend to recommend to people to use a modern translation as it leads to less confusion. Sorry if I was a bit cantankerous, I have no excuse. May God’s blessing be upon you.
@@cityboywithhorses6233 The KJV absolutely is not based on the Vulgate. In the preface of KJV they clearly stated it was a new translation from the original tongues. The erroneous claim that it was based of the Vulgate is sometimes floating around the internet if that's what your research is showing you then you really need to find more reliable sources.
Wisdom that decendeth not from above is earthly sensual and devilish.
Pastor Brad, what do you think of John 1:18 in the modern bibles?
I'm pretty sure that "only begotten God" reading is only in one or two manuscripts. Against another 6000 or so. But check me on that. That's just my memory.
@@provokingthought9964
I agree with you.
Well, he did have other sons...
Must be those kjv guys 👎🏻👎🏻👎🏻
Very good argument
Psalm 12:6-7 does not say God will preserve his Word but the poor and needy in the context.
OOPS! Mt 18:11 is NOT in the Codex Siniaticus of 400AD! Somebody added it by the KJV time.
Actually we know that is the word of God. It’s in Luke. And it’s in the earlier mss so your critical text removes it.
@@BradMcFadden The point is, Matthew himself leaves it out of HIS text, and the KJV translators added into their translation there. We both know it's in Luke. I'm trying to illustrate that not a single English translation is PERFECT! And they ALL do have God's word in them. At least the 20 versions that I have. And finally, even the Greek texts differ slightly that the KJV translators used. They CHOSE which way to go in their work. Do you know there are actually TWO slightly different TRs? My point is to hold the KJV above all others is ridiculous. And to hold it as inferior is equally ridiculous. The 1560 Geneva Bible used the same texts the KJV guys did. So it must equally be just as good!
!Really? So your saying Matthew wasn't born until around 400? How do you even know that Aleph is from 400 AD? When are scholars who propose the 400 AD date? finally going to put their money where mouth is and have it chem tested. So did Matthew also put that erroneous reading found in Matthew 27:49 in the Codex Siniaticus in his text too? Such a bad reading that even your modern Bibles won't use it. The Geneva had textual changes in various editions of it. They were never any textual changes to any of the KJV proper. The Geneva Bible had the wrong guy killing Goliath in 2nd Samuel an error your modern Bibles repeat. The TR was a process there were many contributors too it which culminated with the KJV.
The 1611 has margin notes with variants / what other Greek manuscripts said. The only difference is they didn’t have as many such notes as modern versions because they didn’t have access to as many texts as we have today.
Nkjv uses critical text
Actually no it doesn’t. It’s from the textus receptus. Now it DOES use footnotes to let you know what critical text says on some things. But it wasn’t translated from the CT.
@@chris2fur401 oh yes it DOES! How many some things does it use the critical text on? Many many many, specially where it matters.
@@destroso do your homework lol. Sorry bro. You’re wrong. I’m muting ya btw. Hate arguing things so don’t want the devil to get me aggravated over something like this. So If I don’t respond that’s why. I’ve been doing studying textual criticism for a while now. I’m a TR only person and I’ve heard this same argument before and had to prove they have been mislead by the KJV only crazies
@@chris2fur401 you do your homework, you’re wrong 😂
@@chris2fur401 haha you mute me like a coward because your wrong, he says hate arguing over things then comes here to argue, typical
I've just recently went back to the kjv
Look up the “textual confidence collective “ with Mark Ward , I dare you !
I’d really like to hear from you with a review.
“I dare you”? I love the playground mentality. Mark Ward is less than honest and that’s the absolute best I can say about him. Follow the money. His claim of false friends is ludicrous. See my video on his lack of integrity. Almost all meaningful and viable textual variants are from Sinaticus and the Vaticanus. Drop those and we will talk.
@@BradMcFadden
I’m listening, can you provide me with an example or two from these videos that will demonstrate the falsehoods?
Remember slander is a sin .
@@michealferrell1677, yes and so is lying and removing words from God's Preserved Word. I have critiqued his videos on my channel. If you understand our point that God has PRESERVED his word then there is no reason to abandon the received text evident since the earliest church fathers. (see Lucianic Recension) in favor of two inconsistent witnesses from Alexandra. (read "Case for Byzantine Priority" by Robinson and Peirpont) . I hold to Biblical Inerrancy and a living and active word preserved through time by God. Not dug up and contrived by cutlish monks in Alexandria that no one read til the late 1800s. th-cam.com/video/3gpiKOgm1sQ/w-d-xo.html
@@BradMcFadden
I think I’m missing something brother, are you a TR preferred guy or a Byzantine priority guy ?
I ask because I know that both Erasmus and the Majority text guys had to do text criticism to arrive at their text .
The Tr is a critical text. Please do not listen to people that are uneducated on this topic.
Completely different philosophy. You are not listening.
@@BradMcFadden I am. You trust a Catholic priest. I trust evangelicals.
@@jwatson181liar. You trust Bible doubters.
@davidchupp4460 You have put your faith in a translation vs the original manuscripts. I pray that you repent.
I’m suggesting that we need to trust God to preserve his word.
1611 for me kjv!
I preach from the KJV but from the typical 1700’s updated KJV. The typical KJV you buy at a store. I’ve got a 1611 version too but it’s almost unreadable to me In some places. Especially the spelling of common words
I feel sad.... So what about the christians BORN BEFORE the King Jamea Bible was released...did they not have the inspired Word of God??
Youre not listening
@@BradMcFadden YOU SAID : "THEY ASSUME......".....So you need to listen to yourself first...
You are the one putting assumptions... Anyway, thanks....
They had the right text, and had the right Bible.
Oh, stop. We have better language scholars today than we did in the 1400's, 1500's, 1600's and so on.
Stop going backwards and look forward.
I like the NLT and the NIV for their ease of reading, but I'm considering buying one of those parallel bibles that includes the KJV or the NKJV along side the NLT and/or the NIV so I can easily spot omissions like this.
NLT and NIV have major problems in accuracy and doctrinal changes.
@@davidchupp4460 Even the KJV has serious translation problems.
As I said, I'm thinking of buying one of those parallel bibles so I can compare the verses side-by-side as I read them.
I guess the best thing to do is let God guide you as you read the scriptures...
@@fredashay wrong. No doctrinal issues. NLT changes man to gender neutral language which is pleasing to the woke crowd. They change the word flesh to sinful nature destroying the whole concept of the one new man and the old man being dead by the crucifixion of the body of FLESH.
Love my brilliant NIV with no omissions. Just translated from older more accurate manuscripts than did not have the added uninspired verses that are in the KJV. Also of course the KJV used later manuscripts dedicated to the Pope with these added uninspired verses. No doctrine is changed in the NIV. Another lie from the KJV only cult. That is the error of the KJV only cult. They make some archaic imperfect uninspired English translation the standard. It is not, never has been, never will be the standard. The KJV translators knew their work was not perfect. Many words in the KJV have changed meaning. That is why God has blessed us with more accurate modern translations in English we can understand. Like the brilliant NIV.
@@samlawrence2695 if you want to to believe your own self delusion so be it. But stop spreading propaganda. It’s demonic.
The fact that we are having this video means that the word wasn't preserve.
That is an illogical claim. Just because there are lies does not imply that that there is no truth.
My measure of an accurate translation is if the word homosexual is there. This includes the NKJV so it belongs in the garbage can.
Is that a biblical argument. It’s certainly not a logical one
Say what???
I presume your meaning is that the concept of homosexaul as we understand it today didn't exist in the Roman period or before and thus using the word is obviously a mistranslation?
What are your thoughts on the MEV?
MEV bad.
The Son of God? The Lord said his word won't come back void. Rome was in power then, hence the name Zeus? He is Zeus? The words. Rome has accepted the Hebrew Yeshua as son of god?, they even made him look Roman? When has Rome crucified their own? But it's a Hebrew Son of God? The world has appropriated the teachings of the Hebrew as if they're Greek? And even after the son of God raised himself from the grave as he said he would Gospel of John chapter 10 verse 17 and 18? They still say and believe that God has raised Him from the dead? When the Lord and Savior said himself no man takes my life but I have power to lay it down and to take it up again? And they still go with what Paul said? They quote Paul as if the Lord and Savior never left his Doctrine? The Lord said beware of all that come after him claiming that he is the Christ gospel of Matthew chapter 24, that includes Paul. Second Epistle of John verse 9 whosoever transgresses and stays not in the teachings of Christ, has not god. Second Epistle of Peter chapter 2? But they were false prophets amongst the people as there shall be false teachers amongst you? Peter was talking about back then and such types that had arose, that claim they were teaching Christ but the real disciples those who actually knew the Messiah and were actually commissioned by him seeing him after his resurrection? They knew that the people out there claiming to Preach Christ if they weren't abiding in what the Lord actually taught, they knew they were false prophets. The last epistle which is Jude he says strange men have crept in unawares? Again he's talking about back then, amongst them ungodly men ? Men of gain , who have come into the gospel for gain and are opposing the Disciples. They have gained position , Even in our word the Lord said that they were coming. Gospel of John chapter 12 verse 31? The Lord said now, now means now, the Lord said " now is the Judgment of this world now show the prince of this world be cast out". ? That was back then. Before he ascended into the heavens the Lord had made these statements ,he said if we love him we will keep his words, that means what he said and what he taught according to the Gospel of John chapter 14. He said if a man loves him he will keep his words. And with that the Lord has sealed the deal because the false prophet does not abide in the doctrine of Christ, because they do not stay in the teachings of christ, such as paul, Paul never teaches the doctrine of Jesus christ, that's why the Second Epistle of John verse 9 says "whosoever transgresses and abides not in the doctrine of Christ has not god", that's why Second Epistle of Peter says " But there were false prophets amongst the people", that's why Jude said "for certain men have crept in unawares ungodly men" they are talking about the false prophets that have crept in right amongst them. The Lord said "wheat and tares " he said after he arisen up and looked out on his field ? behold "wheat and tares". The Lord said it was going to happen it's not only in Doctrine and translations of the bible, but the very disciples are saying the false prophet is among them back then.
Are you able to read Hebrew and greek?
Never mind the 27000 errors in the kjv over 6800 minimum in the old testament alone where YAHWEH'S Name was removed for baal aka lord.
Umm the KJV is in English. -? I think you need to rethink your argument.
@@BradMcFadden Thank you for your response.
If the Father's Name YAHWEH was removed and replaced with lord which means baal that's a translation error.
Do you use Strong's Concordance or whatever else to do word studies?
@@Watchmanonthewall626 Lord means Lord in English. I would say this is a valid translation decision. No one would read Lord and think Baal.
@@BradMcFadden So your saying it's alright that the translators removed YAHWEH'S Name over 6800 times for a title correct?
That doesn't add up with what is written.
Google baal this comes up
Baal (/ˈbeɪ.əl, ˈbɑː.əl/), or Baʽal (Hebrew: בַּעַל baʿal), was a title and honorific meaning 'owner', 'lord' in the Northwest Semitic languages spoken in the Levant during antiquity. From its use among people, it came to be applied to gods.
Strong's says
1167. baal ►
Strong's Concordance
baal: owner, lord
Original Word: בַּעַל
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: baal
Phonetic Spelling: (bah'-al)
Definition: owner, lord
This reason given goes against the direct commands of Almighty YAHWEH Himself.
May the Lord
לַֽאדֹנָי֙ (la·ḏō·nāy)
Preposition-l | Noun - proper - masculine singular
Strong's Hebrew 136: 1) my lord, lord 1a) of men 1b) of God 2) Lord-title, spoken in place of Yahweh in Jewish display of reverence
@@Watchmanonthewall626 God's personal name is not Yahweh never was and never will be. That might be the name of the Roman pagan god Jupiter or some Egyptian pagan god of magic, but it's not the name of the God of scripture. God's personal name is was and will always be Jehovah or Yehovah. Not one single extant Hebrew manuscript on the face of the earth has the pronunciation Yahweh compared to Jehovah or Yehovah being found thousands of times. Actually it's modern Bibles that remove God's name.
Exodus 6:3
King James Version
3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them.
Exodus 6:3
New American Standard Bible
3 and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as [a]God Almighty, but by My name, [b]Lord, I did not make Myself known to them.
See the cowardly translation of the NASB. Lord is a title not a name.
I wasn't aware the LSB had put the name Yahweh in their translation. Proving their version corrupt. The LSB uses the false name a bunch of times in Genesis when Exodus 6:3 clearly tells you they didn't even know his name back then. Ancient Jews typically avoided using his personal name and would've used God in it's place, but scribes did write his personal name down thousands of times and it is Jehovah not Yahweh.
If you want to talk about critical texts every Bible after the Latin Vulgate would qualify--this includes the KJV. Whether you like it or not, the Bible is a Catholic document and the KJV omitted Books which the Vulgate includes.
Not true
The apocrypha was included but it’s called that for a reason
Also Ck Acts 8:37....not only is the verse missing...but so is the #37...also...& looks like this...Acts8:36.......38
I really like the King James Version Easy Reading and the Modern English Version. The Amplified and the New Life Version are good also.
Yes the KJVER is really good!
MEV changed stuff.