Are You KJV Only? Suspicious of New Translations? - Jerome, Vulgate, Latin, KJV
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ต.ค. 2024
- When Jerome translated the Bible into the Latin Vulgate, there were critics of his work, including Augustine of Hippo. This video explores the phenomenon of how people have a hard time accepting new translations and are partial to what they already are familiar with.
Hi Tim, that was super helpful, informative and eye opening. Thanks so much for looking into this and l will certainly be more open in my attitude when thinking about this subject.
Tim, thank you very much for this episode. I very, very much enjoyed it. God Bless
Awesome. Interesting discussion between Augustin and Jerome, a gem of a find!
The NKJV and ESV are awesome translations. I've never met a staunch KJV-only person who spoke old English in their everyday life. If someone just prefers the KJV that's fine, but don't go off the rails and build an entire theology around it.
The KJV is written in early modern English. Very different category from Old English.
Old English:
Fæder ūre, Þū þe eart on heofonum, sīe Þīn nama gehālgod.
Þīn rice cume, þīn willa weorþe, swā on eorþan swā on heofonum.
Syle ūs tōdæg ūrne dæghwamlican hlāf; and forgyf ūs ūre gyltas, swā swā wē forgyfaþ þǣm þe wiþ ūs agiltaþ; onweg lǣde Þū ūs fram costnunge, eac ālȳs ūs of yfele.
Soþlice, sīe hit swā.
- The Lord's Prayer circa 900ad
Early modern English:
21. And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.
22. And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And shee went to enquire of the LORD.
23. And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy wombe, and two maner of people shall be separated from thy bowels: and the one people shalbe stronger then the other people: and the elder shall serve the yonger.
- Genesis 25:21-23 Authorized Version of the Bible circa 1611ad
@@BasedZoomer You are correct, but the English used in the KJV is archaic and not in common use anymore.
ESV omits verse phrases found in the NKJV, KJV, etc. You don't mind that?
And just to take note, before Jerome translated his version, there were already Latin translations out there too.
You are always so gracious, Tim. It's such a breath of fresh air in our circumstances, even in Christian circles. Thank you so much for your kind and intelligent contribution 😍👌🌟
There are those who hold that since Jerome had access to very old Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts that are no longer extant, that his translation into Latin was a monumental work of superb scholarship which is unequaled, even today. I mean, how many times can translators keep going back to ancient original-language texts, of which few, if any, are as old as those Jerome had access to, and come up with something "new and improved"?
Your videos are always informative and you never come across as critical or polemical. Keep up your fine work, and may God bless you richly.
Thanks for sharing this great advice, Tim. I always enjoy picking up your insights.
Very helpful thoughts/points... thank you for the resource options as well! Always appreciate your ministry. Blessed GmaJo ❤
I'm not kjv only but I do read only kjv I have compared translations. and a lot of newer translations are gender neutral. this and a few other reasons are why I choose to read kjv. by gender neutral I mean instead of saying he, him, she, her it sais they, them,those etc....
Other translations like the NKJV, ESV, NASB (1977 & 1995, not the 2020 update), LSB and RSV would be examples of modern translations that stay conservative in their approach to translating the masculine terms from the Greek into English, just like the KJV translators did.
LSB is an excellent translation and is more accurate than KJV while upholding the gender terms for what they are
I was sort of an ESV-only person for quite some time. I often felt the NIV had “errors”. Just this week I was studying one such error in 1 John. The ESV translates the Greek word (meno ?...) as “abide” quite consistently. The NIV translates it as “lives” and “remains” among other variations. I did some more study and realized I had never considered the semantic range of that word. Oops. One could argue about the best ways to translate that, but it is most certainly a legitimate option. I’m very thankful there are people who know a lot more than me doing translations.
Thank you so much for pointing me to the 'the story of christianity volume 1'. I accidentally found it in pdf format which can be read online. I'm not KJV or Vulgate, but do support stoning for the perversion of the word of God. Which was the end to so many false prophets in olden time. I admire that.
Trouble is here, how do you challenge any of these works?
Amazingly the Vatican never preserved any of the original works that the Vulgate was based on as clearly they found them worthless to their own translation. Sounds idiotic to me. Would not these Hebrew works be precious and worth the time and effort to copy and re-copy. Not let them to just rot away. That way, Jerome could have referenced them in his great work. Which he does not.
I can see how trivial the difference between an Orange and a Banana is to scholars of theology. And maybe this is why so many scientists scoff at Heaven and Hell.
What I must conclude about Jerome's thoughts about the Hebrew translation into Greek is that he considers the Greeks to be dim witted compared to himself.
Well done! A very thought provoking discussion you have given. I hope it has not caused too many riots.
Great video Tim. My experience with “KJV only” folks today is that they believe that the KJV is “inspired.” I believe the information that you (Tim) bring forth here will help KJV only-ists to have their eyes opened if they will only view it with an open mind. Sadly, many that I have encountered will not entertain anything that contradicts what they have been taught.
When working on my Master's degree, another individual did his thesis on a way to greater unity in his denomination. The premise was to let go of the view that the KJV was inspired of God. Later, in trying to communicate with this person, it was found he had been dismissed for saying the KJV wasn't inspired by God in this thesis. There are those who believe God inspired the KJV translators and that it is perfect. Of course, which flavor of the KJV did God inspire? The 1611, or 1769 edition? The truth of the gospel that brings salvation is available in the KJV, ASV, RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, CSB, etc. May we be concerned more with what we believe than which translation we derive that belief.
I understand. I would still, however, consider it an update as they did make changes, even if it was spelling and punctuation.
@@pnwvideoministry3675 Actually, there are some differences between the 1611 and the 1769 KJV. For instance, 1st Jn. 5:12 in the 1611 reads, "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son hath not life." In the 1769 it reads, " He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."
I'm pleading with all faithful believers to do your own research. If you take almost any new translation and place it beside the KJV you will observe all the changes made to them. It is quite obvious to anyone who can read. Also research who owns the publishing companies. Follow the money as they say. It is a business and a very lucrative one at that.
It’s all marketing and has crept into the seminaries and the churches. Also St. Jerome translated the sulfate in like 384 B.C. And he obviously had access to things we don’t now. The daouy rheims bible matches up so close to the kjv and it’s the Latin vulgate in English. And no missing verses, huh well well well
Along time ago I was in a Christian chat. And some of the people there were from Asian countries that were confused by kjv only people. Like these bible had to be translated into tagolog and Japanese and Thai etc. These languages don't even use the same sentence structures as English. Lol.. This is a great example of how history repeats. Thanks for sharing. Hey Frisch! I wanted to ask you a question can I email you?
Absolutely, feel free to email me at afrischperspecive@gmail.com
While I am not "KJV Only", I have to correct one thing here. KJV only-ists do not hold that stance based on the TYPE of English a translation uses. Their contention is in regards to what MANUSCRIPT sources are used for the translation. No KJV only-ist has a problem with translations in Japanese, German, Korean, Spanish or any other language. They just propose that the manuscripts used be from the Textus Receptus line, and not from the Critical Text Line which they consider impure and adulterated. There are in fact Textus Receptus translations in many other languages. The Trinitarian Bible Society for example, to this day keeps doing Translation work into many languages today exclusively utilizing the TR.
That is because they too hold to the idea that the TR is superior to the CT.
Basically, the term "KJV Only" is a misrepresentation of their stance, because they only prefer the KJV in the English language, but support any other faithful translation of the TR for non-english speakers.
Really, they should be called "Textus Receptus Only".
By the way, I am not "KJV-Only", but I should say I am "KJV-Preferred".
I personally think this dying world and it's modern satanic cultural ideologies would not have had a chance of infiltrating some modern translations like they have, if we would all stick to the tried and true English Bible that has served the Church of Christ so well for the past 400 years.
I enjoy the NASB '95 very much, and more recently the LSB as well.
But the KJV just hits different for me.
@@DesignInNature I wish you were correct, but unfortunately many KJVonliest do indeed say that any translation from the TR except the KJV is anathema. They reject the NKJV as well as the MEV, both TR translations. And they believe that the KJV is superior to and actually *corrects* the original Hebrew and Greek. They also reject "foreign language" translations.
Granted, not all KJVonliests hold these extreme positions, but many do. See Mark Ward's numerous videos (especially those on Ruckmanism) for more details.
@Kirby Smith Well, the problem with the NKJV is that the translators themselves admitted in their preface that while they MOSTLY used the TR, they consulted the CT when deciding to omit/remove the same verses that other "Modern" translations omit as well. The animosity against the NKJV, is that it was sold to the masses as "The same exact KJV, but with modernized language". The thing is that it is decidedly not.
There are entire tables showing side by side comparisons and the amount of verses that adopt critical text renditions instead of the TR is just overwhelming.
I have no experience at all with the MEV, so I cannot comment on that regard.
Now, as for rejecting other foreign translations... wow. You must be dealing with a very sectarian, extreme subset OF KJV onlyists. Every one I have bumped into has in fact recommended in Spanish the Reina Valera Purificada, in German the Luther Bible, etc...
For serious scholarship in regards to a preference for the TR over the CT, I would direct you to "The Trinitarian Bible Society" in England. They are a wonderful ministry that provide very good tools at a reasonable price.
Also "The King James Bible Research Counsil" has some very good resources as well.
@@DesignInNature Thanks for your response. Yes, there are those who believe that unless you are converted by reading the KJV you are going to hell. In other words...learn English or else.
And I am acquainted with the Trinitarian Bible Society. I don't agree with a lot of what they say, but they do plenty of very good work.
Interesting information. I’ve been a Christian for 45yrs. I grew up going to small southern country churches that were KJV only. So I carried a small KJV to Sunday School and read my NKJV, NIV, and HCSB at home.
I now alternate attending a city church that uses the ESV, and a country church that uses the KJV. I’m ok with that. I respect both.
At home these days I read the CSB in giant print, (My eyes aren’t what they used to be) and I enjoy the translation very much.
Another FANTASTIC Video brother Tim. Thankyou
Thank you young man! Very, very well said with a gracious Spirit filled generosity.
Thank you, Brother Tim 🌹🌹🌹🌹
Very good summary without making reader take sides. Rather, allow the side of reasonabliity to blossom.
I find details in the KJV that are interesting, but the NKJV omits. Maybe not earth-shattering, but I prefer them because they enhance the reading. If something comes along that I do not understand, such as culturally, then I consult the newer version. I love the NET Bible for doing this, as they did not leave some verses out. My Orthodox Study Bible has the Septuagint (in part) as the better translation. Sometimes I just want to know the story and not the worry about what's left out, or what is put in, but that is a concern with paraphrases. To me when they paraphrase anything they put in their own biases into the content of the Bible. My go-to daily reading Bible is KJV, and love those thees and thous (plurals, singulars). If people do not use the Bible because of that, they are better off with a new version rather than not reading their Bible.
I just wish they would all do like NASB does and put omitted or "some mss add" verses in brackets in the text, rather than in notes.
I just had a discussion with someone about the word “only begotten” in John 3:16. He felt like John 3:16 was the required translation. If not, the integrity of the doctrine of the incarnation of Christ was being questioned. And that’s what the word was in Latin. I asked if the entire doctrine of incarnation hinged upon the translation of a single English verse. He never answered directly but he asked me if I wanted to remove begotten from every verse in the Bible. I asked him for the sources of that suspicion.
A fair parallel in some ways, but you're dancing around the real issue in both cases, which is textual sources. There are many cases in which the Greek Septuagint preserves readings that are superior to the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text (and which are corroborated by the Dead Sea Scrolls).
The classic example is Deuteronomy 32:8 where the Masoretic reads that God divided the nations according to the "number of the sons of Israel" while the Septuagint reads "number of the angels of God" and two dead sea scroll fragments read "number of the sons of God." Most scholars would agree that the Septuagint reading (while somewhat interpretive) represents the original Hebrew text (seen in the dead sea scrolls) while the traditional Masoretic reading is either a gloss or a corruption.
Another example off the top of my head is the extended description of Saul's using the Urim and Thummin found in the Septuagint version of 1 Samuel 14:41 (included in the ESV and omitted in NASB for those who want to compare). Here most scholars would agree that the Septuagint text preserves something that has dropped out of the original Hebrew. The Dead sea scroll 4QSama also has a similarly large plus in that location. It is probably missing in the Masoretic Text due to a homoioteleuton of ישראל...ישראל.
While I don't subscribe to the legend of 70 identical translators, this is a case where Jerome was not as wise as he believed he was. By rejecting every Septuagint reading in favor of the Masoretic, he introduced many inferior readings into the Vulgate which are rejected today. (Note this is not to say that the Septuagint is always superior to the Masoretic, it has to be taken on a case by case; the Septuagint version of Proverbs is a complete mess for example).
Turning to the "KJV only" crowd. The idea that the KJV translators were uniquely inspired by God above all other translators is absurd. However, some Christians are unfairly lumped in with "KJV onlyist" because they favor Byzantine textual tradition (represented by the KJV, NKJV, Geneva, etc.) rather than the Alexandrian textual tradition. I have not made up my mind as to whether the Byzantine text type is superior, but I do believe that there are legitimate arguments to be made in its favor, which are often brushed aside.
For instance, those who reject the "long ending of Mark" will usually point to its omission from the 4th century Alexandrian Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. However, they are often not aware that this text was quoted by Irenaeus in the 2nd century in Against Heresies 3.10.5:
"Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God."
Since we have no reason to doubt the textual integrity of Irenaeus at that point, we are left to conclude that at least some 2nd century manuscripts of Mark included the long-ending of Mark. This puts an entirely different light on claims that the "earliest" (meaning 4th century) manuscripts lack the long ending.
Although most western scholars are completely in favor of the Alexandrian text type, the scholars of the East in the Orthodox Church have presented arguments for the Byzantine type. In summary, sometimes translation debates are rooted in familiarity and "fear of the new," but there are real, substantive debates to be had regarding textual types. And the arguments in favor of the Byzantine text type should be taken seriously (just as arguments for Septuagint readings should be taken seriously).
Good thoughts here. I should add that the way you have argued here is not how a lot of people think about the issue. They simply compare new translations to the KJV and say things like "verses were taken out of my Bible ," which is not fair to the data. Augustine made this point, that people were in an uproar because Jerome didn't use a word the people were used to. I know there are also people like you who think much more deeply and clearly about the issue, but many don't.
The Masoretic Text did not exist in Jerome's day, and wouldn't for another 500 or more years. What Jerome _did_ use was ancient Hebrew texts that were extant at the time.
@@kirbysmith4135 Fair enough, I should have said "proto-Masoretic text" to describe the manuscripts Jerome consulted. However, the point remains that the Hebrew texts used by Jerome largely match the traditional Masoretic text and generally disagree with the Septuagint texts.
@gilbertculloden87 Indeed. Which, though, brings up another issue of matching. The LXX generally matches the DSS, whereas the MT does not.
Not arguing at all. It's just that I have found this an interesting issue, that both the MT and the LXX have legitimate claims for "superiority."
Hi Tim, thanks for the video. Although I don't agree it's normal Christians with strong feelings for the KJV on one side of the argument and scholars on the other. There are scholars on both sides of the debate, Robinson for example.
"The argument for prioritising Byzantine manuscripts is strong for a few reasons. Firstly, there are a lot of them, and they mostly agree with each other, showing a consistent text despite being separated by time and place. Secondly, if the Alexandrian text was really the main one used by early Christians, why are we piecing together fragments from different text types instead of finding complete manuscripts? Lastly, since we don't have the original autographs, the fact that Byzantine manuscripts were produced in regions close to where the originals were sent adds weight to their reliability. So, because of their abundance, consistency, and geographic proximity to the originals, Byzantine manuscripts deserve special attention in scholarly discussions." Then there are the questionable verses in the modern translations that differ from the KJV, like 1 Corinthians 1:18. Are we saved or being saved? Justification is instantaneous the moment you accept Christ. I think the modern translations are getting confused with progressive sanctification.
Thanks for your insight and the different subjects you present
Thanks Tim…great video. It concerns me when one translation becomes “the only one.” We can have our preference of Bible translation without treating others in a disrespectful way.
Whereas in general I agree with the thrust of your argument, if the last 3 years or so have taught us anything it is that solely or even overly relying on "appeal to authority" for the basis of one's information is not sufficient.
Oh my goodness. I hear the complaining already. "Psalm 12:6 predicts the coming of the KJV. Not the Latin Vulgate." Never mind the fuzzy math you have to do to get to the KJV being the seventh translation of the Bible. Well done, Tim. As others have pointed out, you are always gracious in presenting potentially controversial information. I'm always amused when I go to Ohio to see the in-laws. The church there actually has AV 1611 on their church sign. Never mind that none of them own one and the preacher who put the sign up doesn't preach from the 1611. Again, well done and thank you.
What I want to know is why there's entire parts of verses utterly redacted from modern translations, and don't have any notes at all about their absence. Comparing the vulgate with English translations, there's like entire verses missing. Kjv itself is missing large portions of text. I tried looking this up, but couldn't find any info on it. Most of these redactions seem to have occurred in the clementine 1592 version of the vulgate, and online sources pretends there's only a single vulgate when there's in fact 4 different versions as far as I can tell. Why would these redactions not have any commentary in crucial academic bibles, when much smaller details are explained and noted?
I’m not KJVO, but I am very concerned about the number of times the modern translations are receiving updates. I can’t keep up with it, & have decided to stick with the KJV as my go-to bible. I read other translations like the NASB, CSB & NKJV; but I’m not going to buy any more bibles. I’m retired & am just sick & tired of this whole mess. I miss the days when most Christian churches used the same Bible translation. Also, I have memorized hundreds of KJV verses & don’t want to change. I love the way it sounds. Gourd or ivy, does it really matter? Seriously! I didn’t used to feel this strongly about Bible translations, but am now very much KJV Preferred.
Amen brother all these different versions have made it as confusing as can be
KJV ONLY , it's God's perfect word, What Bible do you claim is perfect? I bet you , you won't answer.
Great video, Tim! 👍
0ld lady in our church insisted if it was good enough for John the Baptist it was good enough for her. THIS mentality is what we are dealing with with. Sad!
The alterations of names surely began with the Latin Vulgate, and as the Greek was the first translation from the Eberith, the Latin Vulgate would be the logical next stage, and English followed the Latin with the English KJV.
Greek: Ἰάκωβος (Iákōbos).
Latin: IACOBUS
The KJV is Catholic; it's specifically Anglican Catholic. The English is the direct translation of the Catholic Latin Vulgate into English.
The first 1611 version used IACOB for James, extracted from the Latin Vulgate's IACOBUS.
Over the centuries, the Eberith texts were hunted-down and burned to remove any evidence for future generations, but that didn't work.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were stolen by Jesuit cave looters who have not yet been prosecuted for their crimes, since the scrolls were unprotected resources in 1947, the year before the State of Israel was established.
Hey! I only just recently subscribed, so I was just curious as to what translation do you personally like to read?
He has said the NKJV and CSB, I believe.
@@MAMoreno oh ok thanks! I was just wondering
love you, Tim
The modern versions are touted as being easier to read. They don't use archaisms like _thee_ and _thou_ and declare themselves easier to understand. But is that what's going on?
John 1:3 (KJV) - All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made.
John 1:3 (NIV) - Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Which is easier to understand? What if I told you that my car was made _through_ the Ford Motor Company? Would that be clearer than my saying that my car was made _by_ the Ford Motor Company? Obviously not. No English speaking person talks like that and yet, the advertising literature says that the new version is easier to understand.
But if it was just John 1:3 that could be overlooked but guess what. _Through_ is preferred over _by_ in every case where the bible calls Jesus the Creator God. There is a clear pattern afoot.
Colossians 1:16 (NIV) - For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created _through_ him and for him.
Hebrews 1:2 - but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and _through_ whom also he made the universe.
In both of the above verses, the KJV uses the word "by". The Greek words used in these passages are articles of speech and it is left to the whim of the translator whether to use the words "through", "by", "for", "because of", "in", etc. So it's not the Greek that I have a problem with, it's the obvious conspiracy to erase Jesus, the Son of God, as the Creator God. I have a big problem with people who do not believe that Jesus is the Creator God trying to spoon feeding me their error.
And so, while I will on occasion, blow the dust off one or more of these ever-changing errant paraphrases, my preferred version of the bible is the King James - with all it's archaisms. At least the translators of the King James believed in God. I can't say that about the modern translation committees, that have both Atheists and Jesuits on them. Atheists and Jesuits? Why not a few Jehovah's Witnesses to round out your Gnostic bent?
There are HUGE problems with the modern versions.
As a Kjv only person. On of as well as an historian I knew about this information. Just remember that when comes to verses talking about salvation. "You are" saved is different then "you will be" saved. In various translations will have different meaning. To me if you change the meaning of verses. That is a big no from me. The other thing is, that translating Hebrew to English is not a exact translation. It is much easier to get it from the Latin or Greek sources. But Greek and sources did not have some of the correct terminologies.
Being the Libertarian-minded person that I am, I don't care if someone choses to be KJVO, or not.
The KJV has always been my favorite translation. However, I've always used other translations, especially the NKJV, which in its apparatus flags the differences in the Majority, Critical, LXX, Vulgate, Targums, and etc. I used to use the NASB 77 a lot, but was forced into using the ESV instead.
My pet peeve is the way Martin Luther translated Psalm 2:12. Hebrew speaking Jews always translated the opening words as "Embrace purity". The LXX and Guitars have " Embrace disciple", while the Targums have "Receive instruction". Martin Luther, who was NOT a Hebrew scholar and relied on interlinear translations his translation, saw the the Aramaic word " bar" means "son", which in Hebrew is " bin" and in Arabic "ibn" or "bin". Luther decided to translate the opening words of Psalm 2:12 as " Kiss the Son" because he saw that Proverbs 31 uses "bar" as "son". Jewish Hebrew Scholars say the speaker in Proverbs 31 is speaking Aramaic. But every Protestant Christian scholar of Hebrew follows Luther's translation. Many Jewish Hebrew scholars, and some Orthodox Greek scholars have criticized the Luther translation of Psalm 2:12. The RSV and NRSV have " Kiss his feet". I use the NKJV to point this out my friends.
I think it was such a temptation to Luther that he just couldn't resist the innovative translation. As a Majority Text (Robinson-Pierpont) person who sees the Textus Receptus as a sub par subset of the Byzantine Text, I go with the traditional pre-Luther view of Psalm 2:12 and so own Orthodox Christian translations of the New Testament and Psalms as well as Protestant translations. Obviously, I'm not KJVO. But, I do have what Protestants would consider an eclectic view.
I really love watching Dr. James F. White on TH-cam. However, although I can't be KJVO or TR-only, I'm not a Critical Text man, either. But, I do have an eclectic view of Psalm 2:12. 🙂
I always enjoy your videos. Thanks!
I really like this video.
My previous pastor
is a follower of Peter Ruckman, and he believes that the KJV was inspired by God when it was translated to English and therefore can be used to correct the original Greek text. I rejected his teaching and left the church.
Not everyone that is kjv only or kjv preferred believes this it’s nonsense. But to say there is no perfect preserved word of God in English or any language is also equally ridiculous. God created the universe, he can preserve his word in any language he wants.
Funny thing, Augustine's pro-Septuagint stance was vindicated when the dead sea scrolls provided consistent pre-Masoretic textual variants matching the septuagint. Also Jerome translating from the Masoretic text meant that NT quotes of the septuagint didn't match up with the their OT because the NT writers only had the septuagint to quote.
Jerome translated from the Masoretic? Where did you hear that?
@@trappedcat3615 "Jerome attempted to create a translation of the Old Testament based on a Hebrew version, rather than the Septuagint, as prior Latin Bible translations used."
The MT was not available until 500 or so years _after_ Jerome's translation. What he _did_ have were Hebrew texts that were extant in _his_ day. @chriseliothernandez
@@kirbysmith4135 no. Compare Tobit in DSS & LXX vs the Vulgate. Or Jeremiah. Jerome serves as witness to the MT before our earliest manuscript. The Jews in the Diaspora were not editing. The Pharisees did it before the temple fell
@@kirbysmith4135 I think we're shouting past each other. If you'd prefer I'd not refer to Jerome's source material as MT, fair point. Call it proto-MT
Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, the veheminit champion of the KJV made the statement and/or the assertion that the KJV 1611 was inspired and could be used to correct the Hebrew or Greek. I had a copy of the statement but can't find it now. Pertaining to Agustin I find it hard to believe he liked the Greek.
Interestingly, Augustine did not know Greek. Only Latin.
@@kirbysmith4135 Kinda my point. He really refused to learn Greek being the son of a Roman official it was kinda expected. A great many Romans, Jews, and Greeks spoke at least two languages or more.
I was familiar with the arguments made about the holy scriptures being translated into Latin and the legend of how the Septuagint was a special inspired translation before I ever became aware there was a KJV-only crowd: you can imagine my initial amusement, then disbelief, then bemusement when I realized how seriously some take this. Ultimately, I find it really sad and depressing: I'm sure there are many KJV-onliests who struggle with the archaic language who might be better served and might read the Bible more often if they had a more contemporary translation.
Thank you for your kindness and sensitivity while discussing this topic. Heaven knows my comment was direct enough to get any KJV-onliest's dander up.
Great video
No hate to KJV only people, but personally I like to use multiple modern bible translations as to get a well rounded view of scripture. Sometimes when my friends and I are doing Bible study we all use bible hub so we can all have two translations up and someone can have the direct translation interlaced bible as well.
Fair, but every time they update the copyright they have to Change 5-10% of the text so that adds up. At least use majority text versions and maybe an esv since cross way isn’t updating the text anymore, I would say Nasb but the 2020 update seems to have bent to the woke gender neutral stuff. Also the original man on the committee got the nasb admitted later it was wrong and changed his stance to the majority text and said something like he was concerned about being in trouble with God
Learn to read the original Greek and Hebrew so you can know yourself what it says. In fact there are passages in the King James that later have been determined not to have been in the earliest manuscripts that are closest to the originals.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Different translations of one language based on textual issues versus translating from a foreign language into the common tongue.
I personally am TR only because I don't think the CT is consistent with the theological concept of divine preservation of sola scriptura.
That was helpful to hear about that discourse between Jerome and Augustine. I think the KJV is a beautiful translation but because of some words being outdated, too many people are making false and dangerous doctrines from them. I realize one can use any translation to do this but I have an example.
I recently had a discourse with two men saying God created evil because Isaiah 45:7 says so in the KJV. I tried to explain the better word translation is calamity like in the ESV and NASB. The word evil meant in a general sense back then describing anything considered difficult or bad but because of an outdated use of this word they were blaspheming God by saying he created evil.
I appreciate the scholarship in the LSB translation to go back to the original languages but keeping the spirit of the NASB. I use all four of these translations, ESV, LSB, KJV and NASB.
It can be dangerous to give your total allegiance to one translation. Thanks Tim 🙏
Just look at the cross references lost in new translations, the deity of Christ being undermined. The fact that the kjb uses a 5th grade vocabulary...
Imagine using your book of religion made by a fucking King lol
😪
Kinda Douay Rheims only but just as a standard, kjv only as the protestant standard fuh sho.
CSB onlyist! Im kiding. NASB onlyist. Oh, still kidding. ESV onlyist. Lol
Why can’t we all get along and just love Jesus I believe that’s what he wants
I was KJV only, till I discovered the Hebrew Masoretic was intentionally corrupted by the Jews. Since then, I'm looking at the Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, Dead Sea Scrolls etc. I think the bulk of the Masoretic is the Word of God, but not the entirety. I believe God's word has become scattered across various manuscripts and as such, Christians should focus on creating a critical text of the Old Testament, to remove the corruption.
This is something I've never heard of before. I was and am under the impression that Jews revere their sacred literature; why and how do you think it was corrupted?
@@MM-jf1me The Jews of today might revere the Old Testament, even though they worship the oral law of the pharisees who became the rabbis, yet, the Jews after Christ corrupted the Old Testament. The early church used the Septuagint until Jerome unwisely went to Jerusalem to get helps from the rabbis to translate their then Old Testament into Latin. Multiple church fathers warned about the Jews corrupting the OT. They did it to Exodus 12:40, the ages of the patriarchs in Genesis 11, multiple quotations in the Old Testament that are found in the New Testament. The same as Christians wouldn't trust Jews with the New Testament, why would we trust them with the Old Testament.
I agree but I also suggest you look at the ISR from the international scripture research I believe that means they are online The hallelujah scriptures were taken directly from the ISR
@@MM-jf1me I read somewhere they did indeed change some of it because it was proving by prophecy that Jesus was Messiah.
@@charlene1977 Where can I find more info about this claim?
James white lol
Latin was a dead language. And Jesus uses Greek (Septuagint) which was the language of the Empire. Vulgate had misinterpretations such as Virgin Mary
I came up with 101 Reasons for the King James Bible being the Pure Word of God for today. But do I use Modern bibles? Sure I do. I use them to help update the 1600’s English at times in the KJB. But Modern bibles do teach false doctrines and therefore they cannot be my final Word of authority. Not only that, but Bible history teaches us that there are two lines of manuscripts. There are two vines mentioned in the Bible. The vine of Sodom, and the True Vine (Jesus). If you trace the line of manuscripts for the KJB back in time, you see martyrs who died for their faith. The KJB was the Bible that spread across the globe and led to revivals. Where are the revivals today with the 400 plus Modern bibles? If you were to trace back the line of manuscripts for the Modern bibles, it is tied to the Catholic Church and liberals. All Modern bibles are based on the Nestle and Aland text. Get yourself a 27th edition and it says right in the introduction that is is supervised by the Vatican. Keith Piper actually did a study and found 14 verses that are changed in Modern bibles that favor the Catholic Church. There is so much more on this topic and discussion. So things are not as you say, my friend. There can only be one Word of God and not many.
Feel free to trust the modern so-called doctor scholars if you want to. I will trust the King James Bible.
You're trusting the scholars of 4 to 5 centuries past. And the sad thing is that people of the 16th and 17th centuries told them the same thing. Erasmus was criticized for "correcting" the Vulgate, and the first few sections of the KJV preface are dedicated to expressing the translators' frustration with people complaining that they're making yet another English Bible version. History repeats itself.
@@MAMoreno Those scholars 4 to 5 centuries past ARE more trustworthy during their translation of the 1611 KJV. They used the manuscripts used by Christians from the New Testament era to 1611. Modernists corrupt and taint the scriptures with far fewer manuscripts found the past 150 - 175 years. So, if the modernists are right then we did not have a complete Bible until the past century. Nonsense.