Psalms 12:6-7 King James Bible " The words of the Lord are pure words; as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
This verse has absolutely positively nothing to do with Bible translation it has to do with the Lord preserving the people do yourself a favor and look up the original 1611 authorized King James version and look at the marginal note for verse 7 of that Psalm and you will see your error
@@randywheeler3914 Unfortunatly modern Bible translations pervert Psalm 12:7. This is due to incompetence, lack of knowlage of Hebrew and lack of discernment. What else would God be preserving?
Love how your father really dug into his bible and that part of his "legacy" was instilling that zeal and love for the word of God in you. Example is the best teacher. The glory of God is to conceal things. The glory of kings is to search things out (Proverbs 25:2).
Most Americans might have a bible in their home BUT most have NEVER READ the whole thing or even whole NEW TESTAMENT ONCE!!!! I dare you to ask your preacher to conduct a survey/poll in your church to CONFIRM. Most churchgoers are bible ignorant, gullible, deceived, fanatic victims of bible warping , LAW trashing modern Pharisee HERETICS!...
I have studied bothGreek and Hebrew in college and have spent the last 8 years reading the Greek New Testament. It’s a flawed idea that “literal is best”. Just like in English, some idioms translated literally make no sense. Also, case endings (which we don’t have in English) - nor do we have Aorist tense or “middle voice”. These are very hard to express “literally”.
I think he just means it’s as close as possible to what the text is supposed to say. This is a great idea. Helps people to understand better. Like when Jesus asks Peter three times if he loves Him and he responds with the same word, love in English, but in the Greek it’s three different words. It’s helpful to understand the original meanings. That’s what this book is meant to do ✝️🙏🏻❤️
Do you keep Gods commandments out of love? “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” 1 John 5:2-4
@@Dub4Yah nice post… but how in the world does it remotely relate to the topic at hand: Hermeneutics? I am not the topic of discussion - literalism is…
"It's a flawed idea that 'literal is best.'" BINGO! The tendency for fundamentalists to insist that we take the Bible completely literally (and deny science in the process) is actually HARMING the spread of the gospel. To many atheists, Biblical literalism looks ridiculous. And that's because it is. *There is no rule that God couldn't have inspired figurative language to be used in the Bible.* Think of all the atheists who honestly seek Jesus, but they can't bring themselves to join Christianity because of the social stigma, which exists because of people like Ken Ham. Or maybe they don't even know that it's possible to interpret the Bible figuratively sometimes. I say this as a Christian. Fundamentalists add to the text unproven assumptions. Don't be like them.
One can memorize every scripture but with out the holy tradition of context ye can err. Paul says over 17 times keep the holy traditions I’ve passsed down in writing and speech. The one true holy catholic and apostolic church or orthodoxy is unbroken to Christ and the apostles. Translation doesn’t matter. Context and teaching do. The Word is the Truth. Orthodoxy is the earthly life and the way.
@@FA18_Driver okay and who says i do not take it within context? Why do you think i use a veriety of sources that all match and confirm? The complete word study series uses the strongs concordance, and nkjv is an updated version of kjv. I hate the very idea of church denominations because every one of them takes scripture out of context and fits it to what they want it to say. I also believe that a true follower of Christ goes with what the bible actually says and not just take a preachers word for it like 95% of all denominations do.
@@ZacharyBruce-Romans-12-2 You dont understand. Go to acts chapter 13 from memory about the eunuch reading Isiah. The Apostle says do you understand what you are reading? The eunuch says no. How could I with out a teacher? What I’m saying is it’s not the translation, translational differences are very minor. Very very minor. Without context and teaching and Holy tradition passed down to whom it was given, you can read all the translations you want and still not understand. Just like the eunuch in Acts of the Apostles.
@@ZacharyBruce-Romans-12-2 Do the women at your church cover their heads? If no then you don’t actually follow what the Bible teaches. You pick and choose what’s convent for you, and make your own interpretations. One can certainly err and not understand scripture without a trencher as the Bible tells us in Acts 13
@@FA18_Driver i am really tiring of this debate. The old testiment served the purpose of establishing the moral laws that Christ taught on, and to make a way for Christ to take the stripes, wounding, and beatings for the provisioning he put in in place for healing, proaperity, spiritual gifts, etc. And then for Him to die on the cross to pay the price for our sins. You see, you have to have The Holy Spirit as your teacher for understanding scripture properly, not som fallibke man. The Holy Spirit is as scripture describes, our "down payment" for what is to come, and He is our comforter, counselor, teacher. He convicts us of our righteousness. He seals us away so the enemy may be abke to kill our physical bodies but not our spirits. He is the source of the power within us as well as the power that Chriat used to preform miracles, and when we sit down, shut up, and listen to Him, The Holy Spirit interprets the Word for us. As far as your comment on "picking and choosing" lets go back to old vs new testiment. Christ Himself has said "I have not come to condemn the law but to fulfill it" he fulfilled the purpise of the old law and ushered in a new law. The old law had to work off the promise of Christ' sacrifice. The old law could never be followed perfectly and God knew that. That is why Christ specifically focused on the moral laws such as "love the Lord your God, and love thy neighbor" and did away with the ritual and religious laws, because what he went through at the cross fulfilled their purposes. It is not me "picking and choosing" but following what my King laid out before me and listening to Him and what he has said. I eat pork, i love shrimp but i am allergic to shellfish, i love clam chowder. Am i a sinner becaase of that? No because paul even said "do not deny it if it is taken in thanksgiving" now you and i can go around and around in debate all day long but the fact of the matter is, scripture needs to be taken in context, and you HAVE to have the Holy Spirit within you, and you HAVE to be baptised within Him in order to understand the bible fully, and to be a christian. The Holy Spirit is God Himself, and He is how we recieve Christ, and recieve Him (Christ) into our Hearts. The Holy Spirit is one aspect of the one true God. Christ even said "those who look upon me have looked upon the Father for i am in the Father and the Father is within me." One God, 3 different aspects. Sorry for the tangeant but it all goes to the root of this. The Holy Spirit is essential to be a Christian and have Salvation, Grace, spiritual gifts etc, and He is essential for living life according to the Spirit and not the flesh, and He also is the Guarentor of all of it. Before you say it, yes Christ also said that "I am the door, all who enter heaven enter through me." And scripture further says "if you confess your sin and profess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe that God raised Him the dead, you will be saved." If you believe in Him, then obviously you will keep His commands. I can go on and on but this message is long enough. The point is, salvation comes from faith. "For by grace you have been saved THROUGH FAITH. Not of yourselves it is a gift from God, not of works lest anyone should boast." Lastly "faith comes by hearing the Word" yes preaching is important and it was not my intent to dispute that but one must also research what the Word says. My cousin who is also my church descipleship coordinator/worship pastor. He has a phrase, and he calls it the .45; Get In The Word (4) and; Get The Word In You(5). Preachers are a great and essential, but personal study with the Holy Spirit, is even more important. Traditions can be good if they are based strictly on the Word, but tradition can be corrupted. Anyway, i am exhausted from all this writing.
Romans 1:28 “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;”
God is sending out invitations for us to come to Christ. When you receive willfully God’s gift to us (believing on Christ for salvation) you are permanently & fully saved. Our faith is like this :a Moment of Confession, followed by a Lifetime of conversion. Salvation is God’s gift to us. Sanctification (leading us away from sin) is God’s will for us!
It may be literal but the manuscripts that it is translated from are not as accurate as the manuscripts that the KJV are translated from. There are something like 16 verses missing in the NASB and other modern translations.
@@BrockJamesStory Well that’s because the text base of most modern bibles are not the oldest, or best as some want claim? They are based three main texts: Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus. The Alexandrinus was declared a corrupt fake by Jerome in the 4th century. All known copies were destroyed(burned) by following Jewish scribble protocol. The Alexandrian’s were so rebellious, unrepentant, and hard hearted that they managed to bury a single copy. This is what we have today. The Vaticanus supposedly discovered in 1475, with no prior history(coming from the Vatican, oh this is not a red flag 🚩 at all)? While Erasmus was putting together the Greek NT, the Catholic Church wanted him to use it. After examining it he determined it to be a fraudulent document! All the other Reformers knew this, and rejected it as well! The Sinaiticus was supposedly discovered by Constantine Tischendorf(who was a known money hungry liar) in 1844, but was actually created by Constantine Simonides in 1841. It’s interesting to read, Simonides had witnesses to back up his claim. Tischendorf had the biased media, and money. David Daniels with Chick Publications has a video series on this, and related topics. He absolutely eviscerates the Sinaiticus, showing it was created by Simonides. He also has evidence through independent chemical testing showing that the ink, both written, and art are 19th century. The vellum is old, but not the ink! Other resources are at k j b r c . org
Me and my household love Ken Ham. He is such a valuable member of the body. God has truly blessed him. Thanks Ken Ham and everyone else who has built the body of Christ the way yall have. ❤✝️🙏
More people don’t get to go than do, so there are many of us just like you. So don’t feel to bad, besides getting there is probably way more expensive than getting in.
@ please give me a few examples. There’s also Latin manuscripts. Also, just because we don’t have access to certain Greek manuscripts today doesn’t mean they never existed
I read the KJV because other translations I have seen verses from, assert works based salvation. "Repent of your sins" it's not found in the KJV. If someone believes they have to turn from their sins or stop sinning (which is impossible), is adding works to salvation. Jonah 3:10 KJV - read it!
I get what you mean. When I read, repent of your sin, I interpet that to mean, my sin was not believing on Jesus. So now I can read any version for clarity in some passages that confuse me. Paul can go on and on sometimes with 4 tangents and a half page run on sentence that makes it difficult. Lol ❤
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? - Roman's 6:1,2 KJV
Im no gambler, but I would bet there are contradictions in this new LSB, just like every modern translation. KJB needs 0 updates, contrains 0 contradictions.
@@boservant1693 If you're not getting God's Word from the Bible... you're not getting God's Word. As that's the only source we have for his perfect Word today, which he promised to preserve for us. So if you believe that his Word in the Bible is not perfect, then you don't believe God and his Word.
I’m sorry but you’re in a cult or a cult like mindset if you think KJV is the only Bible we can read. If you think that, just learn Greek and get the original manuscripts. We do not speak old English. God did not make a cannon for the KJV. Stop idolizing the translation, it’s abominable.
You obviously didn’t watch the video, which was literally 20 seconds long. It has absolutely nothing to do with the KJV. Next time at least watch the video before you critique it, troll.
I got one problem with the nasb. Hosea 6:6 6 For I desire loyalty rather than sacrifice, And the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings. Matthew 9:13 Now go and learn what this means: ‘I desire compassion, rather than sacrifice,’ for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” Matthew 12:7 But if you had known what this means: ‘I desire compassion, rather than sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. It should read compassion not loyalty to make the connection between Hosea 6 and Matthew 9 and 12.
You've got to be kidding me. Seriously Ken? Your coming out with your own Bible translation? Also, why would your goal be to make "the most literal" version of the Bible? You do realise "most literal" in no way means, "closest to the author/God meant the text to mean" right? Obviously large parts of the Bible are not meant to be literal. But let me guess. You're not going to change/alter _those_ scriptures right? Meaning you and your associates are basically deciding for us what God meant and intended?
I'm 75 years old and I know that I am Saved by God's Grace through faith and sealed by God's Holy Spirit. And all I've ever used is the King James Version. Well Ken, I am sure that you mean well, and that your dad did as well. But I just looked up John 20:17 in your Bible recommendation nasb. In your version it reads that Mary Magdalena was clinging to Jesus at the resurrection and I don't believe that she touched Him. Jesus had just risen from the dead and he told her not to touch him in the KJV. Why? Because he was on His way to take his blood into the Holy of Holies in Heaven, and He was now our high priest, applying His Blood as an attoinment for our sins forever. Jesus Christ could not allow anyone to touch Him while He was handling the pure perfect Sacrificial Attoinment for us. Compare this verse with the KJV. I am satisfied with the King James Version. Amen.!!!
I think he means "most faithful," not "most literal." We all know Ham is an arch-literalist, but "true to the text" and "literal" are not the same thing: in fact it's virtually an oxymoron.
I have been reading the Bible for 50 years. While reading any version is great. I find the accuracy and poetic style of the King James Bible is best. I use Blue Letter Bible for online research.
I need an organization that can help train a team from my community to join me on the Bible translation work. I have translated from Genesis -Palms chapter 40 from English Language to Durob Language. Please get in touch with me if you are one Ekpoh Patrick Obasi
Just would like for you to look into how has God preserved his word. We cannot say the NASB and the KJV are both the preserved word of God because they contradict each other
If you study Bible translation the term literal is begging the question you can say word for word but literal is a term of application not interpretation
Every translation must be to some degree more or less interpretive since not every word or phrase in the original text corresponds to a same word or phrase in the language into which it is translated. There can be translations though more far afield.
Im a KJV onlyist for many reasons.1 big reason is that many if not all modern Bibles have been corrupted by wescott and hort. It all started with the ASV and then the esv.
Please, please, please tell me which is the true Bible, not the best, the true Bible. I seek biblical truth, not opinions. Im struggling and seeking help.
I love all you say about creation, but I'm very disappointed with the Bible translation you recommend. Nothing better than the authorized KJV. History proves this. Satan tried to destroy it and many were martyred for it! God bless you and your family 🙏
I have over 30 bibles available to me for comparison, 2 Sam 21:19 (The Legacy Standard Bible) There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite struck down Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. (The New American Standard Bible) There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. huh and here all this time I though David killed Goliath of Gath, I guess not, oh and the LSB has like so many other made the claim to be the most accurate bible translation to date. This still goes to show that when you translate from faulty sources those contradictions in the source materials get translated into the modern English versions, here we are with the latest and greatest translation into English and they still have Elhanan killing Goliath of Gath. David, hey Elhanan you distract Goliath and ill sling a stone at him and we can both take credit for killing him... This is just one of a whole host of problems that have never been resolved and will not be resolved because whatever they are revising to get their 28th revision is not revising the contradictions hat are still present even in the newest bible the LSB
@@mryoyo1234 This is the Greek text used by the modern translations. it is based on the Nestles/Aland 27th revision (The Accurate New Testament+) inG1722 whomG3739 [We] haveG2192 theG3588 redemptionG629 theG3588 forgivenessG859 [of] theG3588 offensesG266 (The Legacy Standard Bible) in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. This is the one for the KJV Col 1:14 InG1722 whomG3739 we haveG2192 redemptionG629 throughG1223 hisG846 blood,G129 even theG3588 forgivenessG859 of sins:G266 (The King James Version) In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Notice that The Blood is missing from the Nestles/Aland Greek text ANT+ But present in the Textus receptus text, they both cannot be right, the modern textual critic wants to claim that stuff was added to the Textus Receptus, I am of the opinion that itis far easier to remove/erase what you do not like than it is to add stuff you want in there. If you go through the jpegs of Sinaiticus you will find pages with ghost characters, where they were erased but still just barely visible.
@@intentionally-blank I've asked myself the question I posed to you. I concluded the logical answer . If you're not King James bible believer you will never be able to answer.
The modern bibles are based on different texts from the King James Version. To be on the safe side I’ll stay with the old King James Authorized Version.
Students of the biblical languages (which include ANY of those languages having significance in the development of the Bible), usually don’t go down rabbit 🐇 holes about which (presumably) English version of the Bible is the “most literal.” Slavish renderings, although earning points for literalness, sometimes obscure matters by failing to represent ancient idiom to modern readers. In addition to the issues brought about through the contention for literalness, there’s the issue of textual value.
@@chazanythompson it's just not though. You won't find any credible scholars who will say that the KJV or the Geneva is the most literal (in context of word for word and accuracy). Not even the translators of those bibles would say that if they were alive today. I would highly recommend that you learn a little bit about textual criticism and about the challenges that translators face when translating the Bible. Check out David Wallace. God bless 😊
@@Bilfford There are multiple issues that is not being addressed? So called modern textual criticism is literally demonic, of the devil! It comes from two non-believing Anglican priest Westcott & Hort, they were gnostic, cultist! The hated God's word, and evangelicals. The text basis for most modern bibles come from fraudulent/fake documents! These are referred to as the Alexandrian type text, primarily three copies: Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus. I will show how they are fake. The 47 KJB translators, Erasmus, and the other Reformers were far superior to that of modern scholars. They would literally make modern scholars look like children, infants even! Also the KJB is mathematically perfect showing that this is God's fingerprints of His inspiration through the Holy Ghost!
@@barryallen119 I would refrain from titling any translation as the most accurate. I would say that the NASB is a very accurate and literal/word for word translation. But I also wouldn't credit the NASB with any more accuracy than I would with the NLT, or the NIV, or the CSB, or the NET. All of those translations are less literal (less formal and more dynamic) than the NASB but I definitely wouldn't say less accurate. You can always go more and more literal, more and more formal, until you find yourself with an unreadable interlinear and at that point you might as well learn Greek and Hebrew
@@Bilfford Many of these so-called modern liberal revisionist scholars that you think are credible? Like so many in the modern church have been lied to, and deceived! Because of this horrific modern critical text garbage, that actually comes from Westcott & Hort. These are two unbelieving Anglican Priest, who were gnostics, and cultist. Virtually everything that is espoused as scholarship today comes from these two cultist! Which is demonic, and of the devil! The only true credible scholars are those who are conservative, and hold to the traditional text. Which is the only true Biblical text from Antoch, the TR/Majority text/Byzantine type texts! To show a comparison, the 47 of the KJB, Erasmus, and the rest of the Reformers were far superior to any scholar today! These men started their education between 4-5 years of age, and were fluent in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin by 6-7 years of age. They would go on to learn many other languages, as adults studying 12-16 hours a day. Then becoming experts in Biblical studies, languages, literature, history, and cultures. In contrast most modern scholars on average have 8 or so years of higher learning, and may know one ancient language somewhat? So minus our tech, those scholars would make modern scholars look like children, infants even! There is much more to this, I'll show how the manuscripts used for most modern bibles are fraudulent fakes. Also how the KJB is not only perfect, and without error! But is also mathematically perfect, showing God's inspiration carried over into the KJB as His fingerprints! That it was totally the power of God the Holy Ghost, not from any man! More later!
No, the LITV by Jay Green is the most accurate absolute word for word translation. I’ve tested it with the actual original Hebrew and Greek and it didn’t fail.
However, you probably tested it on the Critical Texts Manuscripts of the Greek New Testament and the Septuagint Greek translation of the Hebrew manuscripts. Try to compare that word-for-word translation against the Masoretic and Received Texts. Neither the NASB or the Jay Green's Literal Translation you use can compare exactly to the original language manuscripts. The problem is the source, not the diligence used in the translation.
Ecclesiastes 9:8. NASB 1995-“Let your clothes be white all the time, and let not oil be lacking on your head.” Jay Green 1993-“Let your garments be white at every time; and let your head lack no ointment.” My absolute literal translation from original Hebrew-“With every time be garments your white; and oil upon head your not lack.”
I found the translation. And became surprised that it like KJV uses the word "hell". It is a pagan word not to find in the original text. Why is this so difficult? The word hell has caused so much confusion and should never has been a part of our vocabulary at all. Therefore this translation is disqualified in my eyes.
@@roastedvegetables3737 I asked an honest question, you replied with a personal attack. You have no idea about me. Your initial post is a display of arrogance in saying 'Of course not nobody ever does" Nobody but you ...
@@intentionally-blank I didn't say anything about your question not having Integrity of course it was honest and you displayed exactly what my point was because if you actually knew you would not have asked the question what needs to be fixed and that's the point
Just as Greek was the universal language of the 1st century, plus copied into many other languages for preservation. But in the fullness of time with development of the printing press, and England becoming a dominate power. Which set the stage for English to be the world dominate language of the end-times. The inspired KJB is produced, no errors, and is mathematically perfect!
LSB still has mistakes; for example, Zechariah 5:6 should not translate as a woman, but a fire. There are still so many errors in translation to be corrected in many versions of the Bible.
What does he mean by "literal?" I assume that he realizes that The Bible is full of idioms -- colloquial sayings of the time -- that are not meant to be taken literally. But in general, the Body of Christ obviously desires a true and accurate translation of The Bible . Some today, even many if not most people -- Christian and non-Christian -- believe that The Bible we have today -- whatever translation -- is not reliable. This is not true Do not these doubters realize that men for centuries have asked the same questions that people are asking today? "Can we trust The Bible ?" "Is The Bible the actual Word Of God ?" Yes. Today's Bible is reliable and is The Word Of God. This conclusion has been reaced decades ago. It is beyond any doubt. The consequences of not trusting The Bible are beyond measure. Your enemy, who wants you to join him in the eternal lake of fire, knows that The Bible is The Word Of God. This is why he goes all out to convince people that It isn't. I encourage everyone to read Chuck Missler's book, "Cosmic Codes." It is not about the various written word codes that were talked about profusely years ago. This subject is included in Missler's book, but it goes into much more than this subject matter to prove that The Bible is indeed The Word Of God . And prove it he does .
lol..... it was so literal that we had to update it! Maybe they'll update "Twas the night before Christmas" and make it to where the reindeers only walk and not fly!
I would argue that the Concordant Version is as literal as readability will allow. If you want to find something ultra-literal, the Concordant publishers offer an interlinear NT -- difficult to follow, but gives extraordinary insight into actual Greek word meanings.
Most Americans might have a bible in their home BUT most have NEVER READ the whole thing or even whole NEW TESTAMENT ONCE!!!! I dare you to ask your preacher to conduct a survey/poll in your church to CONFIRM. Most churchgoers are bible ignorant, gullible, deceived, fanatic victims of bible warping , LAW trashing modern Pharisee HERETICS!////
No, I highly doubt it. In fact if you wanted to translate the name of Yeshua Messiah into English, it should be more like "The Anointed King of Salvation." And of course unless they are using the tetragrammaton, they would have to write out the whole sentence that Elohim answered Moses from the effulgence in the bush, which would be more like, "I Am That I Am."
George Whitefield Charles Spurgeon and so many have preached from the King James version Bible and they stuck with the King James version and so many people are being saved through the word of God because you want a Bible that is from the true word of Jesus Christ there are teachers on TH-cam that tell people that you got to be very careful of what Bible you should read we all know the original Bible was not written in English but when people stars to make different changes and take out the original text out of the King James Bible the Geneva Bible in the King James are the two best Bibles are the other different translation Bibles you got to be very careful I know other people read different commentary Bibles because they say the King James version is very difficult and it's hard to understand the King James version Bible is not hard to understand it's kind of like you saying that Jesus word is very difficult and I can't make out the words Jesus word and his teachings is never difficult and hard to understand. That's why we have the Holy Spirit when we open the word of God to help us to understand his scriptures
Faithful to what text?? That is the issue.. I will take the translation taken from the texts that align with the over 99% of the manuscripts gathered… KJV
So ... The "preserved" word of God happens to be in English. How convenient for you. What about all those other languages? No "preserved" word of God for them?
@@tonyallen4265 you also can have some of the preserved words of God and not all of them. For example the NIV contains most of the preserved word of God, but took out a lot of it.
Most Americans might have a bible in their home BUT most have NEVER READ the whole thing or even whole NEW TESTAMENT ONCE!!!! I dare you to ask your preacher to conduct a survey/poll in your church to CONFIRM. Most churchgoers are bible ignorant, gullible, deceived, fanatic victims of bible warping , LAW trashing modern Pharisee HERETICS!...
I have mine But lets no made the mistake about legacy Legacy is a pagan concept Lets fix our eyes in Jesus and the Kingdom of Heavens He is our King in eternity
@@AtamMardes religion is earning gods favor through rituals or good deeds. You can’t earn favor with the Christian God. It is a free gift of God of grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
Most Americans might have a bible in their home BUT most have NEVER READ the whole thing or even whole NEW TESTAMENT ONCE!!!! I dare you to ask your preacher to conduct a survey/poll in your church to CONFIRM. Most churchgoers are bible ignorant, gullible, deceived, fanatic victims of bible warping , LAW trashing modern Pharisee HERETICS!..like John MacArthur.
Does it say "shall" have eternal life. . Or "may" have eternal life The giddeons did that change. I don't like how 1 word makes a big difference in translation.
We love you Ken and we love your work we've been out to see it but if you want the most literal Bible translation you can get you better get the authorized version there's nothing else like it I know you don't believe it because you've gotten something else but it is more literal than anything on the planet because it is the exact Bible
The original KJV was faithful to the ancient texts, but the 16th c translators took poetic liberty to make it beautiful. The KJV has been changed over the years. John 3:16, from the 16th c to around 1905 it was whosoever believeth in me SHOULD not perish.. the calvinists changed the word to fit thier theology. The New KJV has gone back to the ancient KJV text. I believe the most literal faithful translation from the ancient text is the Douay Rheims. a word for word translation of the latin vulgate translated from the ancient text by St Jerome in the late 4th c
You need to believe the King James Bible, and stop fooling around making other versions. More than 4 dozen great linguistic scholars who were in agreement at least 14X on every word of translation; based on some 5,322 manuscripts that were in vast agreement. That's the Bible God preserved, now over 400 years ago. I love Ken Ham's creation work, but does he know the time he's living in? Soon there will be world war, then Antichrist will be revealed, and he's still making changes to God's Word.
I wonder how, in this most literal translation, Kavod is translated, Elohim is translated, and several other words are translated. If Kavod is translated as "the Glory of the Lord" (or in similar terms), and Elohim is translated as "God" - then it definitely isn't the most literal translation. :-)
I would like to know if you translate כבוד as the exceeding weight of the glory of Yahweh Elohim. And how would you translate ילדים? Would you use something like Godhead, or the complex unity of God?
@@FrankPCarpi As I have already said (but I see my comments havve been deleted for some reason), there are people much more knowledgeable than me. Check out the works of Mauro Biligno and/or Paul Wallis, both of whom have channels and/or videos here on TH-cam. If you search, e.g., "Kavod" and "Bligno" or "Kavod" and "Wallis", or "Kavod" and "The 5th Kind", you should be able to find some answers. BTW, I never ever doubted that the Old Testament does not speak of God in the meaning of an all-loving, aomniscient, omnipresent, high, spiritual being who are even unable to comprehend and who is the Lord of Everything, but rather it speaks of gods (or a god) whose name may or may not have been Yahweh, and that the Old Testament (but also, in some parts, the New Testament) gives us indirect, circumstantial evidence of ancient aliens contact. I'm taking about things such as "The Glory of the Lord", the burning bush, the wheel of Ezekiel, the manna machine, the Star of Betlehem, and a number of other descriptions. And yes, some/most/all of you will laughh at me. I don't care, this will not change my conviction.
@@statutesofthelord every translation is gonna have problems, unfortunately. However, im surprised there are so many of these folks in the comment section in particular. Maybe they saw the title and thought ken ham was gonna prove the KJV was Gods bible using facts, evidence, and logic 😂🥰
@@mexican-americanmale3035 male, When I was having contact with the translator around 24 years ago, He had already finished the NT, and said he was going to start working on the OT. I'm sorry if he hasn't finished the OT yet. The entire ALT New Testament translation used to be up on the net for free, but I think you have to purchase it now. I enjoy seeing the various meanings and ways to translate the text right there in the text, without having to consult other books. God bless as you study to show yourself approved unto God.
The LSB is definitely NOT the most literal translation, lol. The LITERAL STANDARD VERSION, an update to Young's Literal Translation (YLT) -- is definitely more "literal." At any rate, "literal" isn't very helpful as an ultimate goal. A supremely literal translation of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek would be unreadable to English readers with no background in thos languages. All translations -- including NASB, LSB, KJV, and even the YLT -- take necessary liberties to make the text readable, and therefore, meaningful.
The "most literal" translation is not always the best. People at the time used their figures of speech too, and a too-literal translation of a figure of speech can miss the whole point. For example, the translations I am used to (NIV, then later ESV) have Jesus often calling the pharisees "You brood of vipers". Some friends from other denominations have now suggested to me that this is an over-literal translation, that a phrase which would better match in modern English what Jesus' phrase sounded like at the time would be "You sons of bitches!". Thinking about that afterwards, if that's what Jesus had actually said, then someone thousands of years from now trying to make the most literal translation to a language that will develop later might translate "You sons of bitches" as the equivalent of "you brood of dogs". Yes, there are problems with translations which aren't literal enough too. The second best way to deal with this (the one I use) is to use several translations, knowing which ones are more literal and which ones are less so. Comparing them, you can usually get a good idea what is going on. The best solution would be for each of us to learn fluent ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek, so that translations would become unnecessary.
Isn't that an absurd thing to say? Jesus spoke Aramaic, perhaps Greek as well. Thee and thou, etc. were highly unlikely in his vocabulary in ancient times. What scripture says, "Truly, truly I say to you, unless you study the King James Version you cannot see the kingdom of God "?
Psalms 12:6-7 King James Bible
" The words of the Lord are pure words; as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
Amen!! What people fail to recognize is that all modern translations including the NASB and LSB are translated from corrupted Greek texts.
And yet we still have the Johanine Comma
This verse has absolutely positively nothing to do with Bible translation it has to do with the Lord preserving the people do yourself a favor and look up the original 1611 authorized King James version and look at the marginal note for verse 7 of that Psalm and you will see your error
@@randywheeler3914 Unfortunatly modern Bible translations pervert Psalm 12:7. This is due to incompetence, lack of knowlage of Hebrew and lack of discernment. What else would God be preserving?
@Jim-jt4ps
DUDE!!! Grow up!😠
Your mind is Corrupting the Text!!!
Love how your father really dug into his bible and that part of his "legacy" was instilling that zeal and love for the word of God in you. Example is the best teacher. The glory of God is to conceal things. The glory of kings is to search things out (Proverbs 25:2).
Most Americans might have a bible in their home BUT most have NEVER READ the whole thing or even whole NEW TESTAMENT ONCE!!!! I dare you to ask your preacher to conduct a survey/poll in your church to CONFIRM. Most churchgoers are bible ignorant, gullible, deceived, fanatic victims of bible warping , LAW trashing modern Pharisee HERETICS!...
I have studied bothGreek and Hebrew in college and have spent the last 8 years reading the Greek New Testament. It’s a flawed idea that “literal is best”. Just like in English, some idioms translated literally make no sense. Also, case endings (which we don’t have in English) - nor do we have Aorist tense or “middle voice”. These are very hard to express “literally”.
I think he just means it’s as close as possible to what the text is supposed to say. This is a great idea. Helps people to understand better. Like when Jesus asks Peter three times if he loves Him and he responds with the same word, love in English, but in the Greek it’s three different words. It’s helpful to understand the original meanings. That’s what this book is meant to do ✝️🙏🏻❤️
Do you keep Gods commandments out of love?
“By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.”
1 John 5:2-4
@@Dub4Yah nice post… but how in the world does it remotely relate to the topic at hand: Hermeneutics? I am not the topic of discussion - literalism is…
"It's a flawed idea that 'literal is best.'"
BINGO! The tendency for fundamentalists to insist that we take the Bible completely literally (and deny science in the process) is actually HARMING the spread of the gospel.
To many atheists, Biblical literalism looks ridiculous. And that's because it is. *There is no rule that God couldn't have inspired figurative language to be used in the Bible.*
Think of all the atheists who honestly seek Jesus, but they can't bring themselves to join Christianity because of the social stigma, which exists because of people like Ken Ham. Or maybe they don't even know that it's possible to interpret the Bible figuratively sometimes.
I say this as a Christian. Fundamentalists add to the text unproven assumptions. Don't be like them.
@@unsightedmetal6857boo. What a terrible poor comment. Think more.
I do a combination of nkjv, a strongs concordance, the amplified, and the complete word study both old and new testiments.
One can memorize every scripture but with out the holy tradition of context ye can err. Paul says over 17 times keep the holy traditions I’ve passsed down in writing and speech.
The one true holy catholic and apostolic church or orthodoxy is unbroken to Christ and the apostles.
Translation doesn’t matter. Context and teaching do.
The Word is the Truth. Orthodoxy is the earthly life and the way.
@@FA18_Driver okay and who says i do not take it within context? Why do you think i use a veriety of sources that all match and confirm? The complete word study series uses the strongs concordance, and nkjv is an updated version of kjv. I hate the very idea of church denominations because every one of them takes scripture out of context and fits it to what they want it to say. I also believe that a true follower of Christ goes with what the bible actually says and not just take a preachers word for it like 95% of all denominations do.
@@ZacharyBruce-Romans-12-2 You dont understand.
Go to acts chapter 13 from memory about the eunuch reading Isiah. The Apostle says do you understand what you are reading? The eunuch says no. How could I with out a teacher?
What I’m saying is it’s not the translation, translational differences are very minor. Very very minor.
Without context and teaching and Holy tradition passed down to whom it was given, you can read all the translations you want and still not understand. Just like the eunuch in Acts of the Apostles.
@@ZacharyBruce-Romans-12-2 Do the women at your church cover their heads?
If no then you don’t actually follow what the Bible teaches. You pick and choose what’s convent for you, and make your own interpretations.
One can certainly err and not understand scripture without a trencher as the Bible tells us in Acts 13
@@FA18_Driver i am really tiring of this debate. The old testiment served the purpose of establishing the moral laws that Christ taught on, and to make a way for Christ to take the stripes, wounding, and beatings for the provisioning he put in in place for healing, proaperity, spiritual gifts, etc. And then for Him to die on the cross to pay the price for our sins. You see, you have to have The Holy Spirit as your teacher for understanding scripture properly, not som fallibke man. The Holy Spirit is as scripture describes, our "down payment" for what is to come, and He is our comforter, counselor, teacher. He convicts us of our righteousness. He seals us away so the enemy may be abke to kill our physical bodies but not our spirits. He is the source of the power within us as well as the power that Chriat used to preform miracles, and when we sit down, shut up, and listen to Him, The Holy Spirit interprets the Word for us. As far as your comment on "picking and choosing" lets go back to old vs new testiment. Christ Himself has said "I have not come to condemn the law but to fulfill it" he fulfilled the purpise of the old law and ushered in a new law. The old law had to work off the promise of Christ' sacrifice. The old law could never be followed perfectly and God knew that. That is why Christ specifically focused on the moral laws such as "love the Lord your God, and love thy neighbor" and did away with the ritual and religious laws, because what he went through at the cross fulfilled their purposes. It is not me "picking and choosing" but following what my King laid out before me and listening to Him and what he has said. I eat pork, i love shrimp but i am allergic to shellfish, i love clam chowder. Am i a sinner becaase of that? No because paul even said "do not deny it if it is taken in thanksgiving" now you and i can go around and around in debate all day long but the fact of the matter is, scripture needs to be taken in context, and you HAVE to have the Holy Spirit within you, and you HAVE to be baptised within Him in order to understand the bible fully, and to be a christian. The Holy Spirit is God Himself, and He is how we recieve Christ, and recieve Him (Christ) into our Hearts. The Holy Spirit is one aspect of the one true God. Christ even said "those who look upon me have looked upon the Father for i am in the Father and the Father is within me." One God, 3 different aspects. Sorry for the tangeant but it all goes to the root of this. The Holy Spirit is essential to be a Christian and have Salvation, Grace, spiritual gifts etc, and He is essential for living life according to the Spirit and not the flesh, and He also is the Guarentor of all of it. Before you say it, yes Christ also said that "I am the door, all who enter heaven enter through me." And scripture further says "if you confess your sin and profess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe that God raised Him the dead, you will be saved." If you believe in Him, then obviously you will keep His commands. I can go on and on but this message is long enough. The point is, salvation comes from faith. "For by grace you have been saved THROUGH FAITH. Not of yourselves it is a gift from God, not of works lest anyone should boast." Lastly "faith comes by hearing the Word" yes preaching is important and it was not my intent to dispute that but one must also research what the Word says. My cousin who is also my church descipleship coordinator/worship pastor. He has a phrase, and he calls it the .45; Get In The Word (4) and; Get The Word In You(5). Preachers are a great and essential, but personal study with the Holy Spirit, is even more important. Traditions can be good if they are based strictly on the Word, but tradition can be corrupted. Anyway, i am exhausted from all this writing.
Romans 1:28
“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;”
God is sending out invitations for us to come to Christ. When you receive willfully God’s gift to us (believing on Christ for salvation) you are permanently & fully saved. Our faith is like this :a Moment of Confession, followed by a Lifetime of conversion. Salvation is God’s gift to us. Sanctification (leading us away from sin) is God’s will for us!
It may be literal but the manuscripts that it is translated from are not as accurate as the manuscripts that the KJV are translated from. There are something like 16 verses missing in the NASB and other modern translations.
Amen Gods word is preserved by multiplicity of copies not by oldest
@@BrockJamesStory Well that’s because the text base of most modern bibles are not the oldest, or best as some want claim? They are based three main texts: Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus. The Alexandrinus was declared a corrupt fake by Jerome in the 4th century. All known copies were destroyed(burned) by following Jewish scribble protocol. The Alexandrian’s were so rebellious, unrepentant, and hard hearted that they managed to bury a single copy. This is what we have today. The Vaticanus supposedly discovered in 1475, with no prior history(coming from the Vatican, oh this is not a red flag 🚩 at all)? While Erasmus was putting together the Greek NT, the Catholic Church wanted him to use it. After examining it he determined it to be a fraudulent document! All the other Reformers knew this, and rejected it as well! The Sinaiticus was supposedly discovered by Constantine Tischendorf(who was a known money hungry liar) in 1844, but was actually created by Constantine Simonides in 1841. It’s interesting to read, Simonides had witnesses to back up his claim. Tischendorf had the biased media, and money. David Daniels with Chick Publications has a video series on this, and related topics. He absolutely eviscerates the Sinaiticus, showing it was created by Simonides. He also has evidence through independent chemical testing showing that the ink, both written, and art are 19th century. The vellum is old, but not the ink! Other resources are at k j b r c . org
@@BrockJamesStoryso majority rules? You may have loved Germany in the 30s and 40s then?
@@MrMann-gt1eh????
@@Postmill90 why did you delete your comment? I am being facetious. Just because majority of people say or believe a thing, doesn’t make it correct.
I’ll keep my KJB thanks.
Amen to you Ken ham. And God bless you and your family and your ministry and thank you for sharing this with us
Me and my household love Ken Ham. He is such a valuable member of the body. God has truly blessed him. Thanks Ken Ham and everyone else who has built the body of Christ the way yall have. ❤✝️🙏
I wish that i could afford to visit the Ark Encounter. I can barely afford to pay the rent & buy some food, which i Thank God For!
And going to the Ark isn’t getting cheaper like it was supposed to either
More people don’t get to go than do, so there are many of us just like you. So don’t feel to bad, besides getting there is probably way more expensive than getting in.
Hmmm you say it’s the most literal but there are verses missing that are in the KJV. What gives? Have you read Revelation 22:18-19?
Do you know that SOME words in the KJV of the Bible are found in ZERO Greek manuscripts?
@ please give me a few examples. There’s also Latin manuscripts. Also, just because we don’t have access to certain Greek manuscripts today doesn’t mean they never existed
I read the KJV because other translations I have seen verses from, assert works based salvation. "Repent of your sins" it's not found in the KJV. If someone believes they have to turn from their sins or stop sinning (which is impossible), is adding works to salvation. Jonah 3:10 KJV - read it!
I get what you mean. When I read, repent of your sin, I interpet that to mean, my sin was not believing on Jesus. So now I can read any version for clarity in some passages that confuse me. Paul can go on and on sometimes with 4 tangents and a half page run on sentence that makes it difficult. Lol ❤
Apparently, you never read Jesus’ words in Matthew 4:17, or Peter’s in Acts 2:38 or 3:19.
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
- Roman's 6:1,2 KJV
NASB 1995, yes!
LSB, yes! yes!
NASB 2020, nope.
Im no gambler, but I would bet there are contradictions in this new LSB, just like every modern translation. KJB needs 0 updates, contrains 0 contradictions.
KJB translation is not perfect for every situation, but our Lord God's word is.
@@boservant1693 If you're not getting God's Word from the Bible... you're not getting God's Word. As that's the only source we have for his perfect Word today, which he promised to preserve for us. So if you believe that his Word in the Bible is not perfect, then you don't believe God and his Word.
I’m sorry but you’re in a cult or a cult like mindset if you think KJV is the only Bible we can read.
If you think that, just learn Greek and get the original manuscripts.
We do not speak old English.
God did not make a cannon for the KJV.
Stop idolizing the translation, it’s abominable.
Wait a second... *what's* "abominable," specifically? The KJV or the idolization of it?
@@Icemario87 the idolatry of it.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT 👉
Some KJV ONLY people can get a little Stupid about it! But NOT all of us Baptist are that way!😠
@@briarpatchson3039 of course not.
Probably at this point KJV only is vast minority even among Baptists.
You obviously didn’t watch the video, which was literally 20 seconds long. It has absolutely nothing to do with the KJV. Next time at least watch the video before you critique it, troll.
I got one problem with the nasb.
Hosea 6:6
6 For I desire loyalty rather than sacrifice,
And the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.
Matthew 9:13
Now go and learn what this means: ‘I desire compassion, rather than sacrifice,’ for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Matthew 12:7
But if you had known what this means: ‘I desire compassion, rather than sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.
It should read compassion not loyalty to make the connection between Hosea 6 and Matthew 9 and 12.
I believe the KJV BIBLE is the absolute infallible WORD of ALMIGHTY GOD!
Same here brother 👍🏻
@skaterbro10yt you can believe but won't make true there are few issues to note
Infallible?
So what do you do when an error is found in the KJV of the Bible?
@@---zc4qt like what?
You've got to be kidding me. Seriously Ken? Your coming out with your own Bible translation?
Also, why would your goal be to make "the most literal" version of the Bible? You do realise "most literal" in no way means, "closest to the author/God meant the text to mean" right? Obviously large parts of the Bible are not meant to be literal.
But let me guess. You're not going to change/alter _those_ scriptures right? Meaning you and your associates are basically deciding for us what God meant and intended?
Nothing is better than the King James Version!
I'm 75 years old and I know that I am Saved by God's Grace through faith and sealed by God's Holy Spirit. And all I've ever used is the King James Version. Well Ken, I am sure that you mean well, and that your dad did as well. But I just looked up John 20:17 in your Bible recommendation nasb. In your version it reads that Mary Magdalena was clinging to Jesus at the resurrection and I don't believe that she touched Him. Jesus had just risen from the dead and he told her not to touch him in the KJV. Why? Because he was on His way to take his blood into the Holy of Holies in Heaven, and He was now our high priest, applying His Blood as an attoinment for our sins forever. Jesus Christ could not allow anyone to touch Him while He was handling the pure perfect Sacrificial Attoinment for us.
Compare this verse with the KJV. I am satisfied with the King James Version. Amen.!!!
Amen. KJV only for my household.
🤦🏻♂️
I think he means "most faithful," not "most literal." We all know Ham is an arch-literalist, but "true to the text" and "literal" are not the same thing: in fact it's virtually an oxymoron.
Thank you guys for your great work
What's wrong with the King James Bible?
I have been reading the Bible for 50 years. While reading any version is great. I find the accuracy and poetic style of the King James Bible is best. I use Blue Letter Bible for online research.
How can they all be great when they contradict each other? Mainly the KJV vs all other modern translations
My wife and I have our new Legacy Standard Bibles!!! And we love them!!! We have ordered more for our friends and family!!! We love you Ken!!! 🙏😁👍
Im stickin with the NASB 1995, but LSB is great
I need an organization that can help train a team from my community to join me on the Bible translation work. I have translated from Genesis -Palms chapter 40 from English Language to Durob Language.
Please get in touch with me if you are one
Ekpoh Patrick Obasi
Amazing. Available in Africa?
I have always used the NASB, I love it!!
Just would like for you to look into how has God preserved his word. We cannot say the NASB and the KJV are both the preserved word of God because they contradict each other
@@BrockJamesStorylol I’m glad Paul used it. Stupid argument
You're a kind hearted person, Ken, but you're wrong.
If you study Bible translation the term literal is begging the question you can say word for word but literal is a term of application not interpretation
Every translation must be to some degree more or less interpretive since not every word or phrase in the original text corresponds to a same word or phrase in the language into which it is translated. There can be translations though more far afield.
This is also true of reading in the native language of the author, your interpretation will only approximate their intent.
@goldenalt3166 Yes, I think you're right.
You will scare many by pointing this out.
@@tedshafer633 Just tell them the they misinterpreted what we said. 😀
NASB or ESV. Both are good
Or the Legacy, too.
Ken Ham? More like Ken Japheth.
Lolol nice
😂😂😂
Why is your heart like this?
Im a KJV onlyist for many reasons.1 big reason is that many if not all modern Bibles have been corrupted by wescott and hort. It all started with the ASV and then the esv.
Been enjoying this Bible
John 3:16-21; John 14:6-7; Ephesians 2:8-9
How does it compare to the YLT?
Would be neat to have that in modern English
I never really studied the NASB personally
Please, please, please tell me which is the true Bible, not the best, the true Bible. I seek biblical truth, not opinions. Im struggling and seeking help.
I love all you say about creation, but I'm very disappointed with the Bible translation you recommend. Nothing better than the authorized KJV. History proves this. Satan tried to destroy it and many were martyred for it!
God bless you and your family 🙏
I have over 30 bibles available to me for comparison,
2 Sam 21:19
(The Legacy Standard Bible) There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite struck down Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.
(The New American Standard Bible) There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
huh and here all this time I though David killed Goliath of Gath, I guess not, oh and the LSB has like so many other made the claim to be the most accurate bible translation to date.
This still goes to show that when you translate from faulty sources those contradictions in the source materials get translated into the modern English versions, here we are with the latest and greatest translation into English and they still have Elhanan killing Goliath of Gath.
David, hey Elhanan you distract Goliath and ill sling a stone at him and we can both take credit for killing him...
This is just one of a whole host of problems that have never been resolved and will not be resolved because whatever they are revising to get their 28th revision is not revising the contradictions hat are still present even in the newest bible the LSB
I just checked that out, if the LSB has this glaring error it's not worth buying.
@@mryoyo1234
This is the Greek text used by the modern translations. it is based on the Nestles/Aland 27th revision
(The Accurate New Testament+) inG1722 whomG3739 [We] haveG2192 theG3588 redemptionG629 theG3588 forgivenessG859 [of] theG3588 offensesG266
(The Legacy Standard Bible) in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
This is the one for the KJV
Col 1:14 InG1722 whomG3739 we haveG2192 redemptionG629 throughG1223 hisG846 blood,G129 even theG3588 forgivenessG859 of sins:G266
(The King James Version) In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Notice that The Blood is missing from the Nestles/Aland Greek text ANT+
But present in the Textus receptus text, they both cannot be right, the modern textual critic wants to claim that stuff was added to the Textus Receptus,
I am of the opinion that itis far easier to remove/erase what you do not like than it is to add stuff you want in there.
If you go through the jpegs of Sinaiticus you will find pages with ghost characters, where they were erased but still just barely visible.
I love this ministry. Creation Museum is my favorite place in greater Cincinnati. The Ark Encounter is 2nd.
God bless you brother Ken 🙏🙏🙏✝️
When Jesus said in Genesis 1 Let there be light. He was speaking his language, the Kings language, the King James bible
Jesus didn't speak English
Ummm I’d really like to know how you worked through this to arrive at your conclusion.
Jesus spoke something when he said "Let there be light " , what language was it??
@@johnparkhurst825 You told us what you thought. Did that change?
@@intentionally-blank I've asked myself the question I posed to you. I concluded the logical answer . If you're not King James bible believer you will never be able to answer.
Blessings to you Brother Ham. ✝️🙏❤️🔥
I love you, Ken. However, in this case, I'm sticking with the KJV based on the Received Text, no higher criticism text for me and mine.
Wrong.
@@alanclarkeau on what grounds is that wrong
@@defenderofTheWordThe translators of the KJV themselves would not approve of KJV onlyism
The modern bibles are based on different texts from the King James Version. To be on the safe side I’ll stay with the old King James Authorized Version.
@@Bilfford okay but other Bibles aren’t as accurate
Students of the biblical languages (which include ANY of those languages having significance in the development of the Bible),
usually don’t go down rabbit 🐇 holes about which (presumably) English version of the Bible is the “most literal.” Slavish renderings, although earning points for literalness, sometimes obscure matters by failing to represent ancient idiom to modern readers.
In addition to the issues brought about through the contention for literalness, there’s the issue of textual value.
Ken what’s your stance on the sabbath day?
I will respectfully stick with my 1611
Where is the musem
Kentucky, just south of Cincinnati.
I don't mean to criticise the LSB, but isn't the "most literal Bible translation" something like Young's Literal Translation?
The most literal (in context of word for word, and accuracy) is the King James Bible. Personally, I would also say the Geneva is next in line.
@@chazanythompson it's just not though. You won't find any credible scholars who will say that the KJV or the Geneva is the most literal (in context of word for word and accuracy). Not even the translators of those bibles would say that if they were alive today. I would highly recommend that you learn a little bit about textual criticism and about the challenges that translators face when translating the Bible. Check out David Wallace. God bless 😊
@@Bilfford There are multiple issues that is not being addressed? So called modern textual criticism is literally demonic, of the devil! It comes from two non-believing Anglican priest Westcott & Hort, they were gnostic, cultist! The hated God's word, and evangelicals. The text basis for most modern bibles come from fraudulent/fake documents! These are referred to as the Alexandrian type text, primarily three copies: Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus. I will show how they are fake. The 47 KJB translators, Erasmus, and the other Reformers were far superior to that of modern scholars. They would literally make modern scholars look like children, infants even! Also the KJB is mathematically perfect showing that this is God's fingerprints of His inspiration through the Holy Ghost!
No, the NASB is the most accurate. The KJV also has over 100 false friend words, which today mean something different.
@@barryallen119 I would refrain from titling any translation as the most accurate. I would say that the NASB is a very accurate and literal/word for word translation. But I also wouldn't credit the NASB with any more accuracy than I would with the NLT, or the NIV, or the CSB, or the NET. All of those translations are less literal (less formal and more dynamic) than the NASB but I definitely wouldn't say less accurate. You can always go more and more literal, more and more formal, until you find yourself with an unreadable interlinear and at that point you might as well learn Greek and Hebrew
@@Bilfford Many of these so-called modern liberal revisionist scholars that you think are credible? Like so many in the modern church have been lied to, and deceived! Because of this horrific modern critical text garbage, that actually comes from Westcott & Hort. These are two unbelieving Anglican Priest, who were gnostics, and cultist. Virtually everything that is espoused as scholarship today comes from these two cultist! Which is demonic, and of the devil! The only true credible scholars are those who are conservative, and hold to the traditional text. Which is the only true Biblical text from Antoch, the TR/Majority text/Byzantine type texts! To show a comparison, the 47 of the KJB, Erasmus, and the rest of the Reformers were far superior to any scholar today! These men started their education between 4-5 years of age, and were fluent in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin by 6-7 years of age. They would go on to learn many other languages, as adults studying 12-16 hours a day. Then becoming experts in Biblical studies, languages, literature, history, and cultures. In contrast most modern scholars on average have 8 or so years of higher learning, and may know one ancient language somewhat? So minus our tech, those scholars would make modern scholars look like children, infants even! There is much more to this, I'll show how the manuscripts used for most modern bibles are fraudulent fakes. Also how the KJB is not only perfect, and without error! But is also mathematically perfect, showing God's inspiration carried over into the KJB as His fingerprints! That it was totally the power of God the Holy Ghost, not from any man! More later!
KJV is the true word of our Father. Deuteronomy 16:11 acts 16:11
I’m glad Paul had it 🙄
No, the LITV by Jay Green is the most accurate absolute word for word translation. I’ve tested it with the actual original Hebrew and Greek and it didn’t fail.
However, you probably tested it on the Critical Texts Manuscripts of the Greek New Testament and the Septuagint Greek translation of the Hebrew manuscripts. Try to compare that word-for-word translation against the Masoretic and Received Texts.
Neither the NASB or the Jay Green's Literal Translation you use can compare exactly to the original language manuscripts. The problem is the source, not the diligence used in the translation.
Ecclesiastes 9:8.
NASB 1995-“Let your clothes be white all the time, and let not oil be lacking on your head.”
Jay Green 1993-“Let your garments be white at every time; and let your head lack no ointment.”
My absolute literal translation from original Hebrew-“With every time be garments your white; and oil upon head your not lack.”
Does it have John 1:1? Some bibles leave verses out including that one.
No Bible REMOVES John 1:1.
I found the translation. And became surprised that it like KJV uses the word "hell". It is a pagan word not to find in the original text. Why is this so difficult?
The word hell has caused so much confusion and should never has been a part of our vocabulary at all. Therefore this translation is disqualified in my eyes.
Well I don’t think you can use any bible then because many words have become pagan
So did you fix the word charagmah and the word dexeus? Of course not nobody ever does
How should they be fixed?
@@intentionally-blank exactly my point. You have the faintest idea to exigete or use proper hermeneutics when it comes to the Greek and the Hebrew
@@roastedvegetables3737 I asked an honest question, you replied with a personal attack. You have no idea about me. Your initial post is a display of arrogance in saying 'Of course not nobody ever does" Nobody but you ...
@@intentionally-blank I didn't say anything about your question not having Integrity of course it was honest and you displayed exactly what my point was because if you actually knew you would not have asked the question what needs to be fixed and that's the point
What did the Christians of the 1st century do? They didn’t have the KJV?
The KJV is from 1611
They used the LSB. Why? Because it’s a legacy and it’s also the standard Bible.
They had copies of the NT books. Before that they only had the Old Testament. We are very blessed to have the whole Bible.
Just as Greek was the universal language of the 1st century, plus copied into many other languages for preservation. But in the fullness of time with development of the printing press, and England becoming a dominate power. Which set the stage for English to be the world dominate language of the end-times. The inspired KJB is produced, no errors, and is mathematically perfect!
LSB still has mistakes; for example, Zechariah 5:6 should not translate as a woman, but a fire. There are still so many errors in translation to be corrected in many versions of the Bible.
What does he mean by "literal?"
I assume that he realizes that The Bible is full of idioms -- colloquial sayings of the time -- that are not meant to be taken literally.
But in general, the Body of Christ obviously desires a true and accurate translation of The Bible .
Some today, even many if not most people -- Christian and non-Christian -- believe that The Bible we have today -- whatever translation -- is not reliable.
This is not true
Do not these doubters realize that men for centuries have asked the same questions that people are asking today?
"Can we trust The Bible ?"
"Is The Bible the actual Word Of God ?"
Yes. Today's Bible is reliable and is The Word Of God.
This conclusion has been reaced decades ago.
It is beyond any doubt.
The consequences of not trusting The Bible are beyond measure. Your enemy, who wants you to join him in the eternal lake of fire, knows that The Bible is The Word Of God. This is why he goes all out to convince people that It isn't.
I encourage everyone to read Chuck Missler's book, "Cosmic Codes."
It is not about the various written word codes that were talked about profusely years ago. This subject is included in Missler's book, but it goes into much more than this subject matter to prove that The Bible is indeed The Word Of God .
And prove it he does .
lol..... it was so literal that we had to update it! Maybe they'll update "Twas the night before Christmas" and make it to where the reindeers only walk and not fly!
You don’t know about manuscripts or translations so sit this one out.
I would argue that the Concordant Version is as literal as readability will allow. If you want to find something ultra-literal, the Concordant publishers offer an interlinear NT -- difficult to follow, but gives extraordinary insight into actual Greek word meanings.
Most Americans might have a bible in their home BUT most have NEVER READ the whole thing or even whole NEW TESTAMENT ONCE!!!! I dare you to ask your preacher to conduct a survey/poll in your church to CONFIRM. Most churchgoers are bible ignorant, gullible, deceived, fanatic victims of bible warping , LAW trashing modern Pharisee HERETICS!////
Does it call YHVH and YAHUSHUA by their right names???
No, I highly doubt it. In fact if you wanted to translate the name of Yeshua Messiah into English, it should be more like "The Anointed King of Salvation." And of course unless they are using the tetragrammaton, they would have to write out the whole sentence that Elohim answered Moses from the effulgence in the bush, which would be more like, "I Am That I Am."
New American Standard Bible did not work well for me. I have read a few versions and NASB is the only one I won't go back to.
George Whitefield Charles Spurgeon and so many have preached from the King James version Bible and they stuck with the King James version and so many people are being saved through the word of God because you want a Bible that is from the true word of Jesus Christ there are teachers on TH-cam that tell people that you got to be very careful of what Bible you should read we all know the original Bible was not written in English but when people stars to make different changes and take out the original text out of the King James Bible the Geneva Bible in the King James are the two best Bibles are the other different translation Bibles you got to be very careful I know other people read different commentary Bibles because they say the King James version is very difficult and it's hard to understand the King James version Bible is not hard to understand it's kind of like you saying that Jesus word is very difficult and I can't make out the words Jesus word and his teachings is never difficult and hard to understand. That's why we have the Holy Spirit when we open the word of God to help us to understand his scriptures
Breath…
Faithful to what text??
That is the issue..
I will take the translation taken from the texts that align with the over 99% of the manuscripts gathered…
KJV
Right because we don’t have enough Bibles? This is about making money.
You can say the the LSB can be the word of God or the KJV, but they cannot both be the preserved word of God
So ... The "preserved" word of God happens to be in English. How convenient for you. What about all those other languages? No "preserved" word of God for them?
@@tonyallen4265 every language is capable of possessing the preserved word of God
@@tonyallen4265 you also can have some of the preserved words of God and not all of them. For example the NIV contains most of the preserved word of God, but took out a lot of it.
KJV is best, Jesus wisdom!
Most Americans might have a bible in their home BUT most have NEVER READ the whole thing or even whole NEW TESTAMENT ONCE!!!! I dare you to ask your preacher to conduct a survey/poll in your church to CONFIRM. Most churchgoers are bible ignorant, gullible, deceived, fanatic victims of bible warping , LAW trashing modern Pharisee HERETICS!...
KJV produces more fruit but your museum is Amazing!!!
Love the NASB. Love the improvements given by the LSB! :-)
I'm curious does the name Jehovah appear in your updated version??
I have mine
But lets no made the mistake about legacy
Legacy is a pagan concept
Lets fix our eyes in Jesus and the Kingdom of Heavens
He is our King in eternity
Did you even watch the video 🙄
"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." ----- Voltaire
@@AtamMardes agreed. Luckily Christianity isn’t a religion
@@Dah_J _"Luckily Christianity isn’t a religion"_
Ya, right. 🤣🤣
@@AtamMardes religion is earning gods favor through rituals or good deeds. You can’t earn favor with the Christian God. It is a free gift of God of grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
I have NASB McArthur study Bible and I love it
Most Americans might have a bible in their home BUT most have NEVER READ the whole thing or even whole NEW TESTAMENT ONCE!!!! I dare you to ask your preacher to conduct a survey/poll in your church to CONFIRM. Most churchgoers are bible ignorant, gullible, deceived, fanatic victims of bible warping , LAW trashing modern Pharisee HERETICS!..like John MacArthur.
So do I!
@@patrickc3419 word
Does it say "shall" have eternal life. . Or "may" have eternal life
The giddeons did that change. I don't like how 1 word makes a big difference in translation.
If you have to constantly keep updating your Bible, you have a problem. Go KJV!
Thank you!!!!!
We love you Ken and we love your work we've been out to see it but if you want the most literal Bible translation you can get you better get the authorized version there's nothing else like it I know you don't believe it because you've gotten something else but it is more literal than anything on the planet because it is the exact Bible
New translation of the Bible is godly honestly interpretations?🤔🧐
The original KJV was faithful to the ancient texts, but the 16th c translators took poetic liberty to make it beautiful. The KJV has been changed over the years. John 3:16, from the 16th c to around 1905 it was whosoever believeth in me SHOULD not perish.. the calvinists changed the word to fit thier theology. The New KJV has gone back to the ancient KJV text.
I believe the most literal faithful translation from the ancient text is the Douay Rheims. a word for word translation of the latin vulgate translated from the ancient text by St Jerome in the late 4th c
Thanks
Thank you!
Thanks, Ken.
You need to believe the King James Bible, and stop fooling around making other versions.
More than 4 dozen great linguistic scholars who were in agreement at least 14X on every word of translation; based on some 5,322 manuscripts that were in vast agreement.
That's the Bible God preserved, now over 400 years ago.
I love Ken Ham's creation work, but does he know the time he's living in? Soon there will be world war, then Antichrist will be revealed, and he's still making changes to God's Word.
The KJV is okay But unfortunately has some additions., but I much prefer the NASB
The King James is the Original English Bible and still is the Best. Sorry Ken.
I wonder how, in this most literal translation, Kavod is translated, Elohim is translated, and several other words are translated. If Kavod is translated as "the Glory of the Lord" (or in similar terms), and Elohim is translated as "God" - then it definitely isn't the most literal translation. :-)
How should those be translated then?
I would like to know if you translate כבוד as the exceeding weight of the glory of Yahweh Elohim. And how would you translate ילדים? Would you use something like Godhead, or the complex unity of God?
@@FrankPCarpi As I have already said (but I see my comments havve been deleted for some reason), there are people much more knowledgeable than me. Check out the works of Mauro Biligno and/or Paul Wallis, both of whom have channels and/or videos here on TH-cam. If you search, e.g., "Kavod" and "Bligno" or "Kavod" and "Wallis", or "Kavod" and "The 5th Kind", you should be able to find some answers. BTW, I never ever doubted that the Old Testament does not speak of God in the meaning of an all-loving, aomniscient, omnipresent, high, spiritual being who are even unable to comprehend and who is the Lord of Everything, but rather it speaks of gods (or a god) whose name may or may not have been Yahweh, and that the Old Testament (but also, in some parts, the New Testament) gives us indirect, circumstantial evidence of ancient aliens contact. I'm taking about things such as "The Glory of the Lord", the burning bush, the wheel of Ezekiel, the manna machine, the Star of Betlehem, and a number of other descriptions. And yes, some/most/all of you will laughh at me. I don't care, this will not change my conviction.
Lol why are there so many KJV onlyists in this comment section??
Probably because they saw problems with some other versions, got scared, and didn't go out to discover if there are better translations (there are).
@@statutesofthelord every translation is gonna have problems, unfortunately. However, im surprised there are so many of these folks in the comment section in particular.
Maybe they saw the title and thought ken ham was gonna prove the KJV was Gods bible using facts, evidence, and logic 😂🥰
@@mexican-americanmale3035 The Analytical-Literal Translation is the most literal, by far, of all Bibles I know of in the English language.
@@statutesofthelord I looked it up. Is there a whole bible version or is it just the NT?
@@mexican-americanmale3035 male, When I was having contact with the translator around 24 years ago, He had already finished the NT, and said he was going to start working on the OT. I'm sorry if he hasn't finished the OT yet.
The entire ALT New Testament translation used to be up on the net for free, but I think you have to purchase it now. I enjoy seeing the various meanings and ways to translate the text right there in the text, without having to consult other books.
God bless as you study to show yourself approved unto God.
KING JAMES VERSION
money grab
I just myself a LSB . I do have nasb1995 and NASB2020
Crazy.
Looks like evolution is now manifesting in scripture.
KJV is best
The LSB is definitely NOT the most literal translation, lol.
The LITERAL STANDARD VERSION, an update to Young's Literal Translation (YLT) -- is definitely more "literal."
At any rate, "literal" isn't very helpful as an ultimate goal. A supremely literal translation of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek would be unreadable to English readers with no background in thos languages. All translations -- including NASB, LSB, KJV, and even the YLT -- take necessary liberties to make the text readable, and therefore, meaningful.
Humbly, I have built this monument to myself.
Yep
Selling, that's what it's all about.
What would your complaint be if he was giving these away?
The "most literal" translation is not always the best. People at the time used their figures of speech too, and a too-literal translation of a figure of speech can miss the whole point.
For example, the translations I am used to (NIV, then later ESV) have Jesus often calling the pharisees "You brood of vipers". Some friends from other denominations have now suggested to me that this is an over-literal translation, that a phrase which would better match in modern English what Jesus' phrase sounded like at the time would be "You sons of bitches!". Thinking about that afterwards, if that's what Jesus had actually said, then someone thousands of years from now trying to make the most literal translation to a language that will develop later might translate "You sons of bitches" as the equivalent of "you brood of dogs".
Yes, there are problems with translations which aren't literal enough too. The second best way to deal with this (the one I use) is to use several translations, knowing which ones are more literal and which ones are less so. Comparing them, you can usually get a good idea what is going on. The best solution would be for each of us to learn fluent ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek, so that translations would become unnecessary.
If the King James Bible was good enough for Jesus, then it's good enough for me.
Jesus didn't use the KJV 😅
Love it! I'm gonna use this line.
But he didn't use the kjv?@@DougVeazey-zl3xz
@@LilKevv True
Isn't that an absurd thing to say? Jesus spoke Aramaic, perhaps Greek as well. Thee and thou, etc. were highly unlikely in his vocabulary in ancient times. What scripture says, "Truly, truly I say to you, unless you study the King James Version you cannot see the kingdom of God "?
Good man!
Very disappointed to see you've taken it upon yourself to alter the Word of God.