Love the way you covered this, Brother Bill-especially since I spent most of my "milk" years studying out of the ESV. SO grateful for the Lord leading me to the KJV thru channels like yours and Spencer Smith's and KJBRC's.
So I’ve got a king James with copyright. I was told the copyright was just regarding the concordance and commentary….I honestly have no clue I just know I won’t read anything else The one I have was my grandparents given to them by my sister and I back in 1985 for their wedding anniversary. I was only 9 at the time. It’s rugged but still the word of God 🙌🙏
I've used Cambridge KJV Bibles for 50 years. In all that time I never saw a copyright claim until I got the wide margin concord edition in 2012. There,they claim a Crown copyright. To me,that's just a money grab. Why suddenly claim that copyright after 400 years of publishing? Besides,most copyright that I'm aware of expireafter about 100 years, and the publication becomes public domain! Don't let it trouble you. God's Word is free to all,inspite of greedy claims by men.
Wow! I was comparing the ESV to the KJV while watching this video. It’s a shame that they take out crucial words or entire verses. Thank you for sharing!
I didn’t know that the esv omitted so much verses ! 😮 I’m so grateful you brought me to the KJV early in my walk with Christ. That is a very important video! Thank you so much for educating us Brother Bill! Continue your good work for Our Lord Jesus Christ! ✝️
I think it is interesting that the modern versions make Christ out to be a sinner based on comparing Matthew 5:22 with Mark 3:5. The KJV had it correct when Christ uttered the phrase "without a cause" in Matthew 5. Mark 3 says He looked on the Pharisees with anger because of the hardness of their hearts. The KJV is clear that He wasn't just angry, but that there was a just cause for His anger. The "Jesus" of modern translations cannot make that claim.
Me and my brother were just discussing this and were having issues comparing the two, thank you it was God sent that you released this video to help edify us!
Bro. Bill Thank you for sharing this important information! I was ignorant years ago and purchased NKJV Bibles for my wife, me, and my parents. I'm so glad that I learned that the KJV Bible is God's True Word and all others are false, misleading, and corrupt!
John 8:7, John 3:16 and Daniel 6:16 are so often misquoted. John 8:7 folk leave out "among you" John 3:16 folk often quote "only son" instead of "only begotten Son" and in Daniel they often say "Lions den" instead of "den of Lions." A lions den maybe don't have a lion but a den of Lions most definitely do! Thank you brother Bill for a strong stand on the authorized version!
Are you using the original 1611 King James Version? Or are you using the revision that was made by Dr. Blayney of Oxford in 1769? This revision differs from the original 1611 King James in over 75,000 detials. Dr. Blayney’s revision made over 200 years ago is what we know as the KJV today.
Yes!! Thank you, Bro Bill, for taking the time to make this video. And thank you for showing the difference in the manuscripts that were used for translating. I had seen a video the other day from a Christian TH-camr speaking about the ESV and why it's okay to use it. He used Romans 8:1 for an example and read from both KJV and ESV. The ESV leaves out "who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit." The young man then pointed to the footnote in the ESV that attempts to "explain" why this part of the verse was left out. Personally, I don't believe the young man means any harm, just deceived about the ESV 😢
The text of the KJV is still under copyright, held by the British crown. But the entire cooyright argument is fallacious; there is no such thing as a "10% change rule" in copyright law and no need to make arbitrary changes to claim copyright. The Johannine Comma is not in any early Byzantine manuscript either.
In the US, any book published prior to the early 1920s is currently in public domain...that includes the King James Bible. The rules in the UK are slightly different, but it is likewise in the public domain there. "Copyright protection doesn't last indefinitely-it expires after a certain length of time. If copyright protection to the original work has expired, that work is considered in the public domain. Anyone may use a work that's in the public domain. If you take a work in the public domain and modify it somehow, the modified work is a derivative work that's entitled to copyright protection. Others may still use the original work in the public domain, but they may not use it with your modification." (www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law). I said nothing of 10%. The legal requirement of what is considered "significant changes" is ambiguous, but if you were to print a copy of the KJV with only the thees and thous changed, it would not qualify for a copyright. If you took the NIV, ESV, or any other copyrighted version and made similar minor changes you would be sued for copyright infringement. In order to get the copyright, you have to change it much more than that. The different versions do NOT say the same things. With the Johannine comma, there is room for discussion there (I support its inclusion, but there are differences in the manuscripts that do bring it in question), but that doesn't justify any of the other hundreds of changes they make.
Webster's 1828 Dictionary and a KJV Dictionary app.... but the KJV is written on a 5th grade reading level... once you getting the hang of the old English it gets easier- my husband and I came from other translations (NASB and NKJV) and use them to understand the context, then we go to our trusty KJV and study from there. Hope this helps!!!
If you look in the footnotes in most ESV or NASB bibles, it explains why they omitted some verses… it’s because the earliest manuscripts we have found do not include those verses. The ESV translators are going back to the earliest (therefore most trustworthy) manuscripts we can find. You’re condemning the translators for trying to put out a translation that is as close to the original text as they possibly can… why would you do that?
The process used is called 'Textual Criticism' which was something used by Westcott and Hort that states that the 'oldest' manuscripts are the most reliable and accurate. It's just not that simple. Brother Bill explains this in another video but essentially the earliest pure manuscripts known as the byzantine manuscripts were from Antioch, Syria and had been shared and used over and over again making them by necessity have to be copied to preserve the manuscripts over time and so they lost their 'age' compared to the corrupt manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt by Origen which were used by all the modern translators due to them being preserved and untouched due to Catholics not sharing or distributing the Bible and keeping it by only letting priests read from it and not sharing it with the people, meaning they seem oldest when compared with the earliest surviving pure manuscripts. All modern versions are based on this method of Textual Criticism and the corrupt line was pushed out by unholy men like Origen and Westcott and Hort who do not believe what The Bible says is true in many areas - including believing in salvation for the devil and his angel's and that Eden was not a real place. Check out Bro Bill's other videos on the KJB it will make all of this clear.
The devil is in the details about extracting the truth of scripture. KJV from textus receptus. The text you refer to are the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts.
I think taking out some of it could have been right to take out or bracket it but there is significant evidence that the last chapter of Mark should be there. There are only 2 manuscripts that do not have the book of Mark and 1653 manuscripts that have it. Those manuscripts were not even written in the geographical location where the Bible was written. Those two older manuscripts disagree with each other quite often compared to the majority text. There is a reason the Alexandrian text is older, which is because Egypt is the best place on earth to preserve manuscripts from deterioration on planet earth and the Alexandrian library protects the manuscripts from rival religions from being burned. So there could have definitely been older Byzantine manuscripts that were destroyed or withered away. Plus there is evidence that the chapter was erased because there is an empty spot on the parchment that is the exact length it would take to write in mark 13:9-20. It would be hard to believe that the oldest Gospel does not have witnesses to the resurrection, the great commission, and Jesus’s ascension to heaven. Skeptics love that the oldest Gospel does not have witness of the resurrection. They might say the other Gospels made it up if Mark did not even see it important enough to put it in there. I once fully trusted the footnotes but they definitely did not fully disclose everything. Some of the other omissions I have not looked into. Not really sure. But you should consider looking at the evidence of the last chapter in Mark.
There’s no errors in the KJV Bible huh? How about the translation of God’s name as “Jehovah”. (The “j” sound didn’t even exist in Hebrew for crying out loud!) Our God’s name is “Yahweh”, meaning “He is” in Hebrew. The Jews had such a fear of using God’s name in vain that they put notes around every instance of God’s name to remind them not to say it out loud, the KJV translators misunderstood these notes as telling us how to pronounce it. Don't just assume the KJV is perfect and that thus all translations that disagree with it are false, look at the science of textual criticism.
Why not apply your idea to all other words that begin with J? Like Jerusalem, Joseph, Joshua, Juda,ect why not insist on pronouncing them with a Y sound too? Yahweh is of pagin origin.
Love the way you covered this, Brother Bill-especially since I spent most of my "milk" years studying out of the ESV. SO grateful for the Lord leading me to the KJV thru channels like yours and Spencer Smith's and KJBRC's.
So I’ve got a king James with copyright. I was told the copyright was just regarding the concordance and commentary….I honestly have no clue I just know I won’t read anything else
The one I have was my grandparents given to them by my sister and I back in 1985 for their wedding anniversary. I was only 9 at the time. It’s rugged but still the word of God 🙌🙏
Hi Sara! That is correct, the copyright is for the added matter such as commentary, maps, notes, introductions, concordance, etc.
I've used Cambridge KJV Bibles for 50 years. In all that time I never saw a copyright claim until I got the wide margin concord edition in 2012. There,they claim a Crown copyright. To me,that's just a money grab. Why suddenly claim that copyright after 400 years of publishing? Besides,most copyright that I'm aware of expireafter about 100 years, and the publication becomes public domain! Don't let it trouble you. God's Word is free to all,inspite of greedy claims by men.
Excellent! Thank you, Brother Bill. Happy Thanksgiving!
Wow! I was comparing the ESV to the KJV while watching this video. It’s a shame that they take out crucial words or entire verses. Thank you for sharing!
Thank you! Great information!
What a helpful video.🙏🏻
Such an important teaching! Praise our Lord Jesus Christ for giving us a pure Bible in the KJB.
I didn’t know that the esv omitted so much verses ! 😮 I’m so grateful you brought me to the KJV early in my walk with Christ. That is a very important video! Thank you so much for educating us Brother Bill! Continue your good work for Our Lord Jesus Christ! ✝️
Very good. Thanks, Brother Bill.
I think it is interesting that the modern versions make Christ out to be a sinner based on comparing Matthew 5:22 with Mark 3:5. The KJV had it correct when Christ uttered the phrase "without a cause" in Matthew 5. Mark 3 says He looked on the Pharisees with anger because of the hardness of their hearts. The KJV is clear that He wasn't just angry, but that there was a just cause for His anger. The "Jesus" of modern translations cannot make that claim.
Me and my brother were just discussing this and were having issues comparing the two, thank you it was God sent that you released this video to help edify us!
Bro. Bill
Thank you for sharing this important information! I was ignorant years ago and purchased NKJV Bibles for my wife, me, and my parents. I'm so glad that I learned that the KJV Bible is God's True Word and all others are false, misleading, and corrupt!
Great video Bro Bill!
That was an excellent job of putting such a large subject into 20 minutes. I’m going to save this video for people who ask me KJB questions.
Hello! I was wondering if the word trinity is not in the kjv why do people use it? Thanks
Godhead is the correct term, not trinity.
Trinity is a descriptive term for the nature of God. Christ Is King is correct in that the term used in the New Testament is Godhead.
Also,the ESV isa Calvinist based translation. That maybe ok with you if you are a Calvinist! If not,thats definitely an issue!
Agreed! (I am not Calvinist either.)
John 8:7, John 3:16 and Daniel 6:16 are so often misquoted. John 8:7 folk leave out "among you" John 3:16 folk often quote "only son" instead of "only begotten Son" and in Daniel they often say "Lions den" instead of "den of Lions." A lions den maybe don't have a lion but a den of Lions most definitely do! Thank you brother Bill for a strong stand on the authorized version!
Are you using the original 1611 King James Version? Or are you using the revision that was made by Dr. Blayney of Oxford in 1769? This revision differs from the original 1611 King James in over 75,000 detials. Dr. Blayney’s revision made over 200 years ago is what we know as the KJV today.
Yes!! Thank you, Bro Bill, for taking the time to make this video. And thank you for showing the difference in the manuscripts that were used for translating. I had seen a video the other day from a Christian TH-camr speaking about the ESV and why it's okay to use it. He used Romans 8:1 for an example and read from both KJV and ESV. The ESV leaves out "who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit." The young man then pointed to the footnote in the ESV that attempts to "explain" why this part of the verse was left out. Personally, I don't believe the young man means any harm, just deceived about the ESV 😢
The text of the KJV is still under copyright, held by the British crown. But the entire cooyright argument is fallacious; there is no such thing as a "10% change rule" in copyright law and no need to make arbitrary changes to claim copyright.
The Johannine Comma is not in any early Byzantine manuscript either.
In the US, any book published prior to the early 1920s is currently in public domain...that includes the King James Bible. The rules in the UK are slightly different, but it is likewise in the public domain there. "Copyright protection doesn't last indefinitely-it expires after a certain length of time. If copyright protection to the original work has expired, that work is considered in the public domain. Anyone may use a work that's in the public domain. If you take a work in the public domain and modify it somehow, the modified work is a derivative work that's entitled to copyright protection. Others may still use the original work in the public domain, but they may not use it with your modification." (www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law). I said nothing of 10%. The legal requirement of what is considered "significant changes" is ambiguous, but if you were to print a copy of the KJV with only the thees and thous changed, it would not qualify for a copyright. If you took the NIV, ESV, or any other copyrighted version and made similar minor changes you would be sued for copyright infringement. In order to get the copyright, you have to change it much more than that. The different versions do NOT say the same things.
With the Johannine comma, there is room for discussion there (I support its inclusion, but there are differences in the manuscripts that do bring it in question), but that doesn't justify any of the other hundreds of changes they make.
This is great, thank you bro Bill!!
Any translation of the original text that contain the word "human" instead of 'people' or 'mankind' or man.... I'd junk it.
Wow! I'm new to the KJV only viewpoint. I never knew these things! Thank you for this video! How do you overcome feeling so dumb reading the KJV?
Webster's 1828 Dictionary and a KJV Dictionary app.... but the KJV is written on a 5th grade reading level... once you getting the hang of the old English it gets easier- my husband and I came from other translations (NASB and NKJV) and use them to understand the context, then we go to our trusty KJV and study from there. Hope this helps!!!
@AmeeraZoller thank you so much! I feel so embarrassed that I'm struggling!
@@EBCA0411 don't feel embarrassed!!! It's an adjustment to go from a modern translation to the KJV. Give yourself a few months and you'll catch on!!!
If you look in the footnotes in most ESV or NASB bibles, it explains why they omitted some verses… it’s because the earliest manuscripts we have found do not include those verses. The ESV translators are going back to the earliest (therefore most trustworthy) manuscripts we can find. You’re condemning the translators for trying to put out a translation that is as close to the original text as they possibly can… why would you do that?
The process used is called 'Textual Criticism' which was something used by Westcott and Hort that states that the 'oldest' manuscripts are the most reliable and accurate. It's just not that simple. Brother Bill explains this in another video but essentially the earliest pure manuscripts known as the byzantine manuscripts were from Antioch, Syria and had been shared and used over and over again making them by necessity have to be copied to preserve the manuscripts over time and so they lost their 'age' compared to the corrupt manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt by Origen which were used by all the modern translators due to them being preserved and untouched due to Catholics not sharing or distributing the Bible and keeping it by only letting priests read from it and not sharing it with the people, meaning they seem oldest when compared with the earliest surviving pure manuscripts. All modern versions are based on this method of Textual Criticism and the corrupt line was pushed out by unholy men like Origen and Westcott and Hort who do not believe what The Bible says is true in many areas - including believing in salvation for the devil and his angel's and that Eden was not a real place. Check out Bro Bill's other videos on the KJB it will make all of this clear.
The ESV omitted them because they aren't in the best manuscript evidence. The ESV didn't do anything wrong. It did the right thing.
The devil is in the details about extracting the truth of scripture. KJV from textus receptus. The text you refer to are the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts.
I think taking out some of it could have been right to take out or bracket it but there is significant evidence that the last chapter of Mark should be there. There are only 2 manuscripts that do not have the book of Mark and 1653 manuscripts that have it. Those manuscripts were not even written in the geographical location where the Bible was written. Those two older manuscripts disagree with each other quite often compared to the majority text. There is a reason the Alexandrian text is older, which is because Egypt is the best place on earth to preserve manuscripts from deterioration on planet earth and the Alexandrian library protects the manuscripts from rival religions from being burned. So there could have definitely been older Byzantine manuscripts that were destroyed or withered away. Plus there is evidence that the chapter was erased because there is an empty spot on the parchment that is the exact length it would take to write in mark 13:9-20. It would be hard to believe that the oldest Gospel does not have witnesses to the resurrection, the great commission, and Jesus’s ascension to heaven. Skeptics love that the oldest Gospel does not have witness of the resurrection. They might say the other Gospels made it up if Mark did not even see it important enough to put it in there. I once fully trusted the footnotes but they definitely did not fully disclose everything.
Some of the other omissions I have not looked into. Not really sure. But you should consider looking at the evidence of the last chapter in Mark.
@@thedungeon1288the problem is that Eusebius says that the earliest and most accurate copies of mark in *his* day ended at 16:8.
KJB is far superior to those "modern"versions.
Kjv can't even get the 10 commandments right. 🙄
There’s no errors in the KJV Bible huh? How about the translation of God’s name as “Jehovah”. (The “j” sound didn’t even exist in Hebrew for crying out loud!) Our God’s name is “Yahweh”, meaning “He is” in Hebrew. The Jews had such a fear of using God’s name in vain that they put notes around every instance of God’s name to remind them not to say it out loud, the KJV translators misunderstood these notes as telling us how to pronounce it. Don't just assume the KJV is perfect and that thus all translations that disagree with it are false, look at the science of textual criticism.
Why not apply your idea to all other words that begin with J? Like Jerusalem, Joseph, Joshua, Juda,ect why not insist on pronouncing them with a Y sound too? Yahweh is of pagin origin.