I will try to win people to the kjv. It's not hard to read. Thee and thou are just the singular form of you. Spanish still uses a thee and thou to this day
I've been told by pastor that the King James Bible language was dead he went to a liberal college and as I would start to stand and help people see in the church I was told to leave and to hush my mouth
Seems like a nice guy but...This sermon sounds like he prefers the kjv, but any Bible will do because "some words (of God) are important, and some aren't". I disagree. This sermon sounds like one big compromise.
Dr. Haifley criticized the NIV for not displaying the words of Acts 8:37. However, the words of Acts 8:37 are indeed displayed by the NIV in a margin note. The NIV includes the following for Acts 8:37: Some manuscripts include here Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. biblica.com/niv The words of Acts 8:37 are not included in the Majority or critical Greek texts. Similar message can be found in the NIV at John 20:31, 1 John2:23, and 1 John 5:1. Dr. Haifley is welcome to use the KJV.
mr bp Uh, by Majority, do you mean Antioch texts, or the various thousands of texts that read similarly? Since, if that entire text was not there, it would have been italicized. But, it is not italicized, so....well, there you go. I'm sure you know the italicized words (usually prepositions, for English people to follow along) were not in. the original Greek and Hebrew, but were used illustrate to the English reader. If it is not italicized, it is in the Majority text. Now, it is not in the Critical (Alexandrian, Gnostic) texts, but, I'm sure you are also aware of baptismal regeneration heresies being big among the Gnostic. Indeed, we will listen to the Word of God in English. Where is your word of God?
Your forgetting or more like ignoring the Majority of Greek critical texts which are total in number two of two while there are atlas 600 extant copies of the Traditional text that contain Acts and Acts 8:37, btw. We are not told this truth in the Critical text Acts footnote.
@@brittanygreen acts 8:37 is not in the majority of Greek manuscripts of any time date or place. This is not about Antioch or Alexandria at all. And again, and again, and again, the textus receptus is NOT the majority text. If you take a Greek King James (scrivener’s Textus receptus) and compare it to a pure majority reading for every verse in the New Testament, there will be over a thousand differences. (Dan Wallace notated 1838 differences). Most of these are not theologically meaningful, but as long as king James onlyists believe the historical lie that the TR = “traditional (Greek) text” = Byzantine/Antiochan manuscripts = the majority text, as if they’re all the same thing, you will believe that all differences in modern bibles are due to minority readings in old manuscripts like sinaiticus and vaticanus. Not true. Many of the passages you assume are majority readings are actually tiny minority readings, like acts 8:37, 1st Jon 5:7, Luke 2:22, and dozens if not hundreds of places in the book of revelation.
@@Obediah002 please list your source. There are at least 600 manuscripts that contain acts 8:37? In Greek? Not according to anything I’ve ever read. Acts 8:37 is a tiny minority reading among Greek manuscripts.
It doesn't have to have any translation in mind. The expectation, based on claims within the Scriptures, by the Scriptures should be; that we have God's preserved word on earth. Then we ask, where can I find it? The only translation in English I can trust as God's preserved word is the King James.
I and my boss speak good to ppl about the matter but they either tell us we wrong get angry at us cast us off they will not take heed to the Words of God we can show them page after page they won't look at it and I'm talking bout ppl in the church that's been there for years and years but to a new born again Christian they try the meat and see it clearly
I empathize ... I continually remind me that the Lord says to "plant the seed" ... God uses His words to work in others' minds ... we must be mindful to make sure WE use His Word and not our human reasoning
Dr. Haifley described Christians who used non-KJV Bible translations as “sincere” and then as “sincerely wrong.” However, the KJV translators stated that “variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures.” They also stated: “They that are wise had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.” archive.org/details/1611Bible Are Christians who read the Bible in all non-English languages sincerely wrong? The Apostles did not use the KJV; were they sincerely wrong? Jesus Christ did not use the KJV; was He sincerely wrong? Dr. Haifley is welcome to use the KJV.
mr bp Indeed, the translators did use plenty of cross references for translating their English Bible. That being said, they rejected the Alexandrian and Siniaticus texts. Why? Since they used better texts than such. Again, where is your Word of God?
mr bp - Why should Christians care if the "KJV translators" stated that _variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures"_ It's right words that give the right sense of the Scripture. Not 'different' words. The more translations, the more confusion, the more confusion the easier it is for Satan to insinuate _his_ meanings into it. "Yea, hath God said?" Their opinion is dangerous, and carries zero weight.
He's not referring to other languages. Not all people have the gift of tongues. Some of these people are being used to translate the recived text into other languages such as indonesian
*YOU* "Are Christians who read the Bible in all non-English languages sincerely wrong?" *ANSWER* Once they know the truth about the modern versions, yes. They are also in great danger of believing false doctrines. The modern bibles weaken major Bible doctrines. *YOU* "The Apostles did not use the KJV; were they sincerely wrong?" *RESPONSE* Same Books (Book) different language. *YOU* "Jesus Christ did not use the KJV; was He sincerely wrong?" *RESPONSE* Same Books (Book) different language.
I don't think a Suit is Modest. And, having your members dress according to IBC standards is simply religion. You might intimidate some to wear uniforms according to the long time religious ladies, but how many will wear wheaten during the week. The Holy Spirit is the guide for all of the ladies that are saved. If a dress is the norm 24/7, going fishing or canoeing or swimming or mountain bike riding is going to be awkward. Your Religion runs people off, especially the Saved.
No where did he say you have to wear a suit and tie. Modest just means not showing a lot of skin. A t shirt and cargo pants is still Modest. A short sleeve dress (not skirt) is still Modest. We choose to wear that. No one should ever go to church naked or scantily clad. Also it's meant to be worn at church not at activities outside of church. You are missing the point entirely you fool
It takes more of an arrogant character to think that you represent God in earth when you are placing a tasteless cookie in an altar, but that is none of my business__or is it?
Character attacks, without providing any useful arguments, is not helpful. Imagine trying to prove a point, but the only thing you had to say was a negative opinion about the way you perceive a particular person's character. If you're going to convince someone if something, you should make your objective clear beyond just saying "he's arrogant." If the objective is to show people the arrogance of his character, then you should provide examples. After all, we often see our own worst flaws in others.
He does come off that way a little bit but maybe unintentionally. I don’t know his heart but he does seem to crave feedback from the audience and gets angry when he doesn’t get it.
Thank you brother Haifley for your words: "Let´s be actors and not reactors" and let´s study to become able ministers.
My biggest problem with my Christian friends is to even get them to look into the issue. Most won’t even take the time.
The comment at 41:00 really rings true. Thanks Dr. Dan Haifley!
Although I prefer the ESV, I have never discouraged anyone from using the KJV. I don’t try to “win” someone to a translation, in particular the ESV.
I will try to win people to the kjv.
It's not hard to read.
Thee and thou are just the singular form of you.
Spanish still uses a thee and thou to this day
Have you looked into the problems with the ESV?
I've been told by pastor that the King James Bible language was dead he went to a liberal college and as I would start to stand and help people see in the church I was told to leave and to hush my mouth
Make sure you never hush your mouth. Even if it drives your pastor to a mental breakdown
Seems like a nice guy but...This sermon sounds like he prefers the kjv, but any Bible will do because "some words (of God) are important, and some aren't". I disagree. This sermon sounds like one big compromise.
...is there an Original King James Bible...?
1611
The ONLY thing ever "edited" from the 1611 AV were typographical errors, standardizing of spelling of English words, and punctuation.
I read a 1611. I think it's supieor to the 1769
@@Mr-pn2eh Same Book... There was a change in font...
Dr. Haifley criticized the NIV for not displaying the words of Acts 8:37. However, the words of Acts 8:37 are indeed displayed by the NIV in a margin note. The NIV includes the following for Acts 8:37:
Some manuscripts include here Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
biblica.com/niv
The words of Acts 8:37 are not included in the Majority or critical Greek texts. Similar message can be found in the NIV at John 20:31, 1 John2:23, and 1 John 5:1.
Dr. Haifley is welcome to use the KJV.
mr bp Uh, by Majority, do you mean Antioch texts, or the various thousands of texts that read similarly? Since, if that entire text was not there, it would have been italicized. But, it is not italicized, so....well, there you go. I'm sure you know the italicized words (usually prepositions, for English people to follow along) were not in. the original Greek and Hebrew, but were used illustrate to the English reader. If it is not italicized, it is in the Majority text. Now, it is not in the Critical (Alexandrian, Gnostic) texts, but, I'm sure you are also aware of baptismal regeneration heresies being big among the Gnostic. Indeed, we will listen to the Word of God in English. Where is your word of God?
Your forgetting or more like ignoring the Majority of Greek critical texts which are total in number two of two while there are atlas 600 extant copies of the Traditional text that contain Acts and Acts 8:37, btw. We are not told this truth in the Critical text Acts footnote.
Are children going to be reading footnotes?
@@brittanygreen acts 8:37 is not in the majority of Greek manuscripts of any time date or place. This is not about Antioch or Alexandria at all.
And again, and again, and again, the textus receptus is NOT the majority text. If you take a Greek King James (scrivener’s Textus receptus) and compare it to a pure majority reading for every verse in the New Testament, there will be over a thousand differences. (Dan Wallace notated 1838 differences). Most of these are not theologically meaningful, but as long as king James onlyists believe the historical lie that the TR = “traditional (Greek) text” = Byzantine/Antiochan manuscripts = the majority text, as if they’re all the same thing, you will believe that all differences in modern bibles are due to minority readings in old manuscripts like sinaiticus and vaticanus. Not true.
Many of the passages you assume are majority readings are actually tiny minority readings, like acts 8:37, 1st Jon 5:7, Luke 2:22, and dozens if not hundreds of places in the book of revelation.
@@Obediah002 please list your source. There are at least 600 manuscripts that contain acts 8:37? In Greek? Not according to anything I’ve ever read. Acts 8:37 is a tiny minority reading among Greek manuscripts.
When scripture references itself, I don’t believe it has the KJV specifically in mind.
But it does
The original languages (Hebrew & Greek) are just translated INTO the King James Bible (AV). So yes it is the same Book.
It doesn't have to have any translation in mind. The expectation, based on claims within the Scriptures, by the Scriptures should be; that we have God's preserved word on earth. Then we ask, where can I find it? The only translation in English I can trust as God's preserved word is the King James.
about 30 minutes of slow buildup and then suddenly boom boom boom.
I and my boss speak good to ppl about the matter but they either tell us we wrong get angry at us cast us off they will not take heed to the Words of God we can show them page after page they won't look at it and I'm talking bout ppl in the church that's been there for years and years but to a new born again Christian they try the meat and see it clearly
I empathize ... I continually remind me that the Lord says to "plant the seed" ... God uses His words to work in others' minds ... we must be mindful to make sure WE use His Word and not our human reasoning
I think you should focus less on how others behave and just get to the facts.
One of the facts: be apt to teach and not a brawler...or contentious... the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace... He got to the facts.
Dr. Haifley described Christians who used non-KJV Bible translations as “sincere” and then as “sincerely wrong.” However, the KJV translators stated that “variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures.” They also stated: “They that are wise had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.” archive.org/details/1611Bible
Are Christians who read the Bible in all non-English languages sincerely wrong?
The Apostles did not use the KJV; were they sincerely wrong?
Jesus Christ did not use the KJV; was He sincerely wrong?
Dr. Haifley is welcome to use the KJV.
mr bp Indeed, the translators did use plenty of cross references for translating their English Bible. That being said, they rejected the Alexandrian and Siniaticus texts. Why? Since they used better texts than such. Again, where is your Word of God?
Brittany Green
You can notice that this guy is trolling this channel on different videos.
mr bp - Why should Christians care if the "KJV translators" stated that _variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures"_ It's right words that give the right sense of the Scripture. Not 'different' words.
The more translations, the more confusion, the more confusion the easier it is for Satan to insinuate _his_ meanings into it. "Yea, hath God said?" Their opinion is dangerous, and carries zero weight.
He's not referring to other languages.
Not all people have the gift of tongues.
Some of these people are being used to translate the recived text into other languages such as indonesian
*YOU* "Are Christians who read the Bible in all non-English languages sincerely wrong?"
*ANSWER* Once they know the truth about the modern versions, yes. They are also in great danger of believing false doctrines. The modern bibles weaken major Bible doctrines.
*YOU* "The Apostles did not use the KJV; were they sincerely wrong?"
*RESPONSE* Same Books (Book) different language.
*YOU* "Jesus Christ did not use the KJV; was He sincerely wrong?"
*RESPONSE* Same Books (Book) different language.
I don't think a Suit is Modest. And, having your members dress according to IBC standards is simply religion. You might intimidate some to wear uniforms according to the long time religious ladies, but how many will wear wheaten during the week. The Holy Spirit is the guide for all of the ladies that are saved.
If a dress is the norm 24/7, going fishing or canoeing or swimming or mountain bike riding is going to be awkward.
Your Religion runs people off, especially the Saved.
No where did he say you have to wear a suit and tie.
Modest just means not showing a lot of skin.
A t shirt and cargo pants is still Modest.
A short sleeve dress (not skirt) is still Modest. We choose to wear that.
No one should ever go to church naked or scantily clad.
Also it's meant to be worn at church not at activities outside of church.
You are missing the point entirely you fool
This is one arrogant character
It takes more of an arrogant character to think that you represent God in earth when you are placing a tasteless cookie in an altar, but that is none of my business__or is it?
Character attacks, without providing any useful arguments, is not helpful.
Imagine trying to prove a point, but the only thing you had to say was a negative opinion about the way you perceive a particular person's character.
If you're going to convince someone if something, you should make your objective clear beyond just saying "he's arrogant." If the objective is to show people the arrogance of his character, then you should provide examples.
After all, we often see our own worst flaws in others.
He does come off that way a little bit but maybe unintentionally. I don’t know his heart but he does seem to crave feedback from the audience and gets angry when he doesn’t get it.