Me as well. I bought a KJV a few months ago and have never looked back. My friends are calling me a weirdo but I have been showing them how much different other modern versions are corrupted.
I've always held Pastor Arnold's preaching in high regard, but I never really knew where he stood regarding Bible translations. I'm very happy to see that your ministry is KJV only. I've gone back and forth on this topic a number of times, but recently came to the same conclusion. Thank you for standing up for the Word of God!
@@wesleysmith21 It (The King James Bible) is the word of God....Scripture. It is inerrant and infallible... Every modern version comes form corrupted manuscripts. Modern = since 1881
Amen. The most glaring to me is the 1 John 5:7... The verse that fully details and explains the trinity! It's so important! Because it's the first thing that a muslim will say... "GOD IS ONE it's ALLAH not 3!!" and if you have a NIV you can't go to your bible and read: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. So the NIV/NASB/etc all the ones based off the corrupt gnostic alexandrian mss. The so-called "betters ones". SMH. Thank God for the KJV :)
@@Matt-ir1ky A verse not found in older more accurate manuscripts, than the manuscripts used for the KJV. Manuscripts dedicated to the Pope with added uninspired verses like 1 John 5 v 7 Acts 8 v 37. Nothing gnostic about the NIV, that is just one of the many deceptions of the KJV only cult. Deceptions to try and defend the KJV only lunacy.
@@Matt-ir1ky No idea what you are talking about. I have opened my Bible nothing in it about a translation in a language that did not exist when God inspired the scripture. KJV onlyism is a false teaching a man made tradition with no scriptural support. So I will not be bewitched by this dangerous nonsense.
I agree, KJV. I use to use the NIV, until I found out that there were missing verses, and verses they changed altogether. I wasn't cool with that. That's when I made the switch to KJV, and I am KJV only.
+Kelvin Nguyen That's a rather inane comment - there are NO verses missing in ANY modern accurate Bible - those that have been moved to the footnotes were NOT in any ancient Bible - IF the early church didn't have them - why should you? WHY would versed that show up in a text from 1200 be considered inspired where they were NOT in any Bible from the 6th century? WHY would you make the KJB - as corrupt as it is - the stanndared? "I agree, KJV. I use to use the NIV, until I found out that there were missing verses, and verses they changed altogether. I wasn't cool with that. That's when I made the switch to KJV, and I am KJV only. "
Paul Robinson okay so you think people will see the tiny letter next to the missing verse and wonder if it’s missing? Look up 1 John 5:7 in the NIV, the verse that proves the Trinity! What does it say? Verse 7 is replaced with verse 8 and verse 8 is called, “verse 7!!!!” Why does the NIV want to disprove the Trinity?
@@paulrobinson9318 Why would you use a bible that calls Jesus a liar, and gives Jesus's title to Lucifer? The NIV is not the word of God. No matter how much you want to assert that it is. Are you not concerned about the perversions you are suggesting others read? May God have mercy.
@@Chris-zd8cs Before you tell so many lies about God's word maybe you need a basic education in what GOD gave the original writers. The KJB does not tell you that accurately. It is a Catholic text translated by English Catholics with one or two Protestants on board. NONE approved the final work - ONE refused to allow it in his pulpit. Not one of your lies are accurate - at best it shows an incredible Biblical ignorance. Just because the Catholics translating the KJB were under the control of a Sodomite church leader they were terrified to use the ONLY possible translation from Hebrew: morning star or morning light. Rather than incur the wrath of the king, they Anglicized the Latin Vulgate for Daystar and used the Latin word to translate the Hebrew word into an English word. If you knew the first thing about the Bible you would know that BOTH Jesus and the Babylonian king were referred to by the writers under the anointing of the HOLY SPIRIT as "morning star" or equivalent. So rather than trust one of the many lies in the KJB all accurate Bibles use the CORRECT word. Your other examples are similar examples of Biblical illiteracy.
@@paulrobinson9318 You seem proud of your position. If King James were a homosexual, his letter to his son would make no sense. Worse than being an accuser of someone that was likely a Christian, you attack God's word. You also claim that I lied, but I did no such thing. I will give examples of my assertion. (NIV) Isaiah 14:12 and Rev 22:16 12 How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! 16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a]this testimony for the churches. I am the Rootand the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.” The NIV gives Jesus's title to Lucifer. Now I will demonstrate that the NIV makes Jesus out to be a manipulative liar. NIV John 7:8-12 8 You go to the festival. I am not[b] going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.”9 After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee. 10 However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret. 11 Now at the festival the Jewish leaders were watching for Jesus and asking, “Where is he?” 12 Among the crowds there was widespread whispering about him. Some said, “He is a good man.” Others replied, “No, he deceives the people.”
I finally decided to add my like to these two videos. I can no longer ignore the fact that the NASB removes the blood from Colossians 1:14. I was without a church until last month, and my church uses the KJV only.
Good for you, I left the NASB (Satan's Masterpiece) in Jan. 1985 and never looked back! When you run into a verse that someone tells you is wrong in the KJB, trust God and SEARCH, ASK, and the answer will come every time! Quotation: --Dr. Frank Logsdon, the Head of the NASV committee, realized that he sinned against God after the publishing of it and wrote this letter to the NASV Committee. "I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard...I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord...We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface... I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it’s wrong, it’s terribly wrong; it's frighteningly wrong; and what am I going to do about it?... I can no longer ignore these criticisms [of the corruptions in the New American Standard Version Bible (NASB/NASV)] I am hearing and I can't refute them... When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended. However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV...The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times...The deletions are absolutely frightening...there are so many...Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?... I don't want anything to do with it... [T]he finest leaders that we have today...haven't gone into it [the new version's use of corrupted Greek (Nestles) text], just as I hadn't gone into it...That's how easily one can be deceived...I'm going to talk to him [Dr. George Sweeting, then president of Moody Bible Institute] about these things... [Y]ou can say the Authorized Version [KJV] is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct! If you must stand against everyone else, stand." - Dr. Frank Logsdon
Long time since that post, and I have gone back to liking eclectic texts again. Dirty secrets: Majority Texts add Mark 16:8-20, which includes verse 16, which adds baptism to the gospel. And verses 17-18 sound exactly like Pentekkkostalism. A short alternative ending to Mark speaks of "eternal salvation", which implies grace. Eusebius quotes an alternative version of Matthew 28:19: "go ye and make disciples of the nations in my name...". The Catholics interpolated both baptism and the Trinity. Acts 2 is a ripoff of the Gospel of the Twelve. It includes verse 38, which adds works (baptism). But Luke follows Paul. The second half of Acts is mostly about Paul. Luke writes to prove that Paul was the Paraclete who led them into all truth, because Peter kept becoming Satan. Acts 2 is out of character with Luke and in character with a gnostic text. The Gospel of the Twelve is flat out repent of sin and lordship, as well as mystical and Pentekkkostal. That spirit is a devil, and if they say Jesus had it, the blasphemy is theirs. Jesus said that all blasphemies would be forgiven. Baptism is Baphomet, and Skekinah is an unforgiving goddess. It is also known as the Presence, which Brother Lawrence practiced. Holy ghost is another of Satan's cute nicknames. Their father is YHWH, which they pronounce Baphomet, which is Satan. Their fruit is spiritual pedophilia. It follows that Jesus never commanded baptism. Don't take the Mark 16:16.
@@craigluchin4585 Satan's masterpiece is the cult of KJV onlyism. Started by a Seventh Day Adventist cultist. A cult that was started by false teacher Ellen G White. You have fallen for one of Satan's most subtle deceptions, the KJV only heresy. Also how can Satan cast out Satan? Almighty God is using and blessing the NASB to bring many to Christ. Like many from the deceptive KJV only cult. You are close to blaspheming the Holy Spirit. That is what happens when you fall for the blasphemous idolatrous KJV only deception.
Great study!! I used to use multiple translations not knowing which one was most accurate and ended up confused until I finally studied the manuscript evidence. Then it was clear that the KJV is the true Word of God. God is not the author of confusion!
I'm now a fully committed JKV ONLY Bible believer. At one time I had other translations and all have been lost which included several ESV Bibles which when I ordered them from a certain Bible company they arrived with some form or another of damage to them, even then God was telling which Bible He wanted me to have...the King James Bible!! 📖😁😁
+ Kristi Smith Where ever did you get that silly notion? "I came out of Mormonism, and used the MacArthur study Bible. So glad I learned the KJV is the way to go!" KJ is a poor translation from corrupted texts - catholic texts. There are so many GREAT Bibles today - the KJ is among the poorest. And certainly the least understandable. IT is in fact a millstone around the neck of the church with its archaic language - not to mention various ungodly passages where man's opinion was inserted rather than God's truth.
+@Chase Tallent NO Bible based on the TR is accurate or reliable. That places the ESV at the top of YOUR heap - BUT I prefer the NET Bible - as even MORE accurate . . . and the texts more expansive . . . Frankly, I Consider the KJB to be a millstone around the neck of the Christian church. It is outdated, inaccurate and corrupted by its years in Catholic control. IT is only one step better than the NWT; BOTH were produced to establish a false belief system. The purpose of the KJB was to remove the Protestant Geneva from circulation . . . it failed for 50 years.
+@Samson I might agree with you but for other reasons - why do YOU think MacArthur is a heretic? Post like yours are drivel and a waste of bandwidth - I also suspect you have NO clue about why you wrote he is a heretic - its just something your cult has told you to day . . . and you parrot it without the slightest understanding.
I can already hear the negative comments on this one...lol. After years of research i can only come to one conclusion....KJV only. Thanks Pastor for this message. Pastor Greg Miller from BBFOhio.com has hours and hours on this matter.
I just dont like the KJV, I have a hard time understanding Paul in the KJV. To be honest I believe this is not a salvation issue, its preference. The KJV has the woman caught in adultery which Jesus tells her " go and sin no more" something that you would think us being by Faith alone would consider a works based idea. Its my belief this was added and not in the original John wrote, but thats my opinion. I am not trying to argue just pointing out when you say translations like the ESV or NASB try to change doctrine you could make the same argument of the KJV.
+@@fishersofmen4727 Your opinion is correct - that passage is NOT in any early text - it is another Catholic insertion. " Its my belief this was added and not in the original John wrote, but thats my opinion. " The KJB is traceable through English Catholic revisions - it is NOT an accurate translation of the Catholic Erasmus text - which is NOT a accurate collation of the Greek texts. IT came from 6 partial Catholic Greeks, from about 1200. Modern accurate Bibles come from texts as old as 200 AD - and there are so many of them NOW that were unknown when the KLJ was translated - that we ought NOT rely on this catholic corruption as the final word on the Message GOD gave the church. There are many modern accurate Bibles that can be easily read and understood
+@@sydeem Hi Sydney. There are MANY great and trustworthy translations - but NOT ONE is perfect t - as GOD would want - for if any TRANSLATION was perfect - we'd WORSHIP it the way some KJO cultists worship the KJ Bible. "what translation can we rely on?" Basically there are two streams of texts - of course there are lots more, but two MAIN ones. The late texts - like the Ereasmus concoction from about 1510, is a catholic translation and revision of the six catholic texts from about 1200 AD, with comments by popes, priests and pagans interspursed. Its often referred to as the Textus Receptus - or the Received text - YUP recieved from the CATHOLIC church. The KJB version iu sed this text to crate a Imperialy mandated text - edited un der 15 RULES - to REMOVE from ENGLAND the PROTESTANT Geneva Bible. | There is NOT a single bible from this mess that is accurate and fully inspired - it contains many INSERTIONS from sermons and opinions that GOD never spoke. The OTHER main branch are the ANCIENT texts - of which we have about 10,000, but basically about 5 or 6 that are almost complete, and offer us the BEST look at what the NT church used in their daily worship and teaching. The list of SOLID texts based on these ANCIENT texts translated in to UNDERSTANDABLE English are long, and at a wide variety of reading levels. I have developed a fondness for the NET Bible - partly because there are very GODLY men behind it who have lived, eaten and breathed the BIBLICAL languages their whole lives - many are professors in the relevant languages and in translation - and KNOW stuff those ancient translators in the 1610s had NO CLUE of. PLUS they use computers to access information, dictionaries and the writings of the ancients that were simply impossible before computers that could store 1000 different texts in ONE simple device. Another reason is that they include 62000 translators notes - EXPLAINING why they used a certain word - and alternatives - making tUNDERSTANDING of the text as INTENDED by GOD much more accurate to the reader. Other GODLY, accurate and understandable texts include Holman, ESV, NIV, and a half dozen more that I rely on - I have over 100 on my computer. Hope this helps.
You are blind, this KJVO cult will harden your heart even more and you wil cause more division in the body of Christ, at the end you are being used by satan to divide Gods people. Only a blind person will say people are blind about manuscripts, if you look at the earliest manuscripts and you look at how the TR came to be then you have to be truly blind or stubborn to still think the KJV is the perfect preserved word of God.
What about the Genova Bible? Wouldn't that make the King James Bible at an error? All of y'all seem to forget that the King James Bible wasn't the first Bible translated to English. So if I was to be y'all, The Genova bible has a few passages swapped compared to the King James Bible so wouldn't that make the King James just as satanic as the rest of the translations? You see what y'all are doing? Y'all are Hypocrites! Y'all obviously never took the time into studying the Hebrew language and it can operates the Common language.
You are correct! Modern translations are compromised with the RCC & Jesuits. And I have done a personal study for a long time to find out the truth for myself. True believers down through the ages followed the Traditional line of manuscriptions & translations made from them. The Peshitta Syriac and Old Latin Translations in the 150s AD was just the start of this FACT. The corruptible Critical text's so-called "oldest & best" 2 codices, Vaticanus & Sinaiticus, are Gnostic Alexandrian productions, that when studied & viewed close up online, they are a corrupted farce!!! So much could be said. Micah 5:2 is only one of the Bible verses that PROVE modern translations are intentionally corrupted/changed. Modern translations say Jesus had an "origin" in this verse, but the KJV says that Jesus is "from everlasting". So don't fall for the modern translations supporters' bogus arguments. The 5 editions of the UBS Greek text/28 editions of the Nestles-Aland text are compromised with the RCC & Jesuits. Study the ppl that were on the UBS/Nestle-Aland translations committees, & it will be eye-opening!!! They have been ecumenically tied to the RCC, everything set for this by 1979! God bless you, glad you aren't deceived.
Hoy are they corrupted? Explain please. What about the KJV translated by baby sprinkling Anglicans with manuscripts dedicated to the Pope. Later manuscripts with added uninspired verses. Making the KJV one of the most corrupted translations we have.
The Authorized Version is in the public domain in most of the world. However, in the United Kingdom, the right to print, publish and distribute it is a Royal prerogative and the Crown licenses publishers to reproduce it under letters patent. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the letters patent are held by the Queen's Printer, and in Scotland by the Scottish Bible Board. The office of Queen's Printer has been associated with the right to reproduce the Bible for centuries, the earliest known reference coming in 1577. In the 18th century all surviving interests in the monopoly were bought out by John Baskett. The Baskett rights descended through a number of printers and, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Queen's Printer is now Cambridge University Press, who inherited the right when they took over the firm of Eyre & Spottiswoode in 1990 - WIKIPEDIA
One night I woke up and I heard a voice say I am Jesus Christ and it said you are one of my sheep and are forgiven where could it have come from shoulI believe it was Jesus?
-Diminish Not A Word, Dt. 4:2, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” Prov. 30:5-6, “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” Rev. 22:18-19, “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” Jer. 26:2, “Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD'S house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD'S house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word” Lk. 11:35, “Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness.”
My. Sinai is in Saudi Arabia. It's top is burnt and black, as the Bible clearly states. It is not in Egypt, as is mistakenly believed. There are videos on TH-cam that show the mount, and it is still black from burning.
Pastor Yankee, what Bible do you recommend in Spanish? I have friends that don't know English only Spanish. Someone recommended me the Reina Valera Gomez, is this the Word of God in Spanish?
@Samson Why does God have to preserve his word in english? Has he promised that he would do that? If he has promised to preserve his word in english, why are other languages left without a bible? (not all people have a bible in their language) If he has promised to preserve his word in english, why did it take til the KJV? Were english speakers before the kjv capable of being saved and discerning the totality of biblicsl doctrines to live by? If that is the case, what is so special about the kjv? What do we do with the reality that the kjv departs in the NT both from the majority text and the textus receptus? What i mean is that it is not possible to trace an stream of transmission thst is devoid of textual variants. How does the kjv only position that typically argues for exact passing down of every jot and tittle without variation throughout the ages account for this? If it is the KJV, which edition? (this isnt as big a deal as many critics act but there are meaningful differences) I know the PCE is the top pick of many. Why? What sound reason does one have for that? No psalm 12 isnt a reason, the hebrew grammar prevents this (gender of noun "words" and pronoun "them" doesnt match, therefore "them" does not refer to "words.") Whichever edition one chooses, what does one do with basic copyist errors that enter into any printing? What i mean is, does the copyist error mean you dont jave the inerrant word in your hand? Is it still the bible without error if it has typos or are you saying it is a copy of the true word, that exists as an ideal or some such thing? (may seem an absurd question but copyist errors are really no different than scribal errors that entet into manuscripts, whether byzantine or otherwise). Finally what does it mean, in anything, for the argument that it is impossible to go back to the original maniscriot that was sent to the printers? These are all in one sense or another hitches in the argument in my mind.
I'd like you to name one of these "mistakes" please. The KJV is a very accurate and reliable translation of God's Word. I hear of these supposed mistakes but no one can ever seem to name a genuine error in the KJV.
I have seen over and over that a word in the KJV when taught what it means in the original language, the NASB version already has that word already there. I like Dr. Arnold, but the NASB has been translated from texts that are closer to the actual events than the Texus Receptus. I like Dr. Arnold's teaching that we are saved by grace through faith, but am disappointed here because I expect more scholarship from someone who has his doctorate. The NASB has been regarded over and over as one of if not the best word for word translation available today. The ESV is also a very good word for word translation. I am not an NIV fan. I am also wary of the NLT version as well. When doing study, it is best to look at the scripture in several different versions for insight. I promise you, there are several words in the KJV that if you look them up in a bible dictionary and then look at the NASB, you will see what I am talking about.
@@chrisdann1226 You need to see for yourself. Read and study scripture using the KJV and NASB side by side, and you will see for yourself. KJV is a very good translation, and each translation has holes in them.
You're missing the point entirely. The NASB and All modern translations are from Westcott and Hort's corrupted Alexandrian Greek text based on the extremely corrupted Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiaticus which disagree with the Textus Receptus by having many important missing verses and over 5,000 changes from the true texts. The KJV is the only readily available translation based on the Textus Receptus (which agrees with 99% of all 5,000+ extant Greek manuscripts). All modern translations are based on the occultist Westcott and Hort's corrupted Greek text they created in the late 1800's. The Geneva Bible and all other pre-KJV translations were based on the Textus Receptus because it was widely understood to be the correct majority text of the Greek New Testament- it agrees with 99% of the 5,000+ extant manuscripts. If you want the dozens of missing verses and the pure, tried and true New Testament Christians have been using for 2,000 years called the Textus Receptus you need the KJV. If you want a butchered translation done in the 19th century by occultist with over 5,000 changes from the correct historical Greek Textus Receptus then stick with your NASB.
@@patrickfoster4586 I do not know if the manuscripts associated with the NASB are corrupt, but what is pretty certain in my mind is that the NASB manuscripts were closer to the time of Jesus. What I should have said earlier is that when the Greek has been taught for a word or maybe a passage, I have seen how the NASB would already have it there. I cannot verify about the possible corruption of manuscripts, but I can go with what I have personally witnessed myself.
@@roberthaysiii2355 Don't fall for the "closer in time" deception. God's written word is not like other ancient writings. If you believe God's written word you know that Satan is a real being. He is bitterly opposed to every word God has spoken. His primary method to move people from God's word is to place doubt. "Yea, hath God said?" If you believe the "closer in time" argument you are assuming that men have uniformly handled God's word faithfully, and that corruptions that appear in the text, do so over time, and are typically unintentional. But you should also note that a fundamental pillar of textual criticism is to prefer the "harder reading" which is inevitably the Alexandrian text. The assumption is that faithful men of God (the Byzantine/Antioch text form) changed His words and "smoothed" the text to make it read easier or to remove apparent inconsistencies! But there is no proof of this. There is simply no way to handle textual criticism of God's words in a "neutral" way because we don't live in a neutral reality. This is the most contested ground in the universe. Yet the "neutral" critics assume wilful distortions in the Byzantine text, without any proof, while giving no consideration that the older texts might also be willfully corrupted.
KJB we have today is the 1769 edition not 1611. As was common practice with bible translations the KJB also included the Apocrypha which were not removed from the KJB and other Protestant bibles until the 1880s. It is also a point of historical fact that the first Protestants did not like the KJB and continued to use the Geneva bible for a good number of years after the KJB was first published.
It's still the same translation work. The fact that the typography and spelling continued to be refined does not affect the quality of the version in any way. The translators included the apocrypha for historical context and because it was more commonplace to do so at the time. They explicitly stated they were not inspired and moved them to an intertestamental section. Puritans continued to use the Geneva for a few decades, but by the end of the seventeenth century the KJV had become the standard Bible for all English speakers.
Lol, the trolls and "scholars", really showed up on this, and I don't doubt, the other sermons too. These people desperately DO NOT want you reading the KJV, because if you do, you might come to understand that THEY, ("scholars"), are not needed.
You misrepresent the majority of evangelical scholars when you lump everyone together with the “They” word. Who is this “these people” you describe that “DO NOT want you to read the KJV”? Again, no evangelical scholar I have ever read...and the hat is a lot, my brother...would ever try to keep you from reading or even preferring the KJV. Even if you disagree with their research and have the opinion that the KJV is the most accurate translation in the English language, that is fine. The problem is when you make the KJV out to be something more than a translation. It is not “God-breathed”. It is not perfect. No translation is perfect. I know you want to believe that one bible that you, yourself can read is perfect because you, like the pastor above, seem to feel that this makes it easier to trust in God’s Word. I understand that...and every true evangelical scholar will, also. The only problem is, that is not how God decided to do things. He breathed the NT scripture to us in Koine Greek. He had most amazing plan to have his word preserved thru the very people it touched and did so in a way that, while no two manuscripts are identical, their message is pure and each supports the other in all essential Christian doctrines. Further, by doing it His way with manuscripts spread all over the world that, although not identical, agree...no one can ever seriously back up an argument that Someone so and so from hither or yon at some time changed the scriptures to fit their own beliefs and no Bible in any language is true because of it. That, my brother, is the beauty of God’s plan. The KJV is part of that and you should cherish it. But not at the expense of any of the other fine English translations...not to mention German, French, Spanish, et al.
@@glennyork8992 YOU ignore the command to study the scriptures - you cannot study what is false and corrupted and gain spiritual advantage from it - that KJB is as corrupt as its Catholic predecessors - compared and revised to match readings in the Catholic DR translation by its editors. Hence their word for word readings. Amazing since they came from different languages . . .
@@kwrinn I do not know why your comment never showed in my notifications. You addresses me respectfully and I appreciate that. The KJV IS perfect, and God DID breathe life, his Spirit into it. The words are alive. It is not my preferred version, it is THE BIBLE. Yes, maybe I was too broad when saying "they", and, "these people", I will give you that. Specifically James White, as a promoter of modern versions, who claims there is no perfect bible and is also a 5 point Calvinist, I believe, is in my mind when I speak of this, along with two other men, responsible, directly, for SCORES of, ENGLISH, translations, WHY? Because people don't believe the one God gave us. The people need Gods word in the language they know. Luthers' Bible was legitimate, as well as any others translated honestly from the majority text. Every single translation after the KJV, Revised Version onward, (w/the possible exception of the Spanish Reina-Valera ), comes from the Greek Manuscript that Westcott and Hort made up from around 1850-1880 or so, using Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. This is primarily what I mean by "they", and it includes Rome. It is a very corrupt manuscript, as is their theory of textual criticism. So, yes there ARE people from hither and yon who changed the word of God to fit their own non belief. I am not saying that God cannot use any translation. I am saying that if you truly believe that all bibles have textual mistakes, and there is no perfect copy of Gods word, then you don't have a bible brother Kenny. Neither does any person, scholar or no, who believes the same. I need to be off. I will continue this later, if you wish.
glenn york Well, very respectfully, Brother, I must disagree. You see, we DO have the original God breathed scripture...breathed in Greek, since we are talking about primarily the New Testament, here). God had and has a perfect plan to preserve His word to us. He has done so. I understand the need people feel to have certainty of a text in the language that they understand. However, my position ( backed up by scripture and the totality of church history) would be nowhere do we find any evidence that God’s plan involved an English translation ( or a Spanish one ) to preserve a perfect transmission. There is simply no scriptural or historical data that supports your argument, my brother. I’m sorry. I love you in Christ, but your position is in error. Just a few small questions for discussion, if you are so inclined. 1) You mentioned the Spanish translation...is it perfect? 2) What was God’s perfect word in 1610? 3) Would it not be a reasonable position to state that man seeks certainty, sometimes at the expense of truth? For instance...the cults and followers of Islam have certainty. But they have not the truth. They have one and only one book or collection of “scripture” that they hold to. They are certain. They believe it. But you and I will readily agree that they have NO truth. In other words, just because someone fervently and devoutly believes (is certain) they have a perfect scripture does not make it true. The KJV was not “upon to make it God’s word. That is not what theopneustos implies or means. It means God’s word, literally, flowed out of or was expressed from HIs very mouth into the ears / hearts/ spirits of His chosen vessels. He chose these people to transmit that word because it was His plan...His way. He knew, because He is Sovereign Lord, that every language of man that existed or ever would exist would have its own expressions which would even change as time wore on. He knew that other men, because of their devotion to His plan and not their own would translate His word into their language. Throughout time, he has seen fit to give us viable worthy translations in a plethora of languages...all of them worthy of being blessed by Him as His word. His plan was even so extraordinary that He, by calling devout men and women of every tribe and tongue to study and to critically and rightly divide the word of Truth, that no one can ever justly claim that the scriptures were written or compiled by one man or group to impress their own thoughts or desires upon the church. The KJV has been and will continue to be blessed by God, because, as the translators of the KJV said themselves...even the meanest translation is God’s word. They also afffirmed it was NOT perfect. But it was still the word of God. Were they wrong? Love you brother. Thanks for the comments. Wish you the best.
The German text critic Griesbach made the Emphatic Diagolt source text modified from Alexandrian sources, available to Wilson in 1864. The very same errors were present in that book decades before Wescott & Hort. No one ever mentions Griesbach & Wilson. I did a lot of research and Wescott & Hort copied off of Griesbach & Wilson to a large extent.
John 3:13 New American Standard Bible "No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. King James Bible And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man WHICH IS IN HEAVEN. this is a very very important verse
I would hope that in your part 2 that you lay out some evidence of your claims. All I heard were accusations and opinions. Not one source sited. Not one place as to where to go witnesses any of these claims for ourselves.
I found a local church out of 300 churches in my area and they are the only American Baptist Church left and use many translations to fit the Pastors message. I asked why don't you use KJV like the American Baptists used when I grew up and the reply was where have you been dude? I then hung up the phone and still cannot find a once Saved always Saved Church in my city....
So I suppose, you are not a Protestant? "The KJV is the only accurate translation of the Bible" Then obviously you exclude the FIRST Protestant Bible for the America;s, The Geneva. Therefore you are not only Biblically ignorant, you are historically ignorant. 1587 GENEVA, THE Most accurate PTOTESTANT Bible. "Heb 1:3 Who being the brightnes of the glory, and the ingraued forme of his person, ........................ " 1611 KJV, Heb 1:3 Who being the brightnesse of his glory, and the expresse image of his person, You don't have a clue, do you. The KJV, could be compared to a modern 10 million megapixel Camera. Accurate, yes, but the best, nope. The Geneva, describes "an engraving." As in a LEGAL "seal" !!! When we have a dollar [or a $100] bill engraving, when you have seen one, you have seen them all. [Until they put some other "image" on there to fool counterfeiters.] PLUS, engravings are used in LEGAL instruments. The KJV says; "When you see Jesus, you have seen "God." The Geneva says, "When you see Jesus you are not only seeing God, MORE SPECIFICALLY, you are seeing the LEGAL representative of God. We all know the beauty of the KJV, but frankly, the KJV was INTENDED as a POLITICALLY CORRECT version, because King James was offended by some of the translations found in the Geneva, HE wanted DIFFERENT WORDING!!! Of course a Bible SCHOLAR, who uses the Strongs, notices the fact that some verses [And, I think this is exactly what God INTENDED!] just possibly have better translations. After all, WE KNOW God left some things[Daniel & The Revelation come to mind.] to be understood, "LATER." About 1/2 the scholars for the Geneva worked on the KJV, so they agree about 90% of the time, but where they do not, the Geneva is probably MORE ACCURATE, which means "KJV only" does not get ALL that God intended. I have for about 10 years, been putting together a personal "study" Bible, using the KJV and Geneva. I also use the English Standard Version [more like the Geneva] and the Holman Christian Standard Bible [more like the KJV] and the NET Bible which has 60000 notes. Like many Christians I don't like the NIV as being too liberal, but as I said the ESV & HCSB accurately represent the KJV and Geneva, and do NOT change "MEANING.". The great Christians of the Protestant Reformation ALL were honest enough to point out discrepancies in the King James. There are a few. BUT whether the Geneva, KJV, ESV, HCSB or the NET, NONE OF THEM CHANGE THE GOSPEL.
Look up Creation Liberty Evangelism. Many errors that are taught in today's "churches" are exposed. I hope that you visit, and the site is edifying to your spiritual walk with Christ.
People in other counties and cultures who will never understand english don't use the KJV, and before there was a KJV there was still an accurate translation
Correct. The King James Bible is the word of God for the English speaking people. English as we understand it today was formed just before the AV was produced.
KJV IS THE PURE WORD OF GOD IM A FILIPINO AND TAGALOG BIBLE IS CORRUPTED AND GOD LEAD ME TO READ KJV BIBLE I BELIEVE THAT GOD USE ENGLISH LANGUAGE TO PRESERVE HIS WORD BECAUSE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IS THE MOST SPOKEN UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE OF THIS WORLD EVEN ANY NATIONALITY READ KJV BIBLE BACAUSE KJV BIBLE IS PURE WORD PRAISE LORD JESUS CHRIST FOR HIS REVEAL TRUTH PRESERVE PURE WORD, KJV AROUND THE WORLD🌎🌍🌏🇯🇵🇮🇪🇬🇮🇱🇦🇱🇻🇬🇳🇱🇷🇱🇷🇬🇵🇯🇲🇮🇱🇬🇼🇬🇱🇱🇧🇭🇰🇽🇰🇬🇹🇵🇭🇺🇸🇿🇼🇹🇭🇾🇪🇹🇭🇪🇭🇸🇷🇺🇬🇰🇷🇳🇿🇲🇬🇳🇺🇲🇼🇳🇷🇲🇷🇳🇵🇲🇱🇲🇵🇲🇺🇲🇵🇳🇬🇳🇪🇱🇸🇱🇸🇮🇪🇯🇵🇬🇳🇱🇾🇬🇳🇱🇦🇬🇩🇪🇪🇩🇪🇪🇷🇬🇦🇬🇶🇬🇮🇪🇪🇨🇬🇬🇶🇰🇲🇪🇹🇨🇫🇩🇯🇰🇲🇨🇿🇨🇿.
So what's wrong with both the Matthew Bible and the Geneva Bible, both which preceded the KJV? It got its text from these earlier versions. Surely you don't subscribe that William Tyndale wasn't correct in his New Testament do you?
The enemy has tried to tell me that God does not love me, Jesus created everything including us, and He came down and died so that we could live, that was the most unselfish act of love possible, so the enemy is to late to say God does not love me, because I know what my creator did to redeem me back Himself.
I hope this video just simply Spurs you to research it out for yourself by the two lines and scripture w scripture within KJV and comparing other versions. Don’t do just a little study on it, but take a year or two or three and dig in. For me KJV is the one. Jesus is the Word, God is the Word, the Holy Spirit is the Word, God can count the hairs on your head, hold the universe together in his hand, know when a sparrow falls, don’t we think He could preserve Himself too?
thank you for what you do... I never really listen to a preacher or laymen if they are reading from the new age books.. I feel if you do not have Gods Word in your hands you do not really know Gods word..
What new age books are they. I have found that the KJV only cultist, are like the Sadducees, who quoted scripture. But did not know the power of God or the scriptures. That is why I would not go to a KJV only church. If they deceive so many with this idolatrous heresy of KJV onlyism What other deceptions will they teach.
I have a question, suppose a person heard or read the gospel of John from a modern translation, like John 3:15-18 and they believed, will they have everlasting life or only when they hear it or read the KJV?
I'm assuming you're only referring to English-speaking people. 98% of the text between the Westcott-Hort New Testament and the (various editions of) the Textus Receptus is identical - including the Gospel. The number of differences is not growing, it may be shrinking but don't take my word for that last part. Salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone, not grace through faith + reading the best Bible - the KJV indicates salvation as being by grace through faith in Christ alone, and makes no mention of itself as a translation being required for salvation. I've read the most literal of the modern ones, the NASB, in the Gospels, and the Gospel in John is the same message as in the KJV. For some background, I grew up around the NIV family (there was the '84 NIV and then the NIrV at home) of translations, then had an NASB given to me. I was saved on a modern translation and a critical text base. I switched to the KJV a year ago, and, though I switched moreso out of ignorance than fact, I'm slowly researching details of a concept in my mind about textual criticism: Use the Bible and let it define itself. Don't use purely man-made theories to determine the text of the Bible. If purely man-made theories are used, then the word of man determines, and becomes superior to, the Word of God.
-Quotation: --Dr. Frank Logsdon, the Head of the NASV committee, realized that he sinned against God after the publishing of it and wrote this letter to the NASV Committee. "I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard...I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord...We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface... I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it’s wrong, it’s terribly wrong; it's frighteningly wrong; and what am I going to do about it?... I can no longer ignore these criticisms [of the corruptions in the New American Standard Version Bible (NASB/NASV)] I am hearing and I can't refute them... When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended. However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV...The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times...The deletions are absolutely frightening...there are so many...Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?... I don't want anything to do with it... [T]he finest leaders that we have today...haven't gone into it [the new version's use of corrupted Greek (Nestles) text], just as I hadn't gone into it...That's how easily one can be deceived...I'm going to talk to him [Dr. George Sweeting, then president of Moody Bible Institute] about these things... [Y]ou can say the Authorized Version [KJV] is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct! If you must stand against everyone else, stand." - Dr. Frank Logsdon
I've read this before and agree with the sentiments expressed here but is there a way to verify whether this is a genuine quote from Dr Logsdon? Again, I wholeheartedly agree with this Logsdon-attributed quote but... were these words actually penned by him? What's the best source you've found on this? Blessings brotha
@@AnHebrewChild I believe it's Sam Gibb's books or Gale Riplinger's books. But I did get the quote from one or both, it is also published on line and the references should be there. It's not an obscure quote, but rather well known in Manuscript Evidence books and bookets. Another source would be Jack Chick tracts.
@@craigluchin4585 Anything from Sam Gipp, a Russian must learn English not any old English but KJV English to have the true word of God. Or Gail Riplinger, professional liar and heretic, her so called "acrostic algebra" nothing but witchcraft. Chicktracts? Conspiracy theories,, double standards, circular reasoning. All KJV only heretics, would not trust anything they say.
The question I have for the KJVOist is this: will you accept a version translated into modern English from the same source manuscripts as the KJV is derived from? If not, why?
They will not. They will accept some, if it is almost exactly as the KJV translation, but they will not accept the NKJV (they almost always hate that one as it corrects many of the erors in the KJV - eg it corrects easter to passover, it corrects the word bottles in Matthew 9:17 to wineskins, and so on and so on. They will also not accept the MEV, another good translation that uses the TR for the NT) at the end they believe the KJV is the only good translation and that is that, regardless of what they may have you think. The more one speaks to a KJV onlyist the more this becomes blatantly obvious. There was a time in my life when I was sucked into the King James Only nonsense and believed all other translations were corrupt, I thank the Lord for freeing me. A excellent debate on youtube can be found by searching for: Ankerberg KJV Discussion Complete Scholars' Position
No. modern English lacks the capability to differentiate between second person singular and plural pronouns. ie thou/thee vs ye/you. These exist in the Greek and Hebrew but are not preserved in any modern English version. There are many other greek and Hebrew verb conjugations that modern English cannot properly render "When he is come" vs "when he has come," and "what doest thou" vs "what are you doing" (hence the need for the countless, but still insufficient, footnotes in the NASB).
@@AnHebrewChild I've used the KJV for many years, it's just not as easy to understand due to the archaic words and phrases. There are just so many words that require a constant reference to the Strongs or equivalent just to process what is being read. It's just easier to read a translation using updated English. Even an update, like the KJVer, is much easier to understand. I do prefer TR translations like the NKJV and MEV but that's a different subject.
@@AnHebrewChildthere are plenty of things lost in translation regardless of if it is in old English or not. There ARE distinctions in the new translations by way of footnotes letting you know when a “you” is plural. KJV-onlyism is an untenable position. Please read the King James only controversy by James White.
@@josiahmurdoch4829 I've read it. It would seem you missed my point. Early Modern English possesses certain features of specificity absent from contemporary English. These features enable it to _more comprehensively_ convey correspondent features of the bible's source languages. I've pointed out a couple of these above. Insofar as James White denounces KJV Onlysism's cultish & superstitious aspects, I'm on board. Some have made an idol of the bible. (I think many besides just KjVOists have) I own and utilize MANY different bibles. But if an alien were to ask me to show them The English Bible, I'd hold up an Authorised Version and say "here. This is it, right here."
Long story short. Once in a Roman Baptist Sunday "school" class holding my KJV and reading from their RBC quarterly I ran across Daniel 3:17. Look that verse up in the Christian Standard version which used to be the HCSB, or Holman Christian Standard Bible. Not sure if it's Christian Standard Bible now but pretty sure. Anyway look that verse up and hold on to something when you do.
+Patrick McGuire What is the biggie in these verses? "Holman Christian Standard Bible If the God we serve exists, then He can rescue us from the furnace of blazing fire, and He can rescue us from the power of you, the king." "King James Bible If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king." YOU need to explain why we need to hold to something. Both say the same thing. Others: "Berean Study Bible If the God whom we serve exists, then He is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace and from your hand, O king." "Christian Standard Bible If the God we serve exists, then he can rescue us from the furnace of blazing fire, and he can rescue us from the power of you, the king." "NET Bible If our God whom we are serving exists, he is able to rescue us from the furnace of blazing fire, and he will rescue us, O king, from your power as well."
@@paulrobinson9318 " *IF* he exists he can rescue us," leaves room to think that they believe God might Not exist. KJV starts with the premise that they believe God Does exist. In the the Holman CSB God can only rescue them if he exists. KJV God can rescue them no questions asked. Yeah, I'd say that's a pretty big deal if you are question "if" your God truly exists.
+@@kcoble1000 While your point is based on ignorance - - why should a translation be adjusted to fit your theology and NOT translated exactly and your theology adjusted to fit what GOD actually said? God's word exceeds your theology in importance . . . or maybe NOT? When YOU have the ability (or the KJ pagan Catholic translators + the 4 Christians) to make a Bible fit your theology as the KJB does all over the place - you have edited out the intent of GOD in giving His thoughts to us. " "Now, who is that god " That is the reason for the IF "who can rescue you from my power?” 16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego replied to King Nebuchadnezzar, “We do not need to give you a reply concerning this. 17 " "If our God whom we are serving exists, he is able to rescue us" The answer to the KING - IF answers the challenge "who". . . " from the furnace of blazing fire, and he will rescue us, O king, from your power as well. 18 But if he does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we don’t serve your gods, and we will not pay homage to the golden statue that you have erected.” " "16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. 17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. 18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.KJB SO, you prefer a corrupted translation to what the Hebrew Bible says? That Daniel left the possibility open that there MAY not be a god ? "If that is the case The Aramaic is הֵן אִיתַי [hēn ʾîṯay], variously translated as: “if it be so” (KJV, NASU); “if the God we serve exists” (HCSB); “if our God whom we are serving exists” (NET). The phrase seems to raise the question of God’s existence, but not because the Jews questioned so themselves.165 They are responding to Nebuchadnezzar’s previous challenge, “who is the god who will deliver you from my hands” [emphasis added] (Dan. 3:15‣), where he implies no such god exists.166" "But if not Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego were not questioning God’s ability to save them, but his willingness according to His sovereign purpose.169 As young men, they were among those deported to Babylon. Since then, they had seen Nebuchadnezzar’s forces deport more Jews from Jerusalem, ultimately destroying their city and God’s temple. As surprising as these events might have appeared to those unacquainted with God, they knew from Scripture that all these things were according to God’s sovereign control of history. They believed it would be presumptuous to assume that God’s purpose mandated their rescue from the current predicament: Since the God of Israel did not save Judea, Jerusalem, and even vessels from his own temple from Nebuchadnezzar’s “hand” (Dan. 1:1-2‣), how can these Judeans presume to hope that their God shall save them from the king’s “hand” now (Dan. 3:17‣)?170 They faced a challenging decision that put their faith to the ultimate test. They knew their God to be a consuming fire (Ex. 24:17; 33:5; Lev. 10:2; Num. 11:1; 16:35; Deu. 4:24; 5:25; Heb. 10:31; 12:29). They also knew Nebuchadnezzar’s threat of being cast into the furnace was real (Jer. 29:21-23). They elected to face a pagan consuming fire rather than a divine consuming fire (2S. 23:14-15). Their trust in God reflected the attitude of Job: “Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him” (Job 13:15). Faith in God may not translate into victory in every circumstance (see Heb. 11:32-39). To these men the outcome was irrelevant, for what was at stake was not God’s ability or their own lives, but their faith and obedience to serve Him regardless of the cost.171" The conclusion - an ACCURATE translation is far superior to one doctored for the purpose of being in harmony with Catholics teaching - the TRUTH is that the KING questioned the existence of their GOD - and Daniel left their survival on the table as proof HE did exist. The proof of the "IF". One need NOT fear the implications of an HONEST translation even when it goes against the theology of a corrupt church.
@@paulrobinson9318 that's funny. You are the one who said what is the biggie? Then you say my point is based on ignorance. I admit that I did not look up what the Holman Christian Standard said for myself, but took YOUR word for it. My point was based on what you posted that the KJV said and the HCSB said. You asked what was the biggie? Indicating that you didn't see a biggie. I pointed out the big difference between the two and then you talk about adjusting a translation to fit my theology. I'm not adjusting anything. Neither of these are my translation. I am was merely pointing out what was an obvious difference between the two.
+@@kcoble1000 YOU miss the point entirely - while neither of those are your own translation it seemed pretty obvious to me that you were mocking the Holman and supporting the KJB. Compared to the gospel of salvation - it IS no biggie. BUT if it points out you prefer one translation over another based on such a minuscule point - then you chose the WRONG Bible for accuracy. Modern and accurate vs pagan and corrupted. Hope that cleared things up a bit.
I love how people take Psalm 12:6-7 (written in Hebrew thousands of years ago) out of context and then try to say it applies to a 17th century Anglican translation. LOL.
KJV IS THE PURE WORD OF GOD IM A FILIPINO AND TAGALOG BIBLE IS CORRUPTED AND GOD LEAD ME TO READ KJV BIBLE I BELIEVE THAT GOD USE ENGLISH LANGUAGE TO PRESERVE HIS WORD BECAUSE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IS THE MOST SPOKEN UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE OF THIS WORLD EVEN ANY NATIONALITY READ KJV BIBLE BACAUSE KJV BIBLE IS PURE WORD PRAISE LORD JESUS CHRIST FOR HIS REVEAL TRUTH PRESERVE PURE WORD, KJV AROUND THE 🌍 🌎 🇨🇿🇨🇱🇫🇯🇮🇴🇵🇫🇹🇩🇫🇮🇪🇹🇩🇯🇨🇫🇨🇿🇨🇬🇵🇫🇨🇬🇹🇫🇨🇱🇫🇯🇬🇼🇱🇺🇬🇬🇱🇮🇬🇺🇯🇵🇮🇪🇱🇾🇱🇺🇬🇳🇱🇷🇯🇲🇳🇪🇲🇱🇴🇲🇲🇱🇲🇾🇲🇼🇳🇨🇲🇲🇫🇲🇲🇩🇵🇭🇺🇸🇪🇭🇻🇳🇸🇷🇼🇫🇹🇿🇨🇭🔥👑✝️
KJV IS THE PURE WORD OF GOD IM A FILIPINO AND TAGALOG BIBLE IS CORRUPTED AND GOD LEAD ME TO READ KJV BIBLE I BELIEVE THAT GOD USE ENGLISH LANGUAGE TO PRESERVE HIS WORD BECAUSE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IS THE MOST SPOKEN UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE OF THIS WORLD EVEN ANY NATIONALITY READ KJV BIBLE BACAUSE KJV BIBLE IS PURE WORD PRAISE LORD JESUS CHRIST FOR HIS REVEAL TRUTH PRESERVE PURE WORD, KJV AROUND THE WORLD 🌍 🇸🇩🇺🇸🇵🇭🇵🇸🇿🇦🇵🇰🇸🇸🇴🇲🇸🇨🇵🇬🇵🇳🇰🇷🇧🇱🇵🇷🇵🇷🇸🇽🇵🇪🇳🇵🇵🇹🇳🇵🇳🇴🇳🇦🇵🇷🇳🇮🇸🇹🇷🇪🇳🇵🇵🇳🇸🇳🇵🇷🇵🇼🇳🇨🇱🇦🇾🇹🇱🇸🇲🇿🇱🇸🇳🇪🇱🇸🇳🇮🇲🇻🇯🇵🇬🇵🇩🇪🇯🇲🇩🇪🇮🇶🇮🇷🇬🇪🇮🇳🇬🇦🇮🇪🇬🇦🇨🇩🇨🇺🇫🇷🇪🇹🇨🇷🇨🇰🇬🇭🇭🇷🇫🇯🇨🇦🇨🇩🇧🇭🇰🇲🇧🇲🇭🇷🇧🇾🇧🇳.
There are more people alive today than at any other time in world history. As in the 1st century Greek was the universal language of the known world. So today English is the universal language. God has to put his word into one language so that it can be taken to the whole world. The largest democracy in the world is India. They speak 1000(+/-) languages and dialects. Yet they are a unified democracy because the official language of India is English. And they learned English from the Authorized version of the Bible which today we call the King James Bible.
I have a question that really bothers me. If the King James Version is the only inspired version of the Bible, how do I tell my friends in Spanish speaking countries (and I do speak Spanish) who cannot speak English, that God has not allowed them to read an inspired version of His word? Can you help me with this?
Dave Mitchell - I don't know Spanish but my understanding is this: Reina Valera, is the equivalent to KJV. I wish you well and give your friends what they can understand and is right. Gods' Spirit will teach if they want to know.
Just one problem, the KJV is not an inspired version. That is a lie from the KJV only cult. It is nothing more than an imperfect uninspired translation.
@@anonymousperson6462 It's a known fact that King James himself hated the Spaniards and would have never commissioned a Bible in Spanish. There is no such thing as a "Spanish KJV." No such thing exists.
-No one can say (except us KJB Christians) with 100% faith, "Thus saith the LORD!" I say it with 100% confidence, but this world and most of the Christians from the Dr's to the laymen are overrun and overcome by Satan's system of bibles, languages, and educated opinions that no can say, "Thus saith the LORD!" (Exodus 4:22b, and it's stated over 400 times in the O.T.)
@@henrylaurel4476 I've only seen one person who knows the truth who doesn't use King James only. Do what you want. Just don't dare question the words of God! We can't change God's words and believe they are still God's words! We CANNOT IMPROVE ANYTHING about God!
You might say "Thus saith the Lord" with confidence. Still doesn't make you right though. The KJV translators were well aware that their work was not perfect. So they would not say "Thus saith the Lord". They were not as arrogant and presumptuous as the KJV only cultists
I dont mind the KJV... and I dont mind people using the KJV. Heck, I use the KJV in my own studies from time to time. But all I'm gonna say is... the original KJV (that is, the 1611 version) includes the Apocryphal books, and the translators believed them to be Scripture. So how can you say that the KJV translators created an inspired translation, yet they held strongly to Catholic doctrine and affirmed the inspiration of the Apocryphal books...something that NO protestants do? Like... why pick the KJV? Because if its age? The KJV was not the first English translation, so that's a flawed argument. Like I said... I dont dislike the KJV. I think its a great and poetic translation (which, I may add, was the original purpose of the translation. The original 1611 version included a letter from the translators saying that their intention was to create a more readable and poetic translation--as opposed to the rather dry ones that already existed (Like the Geneva Bible)). However, the ONLY thing "special" about the KJV is its age and historical context. It is no more or less inspired than most other legitimate translations. I have more evidence and arguments to support my claims, but I have a feeling my time will be wasted putting them here.
What are these other legitimate translations? Hopefully you don't support versions that change God's word. Hopefully it's not like the NIV that gives Jesus's title to Lucifer and calls Jesus a liar.
@@Chris-zd8cs Other legitimate translations are quite numerous... the NASB, ESV, etc. And the NIV is not my favorite translation, but not because I agree with your "subtle" assertions listed above. The issue to which you are referring: that the NIV changes Lucifer to Morning Star... which was also a term used to describe Jesus in places like Revelation 22:16 and 2 Peter 1:19. Well... I dont know how deeply you want me to delve into this. I could talk about how this is conflating terms and the context of the Isaiah passage is obviously NOT talking about Jesus... and the NIV translators even made that clear by capitalizing it in Revelation when it was referring to Jesus. But a rudimentary read of the Isaiah, if you are being honest with yourself, makes it plainly clear that Jesus has nothing to do with that passage. Also, what about the term "lion"? Jesus can be called the Lion of the Tribe of Judah.... but Satan is a roaring lion, seeking who he may devour (1 Pet. 5:8 KJV) Although it is the same TERM (just like morning star and Morning Star), the context applies it in very different ways. Again... a plain, simple, and honest reading of the text makes this clear. It seems more likely, at least to me, that people are just trying to find things wrong with it...so they take things out of context and do not provide fair assessment. Speaking of that... Let us not forget that no translation is perfect (I know many KJV-only people disagree), but I think the facts themselves show this point. Every translation, including the KJV, has many small translation errors (albeit minor ones), spelling errors, etc. Generally, these dont change the meaning of the texts, but they still exist. And this fact was not lost on the KJV translators. Again, just read the translators note at the beginning of the 1611 version (its photocopied and available online. I am on my phone, so I cant provide a good link at this time). The translators state that they all debated over how to precisely capture the original meaning... AND the earliest copies have many many MANY footnotes in the margins that talk about their deliberations. Further, they say that, for this reason, it is WISE (just as St. Augustine said, which they cite as their influence) to have multiple translations of the Bible so you can get differing perspectives on its meaning. Basically, they thought very highly of Scripture itself, but they recognized their own ability to make mistakes. Thankfully, I think they did a fantastic job with their translation,and their mistakes were minimal... but they did exist. Basically, just read what the translators thought of their own translation...and itll tell you everything you need to know about my own arguments
+@@Chris-zd8cs The fact that the apocrypha was cross referenced in marginal notes from the body of the text is great evidence that the translators considered it on a par with the inspired text. "Can you show me where the translators said they believed that the apocrypha was inspired? I believe you made that up." But because the KJ was a political document to support the Catholic state church, there could be no alteration of the Catholic texts and that included the Apocrypha. WHY else would all the birthdays of the catholic saints be in the front page of the KJB? The SOLE intent of the KJB was to remove the Geneva Bible from circulation - a failed operation - that it took 70years to suppress an honest Bible shows what the Christians thought of it.
@ Paul Lucas The 2 'sweetheart' codices/manuscripts of the corrupt & perverted Westcott & Hort "new" Greek text in 1881, the Vaticanus & Sinaiticus, also included much or most of the Apocryphal books, one of them even 2 that weren't Apocryphal. The KJB translators put the Apocryphal books at the back of their KJB translation; they only included them because that was the agreement they had to adhere to.
So I suppose, you are not a Protestant? "The KJV is the only accurate translation of the Bible" Then obviously you exclude the FIRST Protestant Bible for the America;s, The Geneva. Therefore you are not only Biblically ignorant, you are historically ignorant. 1587 GENEVA, THE Most accurate PTOTESTANT Bible. "Heb 1:3 Who being the brightnes of the glory, and the ingraued forme of his person, ........................ " 1611 KJV, Heb 1:3 Who being the brightnesse of his glory, and the expresse image of his person, You don't have a clue, do you. The KJV, could be compared to a modern 10 million megapixel Camera. Accurate, yes, but the best, nope. The Geneva, describes "an engraving." As in a LEGAL "seal" !!! When we have a dollar [or a $100] bill engraving, when you have seen one, you have seen them all. [Until they put some other "image" on there to fool counterfeiters.] PLUS, engravings are used in LEGAL instruments. The KJV says; "When you see Jesus, you have seen "God." The Geneva says, "When you see Jesus you are not only seeing God, MORE SPECIFICALLY, you are seeing the LEGAL representative of God. We all know the beauty of the KJV, but frankly, the KJV was INTENDED as a POLITICALLY CORRECT version, because King James was offended by some of the translations found in the Geneva, HE wanted DIFFERENT WORDING!!! Of course a Bible SCHOLAR, who uses the Strongs, notices the fact that some verses [And, I think this is exactly what God INTENDED!] just possibly have better translations. After all, WE KNOW God left some things[Daniel & The Revelation come to mind.] to be understood, "LATER." About 1/2 the scholars for the Geneva worked on the KJV, so they agree about 90% of the time, but where they do not, the Geneva is probably MORE ACCURATE, which means "KJV only" does not get ALL that God intended. I have for about 10 years, been putting together a personal "study" Bible, using the KJV and Geneva. I also use the English Standard Version [more like the Geneva] and the Holman Christian Standard Bible [more like the KJV] and the NET Bible which has 60000 notes. Like many Christians I don't like the NIV as being too liberal, but as I said the ESV & HCSB accurately represent the KJV and Geneva, and do NOT change "MEANING.". The great Christians of the Protestant Reformation ALL were honest enough to point out discrepancies in the King James. There are a few. BUT whether the Geneva, KJV, ESV, HCSB or the NET, NONE OF THEM CHANGE THE GOSPEL.
All the comparisons and opinions aside, I like KJV best because of its style, it's poetic, it's a reverent rendering of the scriptures, etc. That said, I do like other versions such as the Living Bible paraphrase, the Nkjv and Amplified. I also have read some PRE-KJV versions like the Geneva and Tyndale. It's all interesting. Some versions do make me uncomfortable for different reasons. The KJV is a centuries-old trusted translation. We didn't have all these version problems until dozens of them were coming out left and right. It got beyond ridiculous.
I have numerous proofs that the KJB verses are inspired, all 31,102 of them. Thanks for the video ^ In case you wanted/cared to know a small part of one example I have: Do you have a proper/accurate word search program? Type exactly "in", if your program is accurate it must include UPPER and LOWER CASE. There are 12,338 lower case, and 336 upper case. You should get 12,674. Type exactly "earth"........................................ it must specify LOWER CASE. You get 985 (If you get 987, it’s because of the EARTH in revelation, and Earth in Genesis). Type exactly "the"........................................... it must include UPPER and LOWER CASE. There are 17 with ALL CAPS, 62,173 lower case, and 1,851 upper case. You should get 64,041. Type exactly “Amen”……………………………it must specify UPPER CASE. You get 77. (If you get 78, it’s because of the lower case amen in Numbers 5:22). Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21 are the verses where these four words come from. This is proof verses are inspired. Every phone has a calculator. Add it up. If your search program can specify what books of the bible you can search, specify only Genesis and Revelation: Type exactly “in” your program must include UPPER and LOWER CASE. You should get 767. (There are 754 lower case, and 13 upper case, in Genesis and Revelation). Type exactly “amen” or “Amen”, there are no lower case amen in Genesis or Revelation. If you doubt God's word as I did, download King James Pure Bible Search and do this simple word search. Jesus is our Amen. Jesus is in the earth. We are in the Amen. The Amen in earth. Revelation 3:14 Check out Truthis Christ on TH-cam. KJB IS PRESERVED WORD
God transformed my mind with the NIV, but now I have a KJV, NKJV and I read those most. But do go back to other translations. To say KJV is the Only preserved word of God, is a lie. God transformed & translated my Life. So what your saying is God in 1610 made His Word in English and that was the end of His Word? Is not the Word of God Rich & wealthy that requires multiple translations so we can understand His Richness?
The argument that the King James Version of the Bible is the only accurate Bible is not entirely accurate. The work of Bible translation is very complicated, and misunderstanding easily arises. We do not have the original Hebrew Old Testament or the original Greek New Testament as written by inspired men of God. What we have is an Old Testament in Hebrew and thousands of Greek manuscripts of part or all of the New Testament painstakingly copied and passed on to us through the centuries. There are differences in the Greek manuscripts such as minor issues of punctuation, spelling, word order, certain verses included in some manuscripts and not in others, etc., but none of these differences affect any of the major doctrines of our Christian faith. Some people prefer the King James translation because they have been familiar with it, often from childhood. Others prefer modern translations because they are more easily understood. Also, modern translators have the advantage of using many older Greek manuscripts of the New Testament discovered since the King James translation was made. Most scholars consider these older manuscripts more reliable than the few later manuscripts available to those who translated the King James Bible. It is also helpful to remember that, while King James “authorized” a particular translation for the Church of England in the 17th century, it is no more authoritative for us today than any other translation. It was highly criticized in its day by those who preferred earlier translations, and it went through a number of revisions. The King James Version most widely used today is the 1769 revision. The King James Version of the Bible has undergone several revisions since its original publication in 1611. The most widely used version of the King James Bible today is the 1769 revision. The changes made to the 1769 revision were mostly minor, such as changes in spelling, punctuation, and printing errors 234. However, there were some significant changes made to the text that affect the meaning of the passage. Here are some examples of significant changes made to the text: KJ V Original 1611 KJV 1769 Joshua 3:11 - “Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord” was changed to “ark of the covenant of the Lord” 2 Kings 11:10 - “in the Temple” was changed to “in the temple of the LORD” Isaiah 49:13 - “for God” was changed to “for the LORD” Jeremiah 31:14 - “with goodnesse” was changed to “with my goodness” Jeremiah 51:30 - “burnt their dwelling places” was changed to “burned her dwellingplaces” Ezekiel 6:8 - “that he may” was changed to “that ye may” Ezekiel 24:5 - “let him seethe” was changed to “let them seethe” Ezekiel 24:7 - “powred it vpon the ground” was changed to “poured it not upon the ground” Ezekiel 48:8 - “which they shall” was changed to “which ye shall” Daniel 3:15 - “a fierie furnace” was changed to “a burning fiery furnace” Matthew 14:9 - “the othes sake” was changed to “the oath’s sake” 1 Corinthians 12:28 - “helpes in gouernmets” was changed to “helps, governments” 1 Corinthians 15:6 - “And that” was changed to “After that” 1 John 5:12 - “the Sonne, hath” was changed to “the Son of God hath” It is important to note that the changes made to the King James Version of the Bible over the years do not affect any of the major doctrines of our Christian faith. The King James Version of the Bible uses the word “Easter” in Acts 12:4 instead of “Passover” Also, the pagan word easter is believed to have originated from the name of a pagan goddess of spring or renewal named Eostre, who was worshipped in the spring by pagans in Northern Europe and the British Isles. The name “Easter” is derived from the Old English word “Ēastre” or “Ēostre,” which was the name of the month of April in the Anglo-Saxon calendar. It is important to note that the use of the word “Easter” in the context of the Christian holiday is not related to the pagan goddess Eostre. But why would the translators use such a pagan word "easter" instead of Passover? The Greek word says πάσχα (Acts 12:4 GNT) Pascha which translates as Passover in every other English translation of the Bible except the KJV. So this is an error by the translators of the KJV. Thankfully the NKJV corrected their mistake. (No doubt the KJV-only people will justify this mistake and cover it up with their man-made doctrine). In conclusion, while the King James Version of the Bible is a valuable translation, it is not the only accurate Bible. There are many other translations that are equally reliable and accurate, and it is up to each individual to choose the translation that best suits their needs and preferences. It is Christian Dogma and tradition by men who say that only the KJV is the only word of God. Apparently, they place their will, their understanding, and their doctrine and superimpose it above the Lord's word and His understanding. The Bible calls people holding on to their dogmas and their traditions of men, in these beautiful words, used by our Messiah "Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees" (Matt. 16:6 KJV) These are our modern Christian Pharisees, beware of there leven. Yours Samuel
KJV IS THE PURE WORD OF GOD IM A FILIPINO AND TAGALOG BIBLE IS CORRUPTED AND GOD LEAD ME TO READ KJV BIBLE I BELIEVE THAT GOD USE ENGLISH LANGUAGE TO PRESERVE HIS WORD BECAUSE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IS THE MOST SPOKEN UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE OF THIS WORLD EVEN ANY NATIONALITY READ KJV BIBLE BACAUSE KJV BIBLE IS PURE WORD PRAISE LORD JESUS CHRIST FOR HIS REVEAL TRUTH PRESERVE PURE WORD, KJV AROUND THE WORLD 🌎🌍🌏🇨🇫🇫🇮🇨🇽🇨🇩🇫🇰🇨🇳🇸🇻🇨🇳🇩🇴🇨🇱🇩🇰🇨🇬🇹🇫🇵🇫🇫🇷🇨🇽🇦🇺🇨🇦🇭🇷🇧🇿🇧🇹🇧🇪🇨🇻🇧🇾🇺🇸🇵🇭🇵🇼🇿🇦🇪🇸🇵🇼🇰🇷🇯🇵🇮🇪🇬🇾🇲🇬🇭🇰🇭🇰🇲🇻🇱🇺🇮🇷🇱🇧🇭🇰🇱🇧🇱🇷
John James. KJV onlyism is a cult, and Satan the father of lies is behind it. KJV onlyism is a false teaching, taught by false teachers. Who needs atheists when Satan has KJV onlyists doing his work.
Exactly that is why the cults including the Jehovah Witnesses before they used their own NWT. All chose the KJV. Cults that deny the deity of Christ, the Mormons, Christian Scientists all chose the KJV.
KJV IS THE PURE WORD OF GOD IM A FILIPINO AND TAGALOG BIBLE IS CORRUPTED AND GOD LEAD ME TO READ KJV BIBLE I BELIEVE THAT GOD USE ENGLISH LANGUAGE TO PRESERVE HIS WORD BECAUSE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IS THE MOST SPOKEN UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE OF THIS WORLD EVEN ANY NATIONALITY READ KJV BIBLE BACAUSE KJV BIBLE IS PURE WORD PRAISE LORD JESUS CHRIST FOR HIS REVEAL TRUTH PRESERVE PURE WORD, KJV AROUND THE WORLD🌎🌍🌏🇨🇦🇨🇩🇧🇩🇧🇾🇭🇷🇨🇱🇻🇬🇨🇫🇧🇲🇨🇽🇧🇦🇨🇰🇧🇯🇨🇦🇧🇭🇵🇭🇺🇸🇪🇭🇸🇩🇾🇪🇿🇲🇹🇿🇰🇷🇯🇵🇮🇪🇲🇬🇬🇾🇲🇻🇭🇳🇭🇰🇭🇰🇲🇼🇲🇼🇰🇬🇮🇲🇫🇴🇬🇾🇫🇴🇮🇸🇫🇰🇮🇹🇪🇺🇭🇺.
We are dependent upon one thing concerning this issue. Did God preserve his words like he said he would, or did he not? Stick with the ol' Bible. The new stuff can be deceiving at times. The ol' black book is not trying to deceive. It is has been translated under the inspiration of the HOLY GHOST, the new stuff is being translated under the inspiration of the love of money.
what you're saying is that God continued to write scripture after the NT was done being written. To claim God specifically inspired one translation and no other version can be considered as scripture is to say he was continuing to author scripture. Evidently, you choose a date over 1500 years after the completion of the NT as the date God stopped writing scripture...why that year? why not 1612? what about the 1769, or the 1873, or even the NKJV? All of these rely on the TR, and even are really relying more on the KJV than anything else. If the KJV is specifically inspired, why did it include the intertestamental books in 1611? Why is it that we're allowed to translate the texts into other languages today (french, spanish, tribal languages, anything) and those people get scripture in a language familiar to them, but no english speaker is permitted the same? Finally, the TR only covers the new testament, so if we're dogmatic about only relying on the TR, then we don't get to read the Old Testament
I thought Dr.James White as been a brilliant Bible Scholar and theologian but David W.Daniels make circles around Dr.James White and make him look like an amateur!.In a bible (KJV vs NIV) debate between Dr.James White and David W.Daniels I could bet my house on favor of David W.Daniels, hands down he is far superior in bible knowledge and history!.
NO intelligent person takes Daniels seriously. He is part of the CHICK tract cult and lies frequently even about nonsense that is easily refuted. A child could disprove much of their false presentation White is a scholar and deals in truth. Daniels is a cultic fanatic and deals in fantasy. To the ignorant such a obvious difference may be twisted and convoluted.
David W Daniels is full of double standards and circular reasoning. He begins with the misconception that the KJV is the standard, rather than an imperfect uninspired translation. Then he is full of double standards and circular reasoning to try and defend the indefensible which is KJV onlyism. James White who deals in the truth, would expose Mr Daniels for the false teacher and KJV only cultist he is. Also David W Daniels is from Chicktracts. Nothing from Chicktracts which is full of conspiracy theories can be trusted. Then again nothing from the KJV only cult can be trusted.
Amen Brother. I can give to false statements by other bibles off the top of my head. First John 3:9 Other translations say, whosoever practices sin. KJV. Says whosoever doeth not sin, because HIS Seed, Ephesians 1:13, remaineth in him, and He can not sin, the Holy Spirit because he is born of God. And John 3:thirty six. They exchange believe for obey. If we had to obey every word of God to be saved, no one would be saved. And we would not need a savior. Thank God for grace. Romans 11:six. Jesus paid it all and we paid 0. IT IS FREE, or not at all, because no man can pay his own sin debt. John 3:18. John six:47 Jesus said it, we believe it, and that settles it. First John 5:13
For me, Romans 8:1 is key. The modern versions truncate this verse, destroying its meaning and the flow of thought from Romans 7 to 8. Just about every commentary on Romans adopts the assumption, without any proof, that the ending of the verse was accidentally copied from verse 4 below. I think this is done because of doctrinal bias due to the typical translation of katakrima as "condemnation". Such commentaries unfortunately support the critical text here and cast doubt on God's word. The full verse is the original. Since Christ was condemned by God for us (For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:) how can there be any condemnation left over? Didn't Christ take ALL of our condemnation? Thus, the verse is held by most commentaries to be a categorical statement about "position" in Christ instead of "state", or our actual behavior that was just being discussed in Romans 7. They see an abrupt change in topic in 8:1. Yet Paul uses the word "gar" meaning "because" in verse 2 to establish the reason there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus (but only those walking after the Spirit). It is because he (Paul uses the personal word "me" connecting this to his statement of thanks on 7:25) had been set free from the law of sin and death by the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. The issue is the KJV (and most others) translate both krima and katakrima as "condemnation". The word "katakrima" is only used 3 times in the NT and all 3 are in Romans. Paul's use of "katakrima" in Romans 8 has to be the same as in Romans 5. I'm not sure I agree with everything Zane Hodges wrote in his Romans commentary, but I was convinced regarding his understanding of "katakrima". It means, as stated by the standard reference BDAG, "penal servitude". The intensifying force of "kata" here means "down". The "condemnation" in 8:1 is the penalty handed down in Romans 5, which is penal servitude to the law of sin and death.
If salvation is by Faith alone why does it matter what Version I use? I agree its by Faith alone, so why does it matter if I prefer a EVS or NASB? I dont think you all make this into a salvation issue like the heretic Steven Anderson does right? Because I am not going to Use the KJV... I will use the MEV or NKJV, matter of fact I was saved using a NKJV. I simply can not read and comprehend the Letters of Paul in the KJV, and will not waste time trying when I can use something different. Please do not make KJV only into a salvation issue or you become just like the Lordship Salvation crowd you claim are wrong.
Versions of the Bible is not needed for salvation. *_HOWEVER_* I use the 1611 KJV because... 1. I feel the Holy Spirit strongly whenever I read the KJV 2. Verses are missing from modern translations 3. “wELL, tHe nEw tRaNsLatiOnS mAtCh uP wiTh moDeRn vOcAbuLary!” Well, back in the 1950’s - 1970’s, their vocabulary nearly matched up with today’s. So why the need? Why are “modern translations” popping up recently? End times is the answer.
I've watched this before - but came back today because my heart is heavy. Years ago, God opened my eyes to the truth that the KJB is His true Word. I was ignorant & I had been taught by false teachers in false churches. I've been at peace about this for years - & Brother Arnold teaches in a way that is easy to understand. I love all his sermons. The saddest thing to me, is that Christians are deceived about modern per-versions as I call them. I don't even refer to the King James as a version, just THE King James Bible. It actually astounds me that people who've been Christian's for years, still cannot understand this, when it's SO clear & so simple. You can have all the Bible knowledge in the world, but if you can't grasp that satan has sold you lies, about God's Holy Word, & you refuse to accept the truth about the KJB vs the per-versions, what good is that knowledge? God warns us we are not to add or subtract to His Word, yet some believers deny, that all the missing verses, & words put in that change meaning, mean corrupt Bibles! It breaks my heart & I've lost friends & had people attack me over the KJB. I will NEVER change my mind. I will always believe the KJB is the only true Bible. Jesus said He IS the Word, how many Bibles did He mean? How many Bibles did he preserve? That makes Him a liar, & I know my God is no liar!
You used a lot of words to show you have no idea what you are talking about. Since when was the KJV the standard? It is nothing but an imperfect uninspired translation. Translated by baby sprinkling Anglicans, fallible men, like everyone. Who did their best with the few later manuscripts dedicated to the Pope that they used. Besides using the Catholic Latin Vulgate. What is so sad, is that there is this KJV only cult. Even sadder the gullible people who fall for this false teaching. A man made tradition that nullifies the word of God. Thank you Lord we have far better more accurate modern translations. In English we can understand, just as Almighty God wants us to.
The arguments about bible translations is not strong enough. Concerning different word changes in the bibles are not wrong. The only differences is in which manuscripts that is being referred to. If this gentleman knew Hebrew, he would know that Morningstar is the correct word. Lucifer is Latin translation of the Hebrew word. There are many things that can say about this. But my point is if this man knew Hebrew and Greek he would see the truth.
Jesus came to fulfill multiple prophecies. First: to divide the jews (separate the workers of iniquity from the faithful followers) , and then to die on the cross for the sins of the world in order to save us and bring us all together, through faith.
Dear Dr. Ralph Yankee Arnold, The only way someone can assert that the KJV is a totally accurate English translation of the Word of God, is if they never study the Word of God in the original languages. I am aware that the vast majority of KJV Only Supporters hardly ever study the Word of God in the language of the autographs, therefore they can not make such a statement, with any real authority. Dr. Ralph Yankee Arnold I would be interesting in how you explain the translation errors in the KJV. In this situation, I consider a mistranslation to be an example in the English text of the KJV, were the meaning of the original text was not adequately rendered from the original language (in this situation, from the Hebrew, Aramaic and the Greek texts of God's Word) into the English text of the KJV. The presence of mistranslations in the KJV, distorts the meaning God is trying to communicate in His Word. When confronted with the idea of translation errors in the KJV, most KJV Only Supporters use the denial method, or the method of ignoring the mistranslations. Resorting to either of these methods does not make the mistranslation magically disappear. Many are unwilling to honestly and scholarly confront the issue, because it offends their faith in deeply rooted traditions of man. I have become convinced that many KJV Only Supporters are more loyal to their tradition of the KJV that they are towards the Word of God. I am also convinced that this disrespect of the true of God's Word and loyalty towards the traditions of man in the KJV, grieves the Holy Spirit. As a Christian educator, who is deeply concerned about the education of the body of Jesus Christ, His church, this also deeply saddens me. Saddly, truth over tradition, does not appear to be a major concern to some Christians. A few examples of mistranslations of the Word of God, in the KJV. Acts 14:12 - KJV mistranslated the names of the gods used to refer to Paul and Barnabas. Δία and Ἑρμῆν is NOT, Jupiter and Mercurius ! KJV is wrong God's Word is correct ! Gal. 2:21 - KJV uses the wrong verb tense. "ἀπέθανεν" does not mean "is dead" and Christians do not believe Jesus Christ is dead. We do believe He died (aorist tense), like the Word of God proclaims. Yes, we Christians believe God selected the very words, and even the very tenses of the words, He wanted to be used in His Word, so we don't think we have the right to change what God said in His Word. 2 Tim. 3:16 - KJV fails to render the literal translation of "θεόπνευστος" and waters down the nature of the Word of God. Many Christians are "inspired" of God to give wonderful, uplifting, sermons, songs, etc. But these actions that are inspired of God, are emphatically not "θεόπνευστος" (God breathed) as the Scriptures teach in 2 Tim. 3:16, about the nature of Scripture. I chose to stand by what God said about Scripture and avoid using theological words ("inspiration of God") that have their origins in Roman Catholic Theology. I want the literal words. I don't know what discipline your "Dr." is in, but serious students of God's Word should be aware of these issues, because they study the Word of God at a deeper level than those who casually study God's Word at a superficial level. In you label yourself a "Dr." in the context of commenting on Bibliology, then you should be proficient enough in the Biblical languages to compare these mistranslations with the text of the KJV, so you can become aware of the problems with your assertion (that the KJV is an accurate English translation of the Word of God). Please, be a good Berean and check these things out so you can see for yourself. If you disagree and contend that these examples are not mistranslations, then give objective, evidential support, from a scholarly perspective, to contend for your assertion. God's Word is Truth even when the KJV disagrees with God's Word. DZ
“Despite the claims of Westcott and Hort and Von Soden we don’t know the original form of the gospels and it is likely that we never shall.” Kristop Lake - famous Greek textual critic.
The corruption introduced by Eusebius was described by Frederick Nolan in 1815 in his "Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testament". It is without controversy that Eusebius produces a version for Constantine. In fact Tischendorf, the discover of the Sinaiticus manuscript believed that both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus may have been part of these 50 manuscripts. So, the assertion here is not a new one. See the wikipedia article "Fifty Bibles of Constantine". Depending on how you read that statement, it may or may not be speculative. Constantine ordered the bibles. Eusebius produced them and his version introduced variations (corruptions). It is not know that Constantine or Eusebius willfully introduced corruption, but Nolan makes the case that Eusebius preferred readings that followed Origen's doctrine.
Hey King James Oniyists... how could the Israelites have been in Egypt for 430 years when your Bible says that Kohath, Amram and Moses only total up to 350? Why does Stephen say 75 people came into Egypt in the New Testament, but your Old Testament says 70? Why are the Apostles and Jesus using an Old Testament that completely disagrees with your Jewish Pharisee Old Testament?
question, do you believe that the King James Bible is the equivalent to all the old and new testament that was first written? because if so, then that is true faith in the preservation of the word of God if not, what kind of hypocrite show you think you're making?
As far as English gos yes ,but I don't think thay knew Hebrew that well,for example the word God says to moses Ehyeh means ,shell be in Hebrew there is no word for I am it doesn't exist.
Just Compare First John 3:9 KJV against the new corrupted bibles that tell you to be saved if you live right. If we are saved we aught to live right, but living right never saved anybody. Salvation by works never works. Salvation by grace is the only salvation there is. Romans 11:6. But not for the self righteous Pharisees who believe they are so good God is going to accept them on their own merit. Matthew 7:21-23 They trust in what they do to save them, instead of the FINISHED work of Christ. They have not done the will of God. John 6:40. John 6:28-29.
I'm glad you did sermons on this because it is a serious issue. It is mind blowing how different the modern translations are from the KJV. I've recently discovered that KJV and previous (Geneva, etc.) are reliable but modern translations (NKJV and forward) have a lot of errors. I stay WAY away from the niv. The new world translation is horrific, too.
calvinist ,smalvinist ! calvinism ? the word didn`t exist until 1850 with KARK MARX ! then communism ! so now we put the word on John Calvin - Calvinism ! sooooo ?
Fact is, no document can be perfectly translated from one language to another and than includes the holy scriptures. There is no inspired English version of the Bible! I use the KJV and recognize that it is not an inspired translation. It is a pretty good translation but like all translations contains translational errors. Therefore, we go to the Hebrew and Greek for more depth and detail. The King James Only movement leads to some very wrong Biblical Doctrine.
@@garvenstore The very first verse, Gen 1:1. The word heaven in the KJV is singular yet in the Hebrew it is plural. The scriptures speak of three heavens not one. There are multiple errors in the KJV. By The Way, I use the KJV as my primary English translation as I consider it one of the best translations. However, I regularly consult the Hebrew and the Greek.
@@garvenstore The very first verse, Gen 1:1. The word heaven in the KJV is singular yet in the Hebrew it is plural. The scriptures speak of three heavens not one. There are multiple errors in the KJV.
@@normchristopherson5799It looks singular to me, but I don't speak fluent Hebrew. So you must be smarter than the 50 translators of the bible? Very arrogant.
I believe the KJV is the best we have in English. I do Not believe it is without error. The preserved word of God that is without error are the original texts that the KJV is translated from. Since I don't read Hebrew and Greek I will stick with the KJV. I use to read the NASB until I started to doubt the trinity. Then I went back to my KJV and learned that 1 John 5:7 is very cleverly left out of the NASB. I don't doubt the trinity anymore and I'm back reading the KJV. ~ For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7) KJV only, has become a cult and this is VERY DANGERous. One pastor I watched for a very short time stated in a message that if you weren't KJV only you couldn't have any part in the ministry of his church. Even operating the cameras. This is wrong. These people are born again believers. WE cannot treat each other this way. Honestly I think the KJV only cult is a product of satan to drive people AWAY from the KJV because it makes KJV followers out to be a bunch of nuts. ~~ You CAN be saved reading other translations of the bible absolutely. And yes it's ok to tell other people why you believe the KJV is the best available, but to come between them and the Holy Spirit and to not allow the Holy Spirit to lead them to the translation he wants them to use is very dangerous in my opinion. Yet some "Christians" act like if you read the NIV it's just as bad as using and ouiiji board, and you ain't going to be doing any ministry in their church. Church this has gone too far. No wonder this topic causes so much debate. Yes I believe with all my heart that the KJV is the best we got, and I will not back down and use a different translation. The church that I attend is a KJV church. Not a KJV only cult. We use the KJV for public reading and pew Bibles. The messages are taught in the KJV, but adult Sunday School is always a mix of different translations and no one is looking down on anyone else. Once every 5 years or so our pastor gives a message on why he believes KJV is the best and as a church we leave it there. We teach, we educate, and let the Lord do the leading of the flock in regard to Bible translations.
Thank you for your comment. As one who has been on ‘milk’ for too long, I am blessed with more undistracted time to study the word. (Newly retired) During this time the question of Osas has come into my world, along with the differing bible translations. As far as bible translations I have done a very brief study on the history of the bible and translations, I find it disquieting to say the least. I so want to know God’s one truth not only for myself but also for others-as how do we fulfill the great commission if there is no agreement within the body of Christ? In my brief study of differing translations what came to me is some say ‘saved’ others say being saved, which leads me to believe that some say that salvation is an event and others say it is a process? At this point in my studies I am more convinced that salvation is an event, once one truly believes they are saved, sealed by the Holy Spirit and promised eternal life. Jn 3:16 For this reasons the translations that say salvation is a process I don’t find rest reading them. Many years ago when I had questions about the Bible I asked one of my patients (I was a nurse) who was a biblical scholar something about the bible, don’t recall the specific question, but he said remember the two greatest commandments and left it at that. His word have stuck with me during this long time of me being on ‘milk’. Our Father knows my struggles-sometimes I just want to stay on milk, as all these differing interpretations of the Bible, differing interpretations of doctrine etc etc is causing me unrest, and an inability to be as one in Christ within the body of Christ. I can’t imagine our Father is pleased. Father forgive us, show us your way. 1 Cor 13:12 I have recently decided to take a break from the church I was attending b/c it uses the NIV-being saved version. Also talked to someone who has been involved in BSF for many years, she does believes we are saved not being saved, yet apparently BSF uses the NIV. Honestly I sometimes just want to join a monastery or just be left alone to hear the Holy Spirit without all these different interpretations. Forgive me Father.
KJV IS THE PURE WORD OF GOD IM A FILIPINO AND TAGALOG BIBLE IS CORRUPTED AND GOD LEAD ME TO READ KJV BIBLE I BELIEVE THAT GOD USE ENGLISH LANGUAGE TO PRESERVE HIS WORD BECAUSE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IS THE MOST SPOKEN UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE OF THIS WORLD EVEN ANY NATIONALITY READ KJV BIBLE BACAUSE KJV BIBLE IS PURE WORD PRAISE LORD JESUS CHRIST FOR HIS REVEAL TRUTH PRESERVE PURE WORD, KJV AROUND THE WORLD 🌎 🇯🇵🇬🇾🇲🇬🇮🇸🇲🇼🇮🇩🇱🇦🇭🇰🇱🇺🇭🇰🇲🇻🇱🇺🇮🇷🇮🇹🇲🇻🇮🇱🇲🇾🇲🇬🇱🇦🇯🇵🇮🇩🇱🇸🇵🇭🇺🇸🇼🇫🇸🇾🇸🇷🇿🇲🇾🇪🇸🇷🇪🇭🇸🇷🇰🇷🇯🇵🇮🇪🇭🇰🇱🇺🇭🇰🇸🇷.
Before anyone buys into this king james only nonsense make sure you know how translations work, how are they translated, what manuscripts are being used, how did the textus receptus come about? do research. A king james only person will always just give one side of the story. Chek out the old debate on king james onlyism, search on youtube for: Ankerberg KJV Discussion Complete Scholars' Position Its almost 4 hours long but its a fair debate. not 10 KJV only guys vs one that is not or vice versa.
11: 14 - "This is the gospel (in Aramaic) which is preached unto you." Parenthesis mine. This is interesting - for so far there has NOT been ONE word spoken as to WHY the KJB belongs in the church today - anything stated so far applies to EVERY translation - even the NWT. This preachers did a GREAT job of destroying the KJO cult's favorite verse - Psalm 12: 7 - and actually was HONEST that it referred to PEOPLE, not words - and backed that up with additional scripture - BUT not a WORD to defend the KJB so far. FOREVER settled in Heaven? ABSOLUTELY - BUT NOT on earth, and most certainly NOT the KJB with its corrupt foundation for corrupt texts and corrupt translation. YES, GOD inspired the words of scripture - in the originals - and man has corrupted them ever since - GOD COULD have preserved them; He chose NOT to - just as he COULD have preserved the earth - but chose NOT to.
Only one bible that is pure. The pure King James Bible. All others have bitter water. So they are corrupt. Matthew five :22 Is Jesus really in danger of judgment? They removed "without a cause" making the bible a bitter pill to swallow.
I could see his position if everything he said was true, but much of what he proposes is completely false. For example. The Majority text and the TR are not the same text. The Majority Text would require over 1800 corrections to the TR. The Antioch vs Alexandrian line of manuscripts is false as well. The manuscripts were all over the known world and beyond. You can really only trace a manuscript to where you found it unless there's documented history of it.
You state the Antioch vs Alexandrian line is "false", yet that is a position that is still believed by the textual critics. Read any introduction on textual criticism over the last 150+ years and you will see I am correct. The Antioch line is most commonly called the Byzantine and used to be called the "Syrian", etc. "Families" of texts is still the leading theory. The numbers of families thought to exist changes, but nothing changes in that the Antioch line represents to bulk of the Greek manuscripts. Can you give a single "authority" that agrees with your assertion in writing? You are the one misrepresenting the fact here. If you are correct, why is it that the vast majority of Greek manuscript witnesses to a reading get a single designation "MT" in the NA apparatus? That "Majority Text" reference is the Antioch line. You should know that the terms "Majority Text" and "Textus Receptus" are terms that are sometimes used interchangeably. See above where NA uses "Majority Text" to represent the family some call the Received Text or Textus Receptus. Yes, you are correct that the HF and the RP "Majority Text" is not the same as the Textus Receptus, but they represent the Byzantine text. And their agreement with the text underlying the KJV, or more that matter, Scrivener's 1881 TR or Stephens' 1550 TR is much greater than the CT.
@ 33:45 he LIES by saying “translated from the original manuscripts.” 1. How does he know that? 2. ...from Mss less than 500 years earlier? 3. Seems he forgot Christ walked the earth over 1500 before the “1611!”
1 Corinthians 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. The so called "scholars", "disputers", and "wise men", have been made foolish by Gods word, the KJV bible. They don't have a bible, just their own opinions.
So you trust the scholars who translated the KJV? Yet you don't trust them when they say their work was not perfect. So really you have nothing more than an opinion. An opinion that disagrees with KJV translators. More double standards from the KJV only cult,
and after the KJV ws translated, an older greek manuscript copy was discovered which is a more accurate manuscript and the newer bible translations are from the older more accurate Greek manuscripts. And yes His word will be preserved ..and no translator to whatever bible will take away God's power. The KJV is not God's original words because there ws no English in the original manuscript..so KJ will never be an exact copy of Gods original word ( word for word) as no original manuscript exist anymore
3:17 - Jesus promised to PRESERVE every single word in the Bible - WHERE? TRUE, every word of GOD is important - BUT God NEVER spoke a word of English - we are NOT arguing over what GOD/JESUS said - but HOW those words were transmitted and translated into OUR language - ENGLISH. And at 4:35 he goes further and claims even the word order is inspired - ONLY in the original languages - and IF you try to translated GREEK word order into English you HAVE to make a LOT of assumptions. The KJ translators were unaware of some important rules of Greek Grammar (GSR for example) which is why they were so weak on the Divinity of Christ, for example, allowing the JWs to form their theology of Christ from the KJB. This is the philosophy of man - there is NOTHING inspired about the KJ or any translation - and of the popular translations today the KJB is obviously one of the poorest and least scholarly and translated from the poorest of texts. Mediocre scholars under imperial mandate NOT to offend the rules of engagement laid down by a sodomite king using Catholic texts are NOT likely to create as honest and spiritual a translation as men whose sole purpose is to make a plain and honest translation for the glory of GOD and the edification of His people.
The KJB translators were well educated in the other languages. JW have their own version which is based off the same underlying text as the other modern versions.
+@@AnHebrewChild MY you major in ignorance. The CONTEXT was SCRIPTURE - and NO scripture EVER was given in ENGLISH - Give your head a shake - IT was give in Hebrew, Aramaic and GREEK - NOT a WORD of SCRIPTURE was ever given by GOD in ENGLISH. NO ENGLISH Bibles can possibly be inspired - at BEST the ENGLISH Bible is a translation of the original revelations - and ALL translations include corruptions. "God never spoke a word of English? The God you serve is an idol. Lovingly, YOU are an idiot!! "Just a heads up: GOD can and does speak English." OF course - BUT NOT in SCRIPTURE. Think - THEN post. It causes a LOT less embarrassment.
Yankee Arnold is wrong. The King James Version of the Bible is flawed. It contains many translation errors. The original Greek and Hebrew are the standard as to what is the word of God, not the KJV.
Michael, it is clear that you have not listened to all four messages all the way thru. I believe you jumped the gun. I do not believe the translators of the KJV were inspired. I believe the KJV is the best translation because of the manuscripts used. That is my choice. I use it for the same reason Ray Stanford did and Dr. Mark Cameron did at the old FBC. It was required there also. Other people are free to use whatever version they choose, but so am I. Are you against others who claim their translation is better, or just me? If you cannot support Florida Bible College of Tampa because we use the KJV, are you against everyone who uses it? Should I change because so many others have changed to newer versions? I honestly felt we would be supported by prayer and encouragement because we are teaching from the same Word of God, teaching the students to love the Lord, and share the gospel. I haven't changed, so sad to see so many others who have. I continue to covet only the Lord's approval, but I do still covet your prayers concerning the things we do right. Yankee
The Vaudois Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s AD. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said.John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today. Who Has the Most to Gain? Who Has the Most to Lose? The evidence of history shows us that the Roman Catholic religion was relentless in its effort to destroy the Vaudois and their Bible. It took them until the 1650s to finish their hateful attacks. But the Vaudois were successful in preserving God's words to the days of the Reformation. Now we have to ask ourselves a question: Who had the most to gain by adding to or taking away from the Bible? Did the Vaudois, who were being killed for having their Bibles, have anything to gain by adding to or taking from the words of God? Compromise is what the Roman religion wanted! Had the Vaudois just followed the popes, their lives would have been much easier. But they counted the cost. This was not politics; it was their life and soul. They above all people would not want to change a single letter of the words they received from Antioch of Syria. And they paid for this with their lives. What about the "scholars" at Alexandria, Egypt? We already know about them. They could not even make their few 45 manuscripts agree. How could we believe they preserved God's words? The Reformation itself owes a lot to these Christians in the French Alps. They not only preserved the Scriptures, but they show to what lengths God would go to keep his promise (Psalm 12:6-7). And that's only part of the story about the preservation of God's words
When we started reading the Authorized version of the Bible, our spirit started living. Something was always off in the other versions.
Same with me!
Amen
Me as well. I bought a KJV a few months ago and have never looked back. My friends are calling me a weirdo but I have been showing them how much different other modern versions are corrupted.
MR Ralph Yankee Arnold: Thank you for this presentation !!!
I've always held Pastor Arnold's preaching in high regard, but I never really knew where he stood regarding Bible translations. I'm very happy to see that your ministry is KJV only. I've gone back and forth on this topic a number of times, but recently came to the same conclusion. Thank you for standing up for the Word of God!
@@wesleysmith21 It (The King James Bible) is the word of God....Scripture. It is inerrant and infallible... Every modern version comes form corrupted manuscripts. Modern = since 1881
Amen. The most glaring to me is the 1 John 5:7... The verse that fully details and explains the trinity! It's so important!
Because it's the first thing that a muslim will say... "GOD IS ONE it's ALLAH not 3!!" and if you have a NIV you can't go to your bible and read:
1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
So the NIV/NASB/etc all the ones based off the corrupt gnostic alexandrian mss. The so-called "betters ones". SMH.
Thank God for the KJV :)
@@Matt-ir1ky A verse not found in older more accurate manuscripts, than the manuscripts used for the KJV. Manuscripts dedicated to the Pope with added uninspired verses like 1 John 5 v 7 Acts 8 v 37. Nothing gnostic about the NIV, that is just one of the many deceptions of the KJV only cult. Deceptions to try and defend the KJV only lunacy.
@@Matt-ir1ky No idea what you are talking about. I have opened my Bible nothing in it about a translation in a language that did not exist when God inspired the scripture. KJV onlyism is a false teaching a man made tradition with no scriptural support. So I will not be bewitched by this dangerous nonsense.
@@ColonelEmpire How are they corrupted?
Amen my brother in Christ. I love you as a brother and look forward to seeing you in Heaven.
I agree, KJV. I use to use the NIV, until I found out that there were missing verses, and verses they changed altogether. I wasn't cool with that. That's when I made the switch to KJV, and I am KJV only.
+Kelvin Nguyen
That's a rather inane comment - there are NO verses missing in ANY modern accurate Bible - those that have been moved to the footnotes were NOT in any ancient Bible - IF the early church didn't have them - why should you?
WHY would versed that show up in a text from 1200 be considered inspired where they were NOT in any Bible from the 6th century? WHY would you make the KJB - as corrupt as it is - the stanndared?
"I agree, KJV. I use to use the NIV, until I found out that there were missing verses, and verses they changed altogether. I wasn't cool with that. That's when I made the switch to KJV, and I am KJV only. "
Paul Robinson okay so you think people will see the tiny letter next to the missing verse and wonder if it’s missing? Look up 1 John 5:7 in the NIV, the verse that proves the Trinity! What does it say? Verse 7 is replaced with verse 8 and verse 8 is called, “verse 7!!!!” Why does the NIV want to disprove the Trinity?
@@paulrobinson9318
Why would you use a bible that calls Jesus a liar, and gives Jesus's title to Lucifer?
The NIV is not the word of God. No matter how much you want to assert that it is. Are you not concerned about the perversions you are suggesting others read?
May God have mercy.
@@Chris-zd8cs Before you tell so many lies about God's word maybe you need a basic education in what GOD gave the original writers. The KJB does not tell you that accurately.
It is a Catholic text translated by English Catholics with one or two Protestants on board. NONE approved the final work - ONE refused to allow it in his pulpit.
Not one of your lies are accurate - at best it shows an incredible Biblical ignorance.
Just because the Catholics translating the KJB were under the control of a Sodomite church leader they were terrified to use the ONLY possible translation from Hebrew: morning star or morning light.
Rather than incur the wrath of the king, they Anglicized the Latin Vulgate for Daystar and used the Latin word to translate the Hebrew word into an English word.
If you knew the first thing about the Bible you would know that BOTH Jesus and the Babylonian king were referred to by the writers under the anointing of the HOLY SPIRIT as "morning star" or equivalent.
So rather than trust one of the many lies in the KJB all accurate Bibles use the CORRECT word.
Your other examples are similar examples of Biblical illiteracy.
@@paulrobinson9318
You seem proud of your position. If King James were a homosexual, his letter to his son would make no sense.
Worse than being an accuser of someone that was likely a Christian, you attack God's word.
You also claim that I lied, but I did no such thing. I will give examples of my assertion.
(NIV) Isaiah 14:12 and Rev 22:16
12 How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a]this testimony for the churches. I am the Rootand the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”
The NIV gives Jesus's title to Lucifer.
Now I will demonstrate that the NIV makes Jesus out to be a manipulative liar.
NIV John 7:8-12
8 You go to the festival. I am not[b] going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.”9 After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee.
10 However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret. 11 Now at the festival the Jewish leaders were watching for Jesus and asking, “Where is he?”
12 Among the crowds there was widespread whispering about him. Some said, “He is a good man.”
Others replied, “No, he deceives the people.”
I finally decided to add my like to these two videos. I can no longer ignore the fact that the NASB removes the blood from Colossians 1:14. I was without a church until last month, and my church uses the KJV only.
Good for you, I left the NASB (Satan's Masterpiece) in Jan. 1985 and never looked back! When you run into a verse that someone tells you is wrong in the KJB, trust God and SEARCH, ASK, and the answer will come every time! Quotation: --Dr. Frank Logsdon, the Head of the NASV committee, realized that he sinned against God after the publishing of it and wrote this letter to the NASV Committee.
"I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard...I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord...We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface...
I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it’s wrong, it’s terribly wrong; it's frighteningly wrong; and what am I going to do about it?... I can no longer ignore these criticisms [of the corruptions in the New American Standard Version Bible (NASB/NASV)] I am hearing and I can't refute them...
When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended. However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV...The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times...The deletions are absolutely frightening...there are so many...Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?...
I don't want anything to do with it...
[T]he finest leaders that we have today...haven't gone into it [the new version's use of corrupted Greek (Nestles) text], just as I hadn't gone into it...That's how easily one can be deceived...I'm going to talk to him [Dr. George Sweeting, then president of Moody Bible Institute] about these things...
[Y]ou can say the Authorized Version [KJV] is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct!
If you must stand against everyone else, stand."
- Dr. Frank Logsdon
Long time since that post, and I have gone back to liking eclectic texts again. Dirty secrets: Majority Texts add Mark 16:8-20, which includes verse 16, which adds baptism to the gospel. And verses 17-18 sound exactly like Pentekkkostalism. A short alternative ending to Mark speaks of "eternal salvation", which implies grace.
Eusebius quotes an alternative version of Matthew 28:19: "go ye and make disciples of the nations in my name...". The Catholics interpolated both baptism and the Trinity.
Acts 2 is a ripoff of the Gospel of the Twelve. It includes verse 38, which adds works (baptism). But Luke follows Paul. The second half of Acts is mostly about Paul. Luke writes to prove that Paul was the Paraclete who led them into all truth, because Peter kept becoming Satan. Acts 2 is out of character with Luke and in character with a gnostic text. The Gospel of the Twelve is flat out repent of sin and lordship, as well as mystical and Pentekkkostal. That spirit is a devil, and if they say Jesus had it, the blasphemy is theirs. Jesus said that all blasphemies would be forgiven. Baptism is Baphomet, and Skekinah is an unforgiving goddess. It is also known as the Presence, which Brother Lawrence practiced. Holy ghost is another of Satan's cute nicknames. Their father is YHWH, which they pronounce Baphomet, which is Satan. Their fruit is spiritual pedophilia.
It follows that Jesus never commanded baptism. Don't take the Mark 16:16.
Wow, thank you for sharing!
@@craigluchin4585 Satan's masterpiece is the cult of KJV onlyism. Started by a Seventh Day Adventist cultist. A cult that was started by false teacher Ellen G White. You have fallen for one of Satan's most subtle deceptions, the KJV only heresy. Also how can Satan cast out Satan? Almighty God is using and blessing the NASB to bring many to Christ. Like many from the deceptive KJV only cult. You are close to blaspheming the Holy Spirit. That is what happens when you fall for the blasphemous idolatrous KJV only deception.
Great study!! I used to use multiple translations not knowing which one was most accurate and ended up confused until I finally studied the manuscript evidence. Then it was clear that the KJV is the true Word of God. God is not the author of confusion!
🎯
Was there a particular person you learned from our series or book(s)?
I'm now a fully committed JKV ONLY Bible believer. At one time I had other translations and all have been lost which included several ESV Bibles which when I ordered them from a certain Bible company they arrived with some form or another of damage to them, even then God was telling which Bible He wanted me to have...the King James Bible!! 📖😁😁
Me, too!!! ❤
I came out of Mormonism, and used the MacArthur study Bible. So glad I learned the KJV is the way to go!\
+ Kristi Smith
Where ever did you get that silly notion?
"I came out of Mormonism, and used the MacArthur study Bible. So glad I learned the KJV is the way to go!"
KJ is a poor translation from corrupted texts - catholic texts.
There are so many GREAT Bibles today - the KJ is among the poorest. And certainly the least understandable.
IT is in fact a millstone around the neck of the church with its archaic language - not to mention various ungodly passages where man's opinion was inserted rather than God's truth.
+@Chase Tallent NO Bible based on the TR is accurate or reliable. That places the ESV at the top of YOUR heap - BUT I prefer the NET Bible - as even MORE accurate . . . and the texts more expansive . . .
Frankly, I Consider the KJB to be a millstone around the neck of the Christian church. It is outdated, inaccurate and corrupted by its years in Catholic control.
IT is only one step better than the NWT; BOTH were produced to establish a false belief system.
The purpose of the KJB was to remove the Protestant Geneva from circulation . . . it failed for 50 years.
+@Samson I might agree with you but for other reasons - why do YOU think MacArthur is a heretic?
Post like yours are drivel and a waste of bandwidth - I also suspect you have NO clue about why you wrote he is a heretic - its just something your cult has told you to day . . . and you parrot it without the slightest understanding.
@@paulrobinson9318 McAuther is a Calvinist. That's why he's a heroic.
@@lucashack5318 I am not a calvinist.
But being a calvanist does NOT make one a heretic any more than using the KJB makes one a heretic.
PRAISE THE LORD GOD IN HIS WORD AS WRITTEN IN THE KJV BIBLES
+ Anti-Beast
YOU are simply deceived by a cult. Pity!!
"PRAISE THE LORD GOD IN HIS WORD AS WRITTEN IN THE KJV BIBLES"
I can already hear the negative comments on this one...lol. After years of research i can only come to one conclusion....KJV only. Thanks Pastor for this message. Pastor Greg Miller from BBFOhio.com has hours and hours on this matter.
I just dont like the KJV, I have a hard time understanding Paul in the KJV. To be honest I believe this is not a salvation issue, its preference. The KJV has the woman caught in adultery which Jesus tells her " go and sin no more" something that you would think us being by Faith alone would consider a works based idea. Its my belief this was added and not in the original John wrote, but thats my opinion. I am not trying to argue just pointing out when you say translations like the ESV or NASB try to change doctrine you could make the same argument of the KJV.
Thanks for sharing, gonna watch some of his stuff.
+@@fishersofmen4727
Your opinion is correct - that passage is NOT in any early text - it is another Catholic insertion.
" Its my belief this was added and not in the original John wrote, but thats my opinion. "
The KJB is traceable through English Catholic revisions - it is NOT an accurate translation of the Catholic Erasmus text - which is NOT a accurate collation of the Greek texts. IT came from 6 partial Catholic Greeks, from about 1200.
Modern accurate Bibles come from texts as old as 200 AD - and there are so many of them NOW that were unknown when the KLJ was translated - that we ought NOT rely on this catholic corruption as the final word on the Message GOD gave the church.
There are many modern accurate Bibles that can be easily read and understood
@@paulrobinson9318 what translation can we rely on?
+@@sydeem
Hi Sydney.
There are MANY great and trustworthy translations - but NOT ONE is perfect t - as GOD would want - for if any TRANSLATION was perfect - we'd WORSHIP it the way some KJO cultists worship the KJ Bible.
"what translation can we rely on?"
Basically there are two streams of texts - of course there are lots more, but two MAIN ones.
The late texts - like the Ereasmus concoction from about 1510, is a catholic translation and revision of the six catholic texts from about 1200 AD, with comments by popes, priests and pagans interspursed.
Its often referred to as the Textus Receptus - or the Received text - YUP recieved from the CATHOLIC church. The KJB version iu sed this text to crate a Imperialy mandated text - edited un der 15 RULES - to REMOVE from ENGLAND the PROTESTANT Geneva Bible.
|
There is NOT a single bible from this mess that is accurate and fully inspired - it contains many INSERTIONS from sermons and opinions that GOD never spoke.
The OTHER main branch are the ANCIENT texts - of which we have about 10,000, but basically about 5 or 6 that are almost complete, and offer us the BEST look at what the NT church used in their daily worship and teaching.
The list of SOLID texts based on these ANCIENT texts translated in to UNDERSTANDABLE English are long, and at a wide variety of reading levels.
I have developed a fondness for the NET Bible - partly because there are very GODLY men behind it who have lived, eaten and breathed the BIBLICAL languages their whole lives - many are professors in the relevant languages and in translation - and KNOW stuff those ancient translators in the 1610s had NO CLUE of. PLUS they use computers to access information, dictionaries and the writings of the ancients that were simply impossible before computers that could store 1000 different texts in ONE simple device.
Another reason is that they include 62000 translators notes - EXPLAINING why they used a certain word - and alternatives - making tUNDERSTANDING of the text as INTENDED by GOD much more accurate to the reader.
Other GODLY, accurate and understandable texts include Holman, ESV, NIV, and a half dozen more that I rely on - I have over 100 on my computer.
Hope this helps.
Thank you!! God Bless!!!
People are blind about manuscripts. New versions are all corrupted.
You are blind, this KJVO cult will harden your heart even more and you wil cause more division in the body of Christ, at the end you are being used by satan to divide Gods people. Only a blind person will say people are blind about manuscripts, if you look at the earliest manuscripts and you look at how the TR came to be then you have to be truly blind or stubborn to still think the KJV is the perfect preserved word of God.
What about the Genova Bible? Wouldn't that make the King James Bible at an error? All of y'all seem to forget that the King James Bible wasn't the first Bible translated to English. So if I was to be y'all, The Genova bible has a few passages swapped compared to the King James Bible so wouldn't that make the King James just as satanic as the rest of the translations? You see what y'all are doing? Y'all are Hypocrites! Y'all obviously never took the time into studying the Hebrew language and it can operates the Common language.
You are correct!
Modern translations are compromised with the RCC & Jesuits. And I have done a personal study for a long time to find out the truth for myself. True believers down through the ages followed the Traditional line of manuscriptions & translations made from them. The Peshitta Syriac and Old Latin Translations in the 150s AD was just the start of this FACT.
The corruptible Critical text's so-called "oldest & best" 2 codices, Vaticanus & Sinaiticus, are Gnostic Alexandrian productions, that when studied & viewed close up online, they are a corrupted farce!!!
So much could be said. Micah 5:2 is only one of the Bible verses that PROVE modern translations are intentionally corrupted/changed. Modern translations say Jesus had an "origin" in this verse, but the KJV says that Jesus is "from everlasting".
So don't fall for the modern translations supporters' bogus arguments.
The 5 editions of the UBS Greek text/28 editions of the Nestles-Aland text are compromised with the RCC & Jesuits. Study the ppl that were on the UBS/Nestle-Aland translations committees, & it will be eye-opening!!! They have been ecumenically tied to the RCC, everything set for this by 1979!
God bless you, glad you aren't deceived.
Hoy are they corrupted? Explain please. What about the KJV translated by baby sprinkling Anglicans with manuscripts dedicated to the Pope. Later manuscripts with added uninspired verses. Making the KJV one of the most corrupted translations we have.
Amen, King James Version, purified seven times.
Mark .Rahe43920
*eight
are you kidding me? God says He hates idolatry.
I’ve tried to wake up my Christian brothers and sisters to this issue. Most won’t put in 2 sections research it. It’s frustrating.
God has reserved an remnant which have not bowed the knee to Baal
Amen to this Ministry, I found a KJV ministry on you tube.I subscribe to you too.GodSpeed.
The Authorized Version is in the public domain in most of the world. However, in the United Kingdom, the right to print, publish and distribute it is a Royal prerogative and the Crown licenses publishers to reproduce it under letters patent. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the letters patent are held by the Queen's Printer, and in Scotland by the Scottish Bible Board. The office of Queen's Printer has been associated with the right to reproduce the Bible for centuries, the earliest known reference coming in 1577. In the 18th century all surviving interests in the monopoly were bought out by John Baskett. The Baskett rights descended through a number of printers and, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Queen's Printer is now Cambridge University Press, who inherited the right when they took over the firm of Eyre & Spottiswoode in 1990 - WIKIPEDIA
I threw my ESV and Spanish NIV in the dumpster.
One night I woke up and I heard a voice say I am Jesus Christ and it said you are one of my sheep and are forgiven where could it have come from shoulI believe it was Jesus?
Great to see you attacking this subject head on. Thanks for the video, looking forward to part 2.
Amen, not many KJV Preachers left, and im Gen X.✝️🙏✝️⚓✝️
@@terryford6783 The Lord has preserved a remnant that has not bowed the knee to baal.
Excellent video and topic!
-Diminish Not A Word, Dt. 4:2, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.”
Prov. 30:5-6, “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee,
and thou be found a liar.”
Rev. 22:18-19, “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city,
and from the things which are written in this book.”
Jer. 26:2, “Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD'S house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD'S house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them;
diminish not a word”
Lk. 11:35, “Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness.”
My. Sinai is in Saudi Arabia. It's top is burnt and black, as the Bible clearly states. It is not in Egypt, as is mistakenly believed. There are videos on TH-cam that show the mount, and it is still black from burning.
Thank you my spiritual daddy. I love it.
Pastor Yankee, what Bible do you recommend in Spanish? I have friends that don't know English only Spanish. Someone recommended me the Reina Valera Gomez, is this the Word of God in Spanish?
-God gave the King James Bible and America came to be,
the Church let it be taken away, and America came to bleed.
-Craig S. Luchin
Beware of the KJV only cultists who refuse to acknowledge the mistakes in the KJV.
@Samson Why does God have to preserve his word in english? Has he promised that he would do that?
If he has promised to preserve his word in english, why are other languages left without a bible? (not all people have a bible in their language)
If he has promised to preserve his word in english, why did it take til the KJV?
Were english speakers before the kjv capable of being saved and discerning the totality of biblicsl doctrines to live by?
If that is the case, what is so special about the kjv?
What do we do with the reality that the kjv departs in the NT both from the majority text and the textus receptus? What i mean is that it is not possible to trace an stream of transmission thst is devoid of textual variants. How does the kjv only position that typically argues for exact passing down of every jot and tittle without variation throughout the ages account for this?
If it is the KJV, which edition? (this isnt as big a deal as many critics act but there are meaningful differences)
I know the PCE is the top pick of many. Why? What sound reason does one have for that? No psalm 12 isnt a reason, the hebrew grammar prevents this (gender of noun "words" and pronoun "them" doesnt match, therefore "them" does not refer to "words.")
Whichever edition one chooses, what does one do with basic copyist errors that enter into any printing? What i mean is, does the copyist error mean you dont jave the inerrant word in your hand? Is it still the bible without error if it has typos or are you saying it is a copy of the true word, that exists as an ideal or some such thing? (may seem an absurd question but copyist errors are really no different than scribal errors that entet into manuscripts, whether byzantine or otherwise).
Finally what does it mean, in anything, for the argument that it is impossible to go back to the original maniscriot that was sent to the printers?
These are all in one sense or another hitches in the argument in my mind.
I'd like you to name one of these "mistakes" please. The KJV is a very accurate and reliable translation of God's Word. I hear of these supposed mistakes but no one can ever seem to name a genuine error in the KJV.
@@patrickfoster4586 Kjv 1 Timothy 2:4 “who will (have) all men to be saved”…the word ‘have’ shouldn’t be there.
@@tanglecash127?? It is in the greek
@@provokingthought9964 there are more people alive today than at any other rime in world history.
I have seen over and over that a word in the KJV when taught what it means in the original language, the NASB version already has that word already there. I like Dr. Arnold, but the NASB has been translated from texts that are closer to the actual events than the Texus Receptus. I like Dr. Arnold's teaching that we are saved by grace through faith, but am disappointed here because I expect more scholarship from someone who has his doctorate. The NASB has been regarded over and over as one of if not the best word for word translation available today. The ESV is also a very good word for word translation. I am not an NIV fan. I am also wary of the NLT version as well. When doing study, it is best to look at the scripture in several different versions for insight. I promise you, there are several words in the KJV that if you look them up in a bible dictionary and then look at the NASB, you will see what I am talking about.
exactly which words are you referring to?
@@chrisdann1226 You need to see for yourself. Read and study scripture using the KJV and NASB side by side, and you will see for yourself. KJV is a very good translation, and each translation has holes in them.
You're missing the point entirely. The NASB and All modern translations are from Westcott and Hort's corrupted Alexandrian Greek text based on the extremely corrupted Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiaticus which disagree with the Textus Receptus by having many important missing verses and over 5,000 changes from the true texts. The KJV is the only readily available translation based on the Textus Receptus (which agrees with 99% of all 5,000+ extant Greek manuscripts). All modern translations are based on the occultist Westcott and Hort's corrupted Greek text they created in the late 1800's. The Geneva Bible and all other pre-KJV translations were based on the Textus Receptus because it was widely understood to be the correct majority text of the Greek New Testament- it agrees with 99% of the 5,000+ extant manuscripts. If you want the dozens of missing verses and the pure, tried and true New Testament Christians have been using for 2,000 years called the Textus Receptus you need the KJV. If you want a butchered translation done in the 19th century by occultist with over 5,000 changes from the correct historical Greek Textus Receptus then stick with your NASB.
@@patrickfoster4586 I do not know if the manuscripts associated with the NASB are corrupt, but what is pretty certain in my mind is that the NASB manuscripts were closer to the time of Jesus. What I should have said earlier is that when the Greek has been taught for a word or maybe a passage, I have seen how the NASB would already have it there. I cannot verify about the possible corruption of manuscripts, but I can go with what I have personally witnessed myself.
@@roberthaysiii2355 Don't fall for the "closer in time" deception. God's written word is not like other ancient writings. If you believe God's written word you know that Satan is a real being. He is bitterly opposed to every word God has spoken. His primary method to move people from God's word is to place doubt. "Yea, hath God said?"
If you believe the "closer in time" argument you are assuming that men have uniformly handled God's word faithfully, and that corruptions that appear in the text, do so over time, and are typically unintentional. But you should also note that a fundamental pillar of textual criticism is to prefer the "harder reading" which is inevitably the Alexandrian text. The assumption is that faithful men of God (the Byzantine/Antioch text form) changed His words and "smoothed" the text to make it read easier or to remove apparent inconsistencies! But there is no proof of this.
There is simply no way to handle textual criticism of God's words in a "neutral" way because we don't live in a neutral reality. This is the most contested ground in the universe. Yet the "neutral" critics assume wilful distortions in the Byzantine text, without any proof, while giving no consideration that the older texts might also be willfully corrupted.
KJB we have today is the 1769 edition not 1611. As was common practice with bible translations the KJB also included the Apocrypha which were not removed from the KJB and other Protestant bibles until the 1880s. It is also a point of historical fact that the first Protestants did not like the KJB and continued to use the Geneva bible for a good number of years after the KJB was first published.
It's still the same translation work. The fact that the typography and spelling continued to be refined does not affect the quality of the version in any way.
The translators included the apocrypha for historical context and because it was more commonplace to do so at the time. They explicitly stated they were not inspired and moved them to an intertestamental section.
Puritans continued to use the Geneva for a few decades, but by the end of the seventeenth century the KJV had become the standard Bible for all English speakers.
Amen.
Lol, the trolls and "scholars", really showed up on this, and I don't doubt, the other sermons too.
These people desperately DO NOT want you reading the KJV, because if you do, you might come to understand that THEY, ("scholars"), are not needed.
Mark 1:22 And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.
You misrepresent the majority of evangelical scholars when you lump everyone together with the “They” word. Who is this “these people” you describe that “DO NOT want you to read the KJV”?
Again, no evangelical scholar I have ever read...and the hat is a lot, my brother...would ever try to keep you from reading or even preferring the KJV. Even if you disagree with their research and have the opinion that the KJV is the most accurate translation in the English language, that is fine.
The problem is when you make the KJV out to be something more than a translation. It is not “God-breathed”. It is not perfect. No translation is perfect.
I know you want to believe that one bible that you, yourself can read is perfect because you, like the pastor above, seem to feel that this makes it easier to trust in God’s Word. I understand that...and every true evangelical scholar will, also.
The only problem is, that is not how God decided to do things. He breathed the NT scripture to us in Koine Greek. He had most amazing plan to have his word preserved thru the very people it touched and did so in a way that, while no two manuscripts are identical, their message is pure and each supports the other in all essential Christian doctrines.
Further, by doing it His way with manuscripts spread all over the world that, although not identical, agree...no one can ever seriously back up an argument that Someone so and so from hither or yon at some time changed the scriptures to fit their own beliefs and no Bible in any language is true because of it.
That, my brother, is the beauty of God’s plan. The KJV is part of that and you should cherish it. But not at the expense of any of the other fine English translations...not to mention German, French, Spanish, et al.
@@glennyork8992
YOU ignore the command to study the scriptures - you cannot study what is false and corrupted and gain spiritual advantage from it - that KJB is as corrupt as its Catholic predecessors - compared and revised to match readings in the Catholic DR translation by its editors. Hence their word for word readings. Amazing since they came from different languages . . .
@@kwrinn I do not know why your comment never showed in my notifications. You addresses me respectfully and I appreciate that. The KJV IS perfect, and God DID breathe life, his Spirit into it. The words are alive. It is not my preferred version, it is THE BIBLE. Yes, maybe I was too broad when saying "they", and, "these people", I will give you that. Specifically James White, as a promoter of modern versions, who claims there is no perfect bible and is also a 5 point Calvinist, I believe, is in my mind when I speak of this, along with two other men, responsible, directly, for SCORES of, ENGLISH, translations, WHY? Because people don't believe the one God gave us. The people need Gods word in the language they know. Luthers' Bible was legitimate, as well as any others translated honestly from the majority text.
Every single translation after the KJV, Revised Version onward, (w/the possible exception of the Spanish Reina-Valera ), comes from the Greek Manuscript that Westcott and Hort made up from around 1850-1880 or so, using Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. This is primarily what I mean by "they", and it includes Rome. It is a very corrupt manuscript, as is their theory of textual criticism. So, yes there ARE people from hither and yon who changed the word of God to fit their own non belief. I am not saying that God cannot use any translation. I am saying that if you truly believe that all bibles have textual mistakes, and there is no perfect copy of Gods word, then you don't have a bible brother Kenny. Neither does any person, scholar or no, who believes the same.
I need to be off. I will continue this later, if you wish.
glenn york Well, very respectfully, Brother, I must disagree. You see, we DO have the original God breathed scripture...breathed in Greek, since we are talking about primarily the New Testament, here). God had and has a perfect plan to preserve His word to us. He has done so. I understand the need people feel to have certainty of a text in the language that they understand. However, my position ( backed up by scripture and the totality of church history) would be nowhere do we find any evidence that God’s plan involved an English translation ( or a Spanish one ) to preserve a perfect transmission. There is simply no scriptural or historical data that supports your argument, my brother. I’m sorry. I love you in Christ, but your position is in error.
Just a few small questions for discussion, if you are so inclined.
1) You mentioned the Spanish translation...is it perfect?
2) What was God’s perfect word in 1610?
3) Would it not be a reasonable position to state that man seeks certainty, sometimes at the expense of truth?
For instance...the cults and followers of Islam have certainty. But they have not the truth. They have one and only one book or collection of “scripture” that they hold to. They are certain. They believe it. But you and I will readily agree that they have NO truth.
In other words, just because someone fervently and devoutly believes (is certain) they have a perfect scripture does not make it true. The KJV was not “upon to make it God’s word. That is not what theopneustos implies or means. It means God’s word, literally, flowed out of or was expressed from HIs very mouth into the ears / hearts/ spirits of His chosen vessels. He chose these people to transmit that word because it was His plan...His way. He knew, because He is Sovereign Lord, that every language of man that existed or ever would exist would have its own expressions which would even change as time wore on. He knew that other men, because of their devotion to His plan and not their own would translate His word into their language. Throughout time, he has seen fit to give us viable worthy translations in a plethora of languages...all of them worthy of being blessed by Him as His word.
His plan was even so extraordinary that He, by calling devout men and women of every tribe and tongue to study and to critically and rightly divide the word of Truth, that no one can ever justly claim that the scriptures were written or compiled by one man or group to impress their own thoughts or desires upon the church.
The KJV has been and will continue to be blessed by God, because, as the translators of the KJV said themselves...even the meanest translation is God’s word. They also afffirmed it was NOT perfect. But it was still the word of God. Were they wrong?
Love you brother. Thanks for the comments. Wish you the best.
The German text critic Griesbach made the Emphatic Diagolt source text modified from Alexandrian sources, available to Wilson in 1864. The very same errors were present in that book decades before Wescott & Hort. No one ever mentions Griesbach & Wilson.
I did a lot of research and Wescott & Hort copied off of Griesbach & Wilson to a large extent.
Amen!!!
John 3:13
New American Standard Bible
"No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.
King James Bible
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man WHICH IS IN HEAVEN.
this is a very very important verse
Not that big of a deal if you read other verses you would know that Jesus is already in heaven
Jesus wasn’t in heaven at the time. He was on Earth talking to Nicodemus.
Not unless you believe there’s another god along with Jesus
I would hope that in your part 2 that you lay out some evidence of your claims. All I heard were accusations and opinions. Not one source sited. Not one place as to where to go witnesses any of these claims for ourselves.
I found a local church out of 300 churches in my area and they are the only American Baptist Church left and use many translations to fit the Pastors message.
I asked why don't you use KJV like the American Baptists used when I grew up and the reply was where have you been dude?
I then hung up the phone and still cannot find a once Saved always Saved Church in my city....
So I suppose, you are not a Protestant?
"The KJV is the only accurate translation of the Bible" Then obviously you exclude the FIRST Protestant Bible for the America;s, The Geneva. Therefore you are not only Biblically ignorant, you are historically ignorant.
1587 GENEVA, THE Most accurate PTOTESTANT Bible. "Heb 1:3 Who being the brightnes of the glory, and the ingraued forme of his person, ........................ "
1611 KJV, Heb 1:3 Who being the brightnesse of his glory, and the expresse image of his person,
You don't have a clue, do you. The KJV, could be compared to a modern 10 million megapixel Camera. Accurate, yes, but the best, nope. The Geneva, describes "an engraving." As in a LEGAL "seal" !!! When we have a dollar [or a $100] bill engraving, when you have seen one, you have seen them all. [Until they put some other "image" on there to fool counterfeiters.] PLUS, engravings are used in LEGAL instruments. The KJV says; "When you see Jesus, you have seen "God." The Geneva says, "When you see Jesus you are not only seeing God, MORE SPECIFICALLY, you are seeing the LEGAL representative of God. We all know the beauty of the KJV, but frankly, the KJV was INTENDED as a POLITICALLY CORRECT version, because King James was offended by some of the translations found in the Geneva, HE wanted DIFFERENT WORDING!!! Of course a Bible SCHOLAR, who uses the Strongs, notices the fact that some verses [And, I think this is exactly what God INTENDED!] just possibly have better translations. After all, WE KNOW God left some things[Daniel & The Revelation come to mind.] to be understood, "LATER."
About 1/2 the scholars for the Geneva worked on the KJV, so they agree about 90% of the time, but where they do not, the Geneva is probably MORE ACCURATE, which means "KJV only" does not get ALL that God intended.
I have for about 10 years, been putting together a personal "study" Bible, using the KJV and Geneva. I also use the English Standard Version [more like the Geneva] and the Holman Christian Standard Bible [more like the KJV] and the NET Bible which has 60000 notes. Like many Christians I don't like the NIV as being too liberal, but as I said the ESV & HCSB accurately represent the KJV and Geneva, and do NOT change "MEANING.".
The great Christians of the Protestant Reformation ALL were honest enough to point out discrepancies in the King James. There are a few. BUT whether the Geneva, KJV, ESV, HCSB or the NET, NONE OF THEM CHANGE THE GOSPEL.
Look up Creation Liberty Evangelism. Many errors that are taught in today's "churches" are exposed. I hope that you visit, and the site is edifying to your spiritual walk with Christ.
People in other counties and cultures who will never understand english don't use the KJV, and before there was a KJV there was still an accurate translation
True. What's the point?
Correct. The King James Bible is the word of God for the English speaking people. English as we understand it today was formed just before the AV was produced.
wrong
KJV IS THE PURE WORD OF GOD IM A FILIPINO AND TAGALOG BIBLE IS
CORRUPTED AND GOD LEAD ME TO READ KJV BIBLE I BELIEVE THAT GOD USE ENGLISH LANGUAGE TO PRESERVE HIS WORD BECAUSE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IS THE MOST SPOKEN UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE OF THIS WORLD EVEN ANY NATIONALITY READ KJV BIBLE BACAUSE KJV BIBLE IS PURE WORD PRAISE LORD JESUS CHRIST FOR HIS REVEAL TRUTH PRESERVE PURE WORD, KJV AROUND THE WORLD🌎🌍🌏🇯🇵🇮🇪🇬🇮🇱🇦🇱🇻🇬🇳🇱🇷🇱🇷🇬🇵🇯🇲🇮🇱🇬🇼🇬🇱🇱🇧🇭🇰🇽🇰🇬🇹🇵🇭🇺🇸🇿🇼🇹🇭🇾🇪🇹🇭🇪🇭🇸🇷🇺🇬🇰🇷🇳🇿🇲🇬🇳🇺🇲🇼🇳🇷🇲🇷🇳🇵🇲🇱🇲🇵🇲🇺🇲🇵🇳🇬🇳🇪🇱🇸🇱🇸🇮🇪🇯🇵🇬🇳🇱🇾🇬🇳🇱🇦🇬🇩🇪🇪🇩🇪🇪🇷🇬🇦🇬🇶🇬🇮🇪🇪🇨🇬🇬🇶🇰🇲🇪🇹🇨🇫🇩🇯🇰🇲🇨🇿🇨🇿.
So what's wrong with both the Matthew Bible and the Geneva Bible, both which preceded the KJV? It got its text from these earlier versions. Surely you don't subscribe that William Tyndale wasn't correct in his New Testament do you?
The enemy has tried to tell me that God does not love me, Jesus created everything including us, and He came down and died so that we could live, that was the most unselfish act of love possible, so the enemy is to late to say God does not love me, because I know what my creator did to redeem me back Himself.
Thanks for sharing Dennis I appreciate that Yankee
I hope this video just simply Spurs you to research it out for yourself by the two lines and scripture w scripture within KJV and comparing other versions. Don’t do just a little study on it, but take a year or two or three and dig in. For me KJV is the one. Jesus is the Word, God is the Word, the Holy Spirit is the Word, God can count the hairs on your head, hold the universe together in his hand, know when a sparrow falls, don’t we think He could preserve Himself too?
So thankful i was born after 1611. If i had been born before then, i wouldn't have a Bible 😅
I Agree with that.
If we dont have the trueword of god then we do not have anything !
thank you for what you do... I never really listen to a preacher or laymen if they are reading from the new age books.. I feel if you do not have Gods Word in your hands you do not really know Gods word..
What new age books are they. I have found that the KJV only cultist, are like the Sadducees, who quoted scripture. But did not know the power of God or the scriptures. That is why I would not go to a KJV only church. If they deceive so many with this idolatrous heresy of KJV onlyism What other deceptions will they teach.
KJV ONLY, THE WAY TO STUDY THE PURE WORD OF GOD! ♥️🙏
@@samlawrence2695False
I have a question, suppose a person heard or read the gospel of John from a modern translation, like John 3:15-18 and they believed, will they have everlasting life or only when they hear it or read the KJV?
I'm assuming you're only referring to English-speaking people. 98% of the text between the Westcott-Hort New Testament and the (various editions of) the Textus Receptus is identical - including the Gospel. The number of differences is not growing, it may be shrinking but don't take my word for that last part.
Salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone, not grace through faith + reading the best Bible - the KJV indicates salvation as being by grace through faith in Christ alone, and makes no mention of itself as a translation being required for salvation. I've read the most literal of the modern ones, the NASB, in the Gospels, and the Gospel in John is the same message as in the KJV.
For some background, I grew up around the NIV family (there was the '84 NIV and then the NIrV at home) of translations, then had an NASB given to me. I was saved on a modern translation and a critical text base. I switched to the KJV a year ago, and, though I switched moreso out of ignorance than fact, I'm slowly researching details of a concept in my mind about textual criticism: Use the Bible and let it define itself. Don't use purely man-made theories to determine the text of the Bible. If purely man-made theories are used, then the word of man determines, and becomes superior to, the Word of God.
Jesus parable of the seed and sower is more explanatory.
-Quotation: --Dr. Frank Logsdon, the Head of the NASV committee, realized that he sinned against God after the publishing of it and wrote this letter to the NASV Committee.
"I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard...I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord...We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface...
I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it’s wrong, it’s terribly wrong; it's frighteningly wrong; and what am I going to do about it?... I can no longer ignore these criticisms [of the corruptions in the New American Standard Version Bible (NASB/NASV)] I am hearing and I can't refute them...
When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended. However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV...The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times...The deletions are absolutely frightening...there are so many...Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?...
I don't want anything to do with it...
[T]he finest leaders that we have today...haven't gone into it [the new version's use of corrupted Greek (Nestles) text], just as I hadn't gone into it...That's how easily one can be deceived...I'm going to talk to him [Dr. George Sweeting, then president of Moody Bible Institute] about these things...
[Y]ou can say the Authorized Version [KJV] is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct!
If you must stand against everyone else, stand."
- Dr. Frank Logsdon
I've read this before and agree with the sentiments expressed here but is there a way to verify whether this is a genuine quote from Dr Logsdon? Again, I wholeheartedly agree with this Logsdon-attributed quote but... were these words actually penned by him? What's the best source you've found on this?
Blessings brotha
@@AnHebrewChild I believe it's Sam Gibb's books or Gale Riplinger's books. But I did get the quote from one or both, it is also published on line and the references should be there. It's not an obscure quote, but rather well known in Manuscript Evidence books and bookets. Another source would be Jack Chick tracts.
@@craigluchin4585 Anything from Sam Gipp, a Russian must learn English not any old English but KJV English to have the true word of God. Or Gail Riplinger, professional liar and heretic, her so called "acrostic algebra" nothing but witchcraft. Chicktracts? Conspiracy theories,, double standards, circular reasoning. All KJV only heretics, would not trust anything they say.
@@AnHebrewChildFrank Logsdon was actually on record quoting these exact words
@@onedone7988 thank you. I'll have to try to dig for it. Be blessed
The question I have for the KJVOist is this: will you accept a version translated into modern English from the same source manuscripts as the KJV is derived from? If not, why?
They will not. They will accept some, if it is almost exactly as the KJV translation, but they will not accept the NKJV (they almost always hate that one as it corrects many of the erors in the KJV - eg it corrects easter to passover, it corrects the word bottles in Matthew 9:17 to wineskins, and so on and so on. They will also not accept the MEV, another good translation that uses the TR for the NT) at the end they believe the KJV is the only good translation and that is that, regardless of what they may have you think. The more one speaks to a KJV onlyist the more this becomes blatantly obvious. There was a time in my life when I was sucked into the King James Only nonsense and believed all other translations were corrupt, I thank the Lord for freeing me.
A excellent debate on youtube can be found by searching for: Ankerberg KJV Discussion Complete Scholars' Position
No. modern English lacks the capability to differentiate between second person singular and plural pronouns. ie thou/thee vs ye/you. These exist in the Greek and Hebrew but are not preserved in any modern English version. There are many other greek and Hebrew verb conjugations that modern English cannot properly render "When he is come" vs "when he has come," and "what doest thou" vs "what are you doing" (hence the need for the countless, but still insufficient, footnotes in the NASB).
@@AnHebrewChild I've used the KJV for many years, it's just not as easy to understand due to the archaic words and phrases. There are just so many words that require a constant reference to the Strongs or equivalent just to process what is being read. It's just easier to read a translation using updated English. Even an update, like the KJVer, is much easier to understand. I do prefer TR translations like the NKJV and MEV but that's a different subject.
@@AnHebrewChildthere are plenty of things lost in translation regardless of if it is in old English or not. There ARE distinctions in the new translations by way of footnotes letting you know when a “you” is plural. KJV-onlyism is an untenable position. Please read the King James only controversy by James White.
@@josiahmurdoch4829 I've read it. It would seem you missed my point. Early Modern English possesses certain features of specificity absent from contemporary English. These features enable it to _more comprehensively_ convey correspondent features of the bible's source languages. I've pointed out a couple of these above.
Insofar as James White denounces KJV Onlysism's cultish & superstitious aspects, I'm on board. Some have made an idol of the bible. (I think many besides just KjVOists have)
I own and utilize MANY different bibles. But if an alien were to ask me to show them The English Bible, I'd hold up an Authorised Version and say "here. This is it, right here."
Long story short. Once in a Roman Baptist Sunday "school" class holding my KJV and reading from their RBC quarterly I ran across Daniel 3:17. Look that verse up in the Christian Standard version which used to be the HCSB, or Holman Christian Standard Bible. Not sure if it's Christian Standard Bible now but pretty sure. Anyway look that verse up and hold on to something when you do.
+Patrick McGuire
What is the biggie in these verses?
"Holman Christian Standard Bible
If the God we serve exists, then He can rescue us from the furnace of blazing fire, and He can rescue us from the power of you, the king."
"King James Bible
If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king."
YOU need to explain why we need to hold to something.
Both say the same thing.
Others:
"Berean Study Bible
If the God whom we serve exists, then He is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace and from your hand, O king."
"Christian Standard Bible
If the God we serve exists, then he can rescue us from the furnace of blazing fire, and he can rescue us from the power of you, the king."
"NET Bible
If our God whom we are serving exists, he is able to rescue us from the furnace of blazing fire, and he will rescue us, O king, from your power as well."
@@paulrobinson9318 " *IF* he exists he can rescue us," leaves room to think that they believe God might Not exist. KJV starts with the premise that they believe God Does exist. In the the Holman CSB God can only rescue them if he exists. KJV God can rescue them no questions asked. Yeah, I'd say that's a pretty big deal if you are question "if" your God truly exists.
+@@kcoble1000 While your point is based on ignorance - - why should a translation be adjusted to fit your theology and NOT translated exactly and your theology adjusted to fit what GOD actually said?
God's word exceeds your theology in importance . . . or maybe NOT?
When YOU have the ability (or the KJ pagan Catholic translators + the 4 Christians) to make a Bible fit your theology as the KJB does all over the place - you have edited out the intent of GOD in giving His thoughts to us.
" "Now, who is that god " That is the reason for the IF
"who can rescue you from my power?” 16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego replied to King Nebuchadnezzar, “We do not need to give you a reply concerning this. 17 "
"If our God whom we are serving exists, he is able to rescue us"
The answer to the KING - IF answers the challenge "who". . . " from the furnace of blazing fire, and he will rescue us, O king, from your power as well. 18 But if he does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we don’t serve your gods, and we will not pay homage to the golden statue that you have erected.” "
"16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter.
17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.
18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.KJB
SO, you prefer a corrupted translation to what the Hebrew Bible says? That Daniel left the possibility open that there MAY not be a god ?
"If that is the case
The Aramaic is הֵן אִיתַי [hēn ʾîṯay], variously translated as: “if it be so” (KJV, NASU); “if the God we serve exists” (HCSB); “if our God whom we are serving exists” (NET). The phrase seems to raise the question of God’s existence, but not because the Jews questioned so themselves.165 They are responding to Nebuchadnezzar’s previous challenge, “who is the god who will deliver you from my hands” [emphasis added] (Dan. 3:15‣), where he implies no such god exists.166"
"But if not
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego were not questioning God’s ability to save them, but his willingness according to His sovereign purpose.169 As young men, they were among those deported to Babylon. Since then, they had seen Nebuchadnezzar’s forces deport more Jews from Jerusalem, ultimately destroying their city and God’s temple. As surprising as these events might have appeared to those unacquainted with God, they knew from Scripture that all these things were according to God’s sovereign control of history. They believed it would be presumptuous to assume that God’s purpose mandated their rescue from the current predicament:
Since the God of Israel did not save Judea, Jerusalem, and even vessels from his own temple from Nebuchadnezzar’s “hand” (Dan. 1:1-2‣), how can these Judeans presume to hope that their God shall save them from the king’s “hand” now (Dan. 3:17‣)?170
They faced a challenging decision that put their faith to the ultimate test. They knew their God to be a consuming fire (Ex. 24:17; 33:5; Lev. 10:2; Num. 11:1; 16:35; Deu. 4:24; 5:25; Heb. 10:31; 12:29). They also knew Nebuchadnezzar’s threat of being cast into the furnace was real (Jer. 29:21-23). They elected to face a pagan consuming fire rather than a divine consuming fire (2S. 23:14-15). Their trust in God reflected the attitude of Job: “Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him” (Job 13:15).
Faith in God may not translate into victory in every circumstance (see Heb. 11:32-39). To these men the outcome was irrelevant, for what was at stake was not God’s ability or their own lives, but their faith and obedience to serve Him regardless of the cost.171"
The conclusion - an ACCURATE translation is far superior to one doctored for the purpose of being in harmony with Catholics teaching - the TRUTH is that the KING questioned the existence of their GOD - and Daniel left their survival on the table as proof HE did exist. The proof of the "IF".
One need NOT fear the implications of an HONEST translation even when it goes against the theology of a corrupt church.
@@paulrobinson9318 that's funny. You are the one who said what is the biggie? Then you say my point is based on ignorance. I admit that I did not look up what the Holman Christian Standard said for myself, but took YOUR word for it. My point was based on what you posted that the KJV said and the HCSB said. You asked what was the biggie? Indicating that you didn't see a biggie. I pointed out the big difference between the two and then you talk about adjusting a translation to fit my theology. I'm not adjusting anything. Neither of these are my translation. I am was merely pointing out what was an obvious difference between the two.
+@@kcoble1000 YOU miss the point entirely - while neither of those are your own translation it seemed pretty obvious to me that you were mocking the Holman and supporting the KJB.
Compared to the gospel of salvation - it IS no biggie. BUT if it points out you prefer one translation over another based on such a minuscule point - then you chose the WRONG Bible for accuracy.
Modern and accurate vs pagan and corrupted.
Hope that cleared things up a bit.
why don't all preachers know the history of the transition of the bible?
I love how people take Psalm 12:6-7 (written in Hebrew thousands of years ago) out of context and then try to say it applies to a 17th century Anglican translation. LOL.
chinese bibles are misleading too
Thank God for KJV
May God bless U pastor 🙏🙏🙏
KJV IS THE PURE WORD OF GOD IM A FILIPINO AND TAGALOG BIBLE IS
CORRUPTED AND GOD LEAD ME TO READ KJV BIBLE I BELIEVE THAT GOD USE ENGLISH LANGUAGE TO PRESERVE HIS WORD BECAUSE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IS THE MOST SPOKEN UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE OF THIS WORLD EVEN ANY NATIONALITY READ KJV BIBLE BACAUSE KJV BIBLE IS PURE WORD PRAISE LORD JESUS CHRIST FOR HIS REVEAL TRUTH PRESERVE PURE WORD, KJV AROUND THE 🌍 🌎 🇨🇿🇨🇱🇫🇯🇮🇴🇵🇫🇹🇩🇫🇮🇪🇹🇩🇯🇨🇫🇨🇿🇨🇬🇵🇫🇨🇬🇹🇫🇨🇱🇫🇯🇬🇼🇱🇺🇬🇬🇱🇮🇬🇺🇯🇵🇮🇪🇱🇾🇱🇺🇬🇳🇱🇷🇯🇲🇳🇪🇲🇱🇴🇲🇲🇱🇲🇾🇲🇼🇳🇨🇲🇲🇫🇲🇲🇩🇵🇭🇺🇸🇪🇭🇻🇳🇸🇷🇼🇫🇹🇿🇨🇭🔥👑✝️
KJV IS THE PURE WORD OF GOD IM A FILIPINO AND TAGALOG BIBLE IS
CORRUPTED AND GOD LEAD ME TO READ KJV BIBLE I BELIEVE THAT GOD USE ENGLISH LANGUAGE TO PRESERVE HIS WORD BECAUSE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IS THE MOST SPOKEN UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE OF THIS WORLD EVEN ANY NATIONALITY READ KJV BIBLE BACAUSE KJV BIBLE IS PURE WORD PRAISE LORD JESUS CHRIST FOR HIS REVEAL TRUTH PRESERVE PURE WORD, KJV AROUND THE WORLD 🌍 🇸🇩🇺🇸🇵🇭🇵🇸🇿🇦🇵🇰🇸🇸🇴🇲🇸🇨🇵🇬🇵🇳🇰🇷🇧🇱🇵🇷🇵🇷🇸🇽🇵🇪🇳🇵🇵🇹🇳🇵🇳🇴🇳🇦🇵🇷🇳🇮🇸🇹🇷🇪🇳🇵🇵🇳🇸🇳🇵🇷🇵🇼🇳🇨🇱🇦🇾🇹🇱🇸🇲🇿🇱🇸🇳🇪🇱🇸🇳🇮🇲🇻🇯🇵🇬🇵🇩🇪🇯🇲🇩🇪🇮🇶🇮🇷🇬🇪🇮🇳🇬🇦🇮🇪🇬🇦🇨🇩🇨🇺🇫🇷🇪🇹🇨🇷🇨🇰🇬🇭🇭🇷🇫🇯🇨🇦🇨🇩🇧🇭🇰🇲🇧🇲🇭🇷🇧🇾🇧🇳.
There are more people alive today than at any other time in world history. As in the 1st century Greek was the universal language of the known world. So today English is the universal language. God has to put his word into one language so that it can be taken to the whole world.
The largest democracy in the world is India. They speak 1000(+/-) languages and dialects. Yet they are a unified democracy because the official language of India is English. And they learned English from the Authorized version of the Bible which today we call the King James Bible.
I have a question that really bothers me. If the King James Version is the only inspired version of the Bible, how do I tell my friends in Spanish speaking countries (and I do speak Spanish) who cannot speak English, that God has not allowed them to read an inspired version of His word? Can you help me with this?
Dave Mitchell Spanish kjv does exist, however not all kjvos would accept that it's genuine.
Dave Mitchell - I don't know Spanish but my understanding is this: Reina Valera, is the equivalent to KJV.
I wish you well and give your friends what they can understand and is right. Gods' Spirit will teach if they want to know.
Reina Valera Gomez 2010 is the Spanish Bible that is in complete agreement with the Textus Receptus. Not The Reina Valera 1909, 1960 and 1995.
Just one problem, the KJV is not an inspired version. That is a lie from the KJV only cult. It is nothing more than an imperfect uninspired translation.
@@anonymousperson6462 It's a known fact that King James himself hated the Spaniards and would have never commissioned a Bible in Spanish. There is no such thing as a "Spanish KJV." No such thing exists.
-No one can say (except us KJB Christians) with 100% faith, "Thus saith the LORD!" I say it with 100% confidence, but this world and most of the Christians from the Dr's to the laymen are overrun and overcome by Satan's system of bibles, languages, and educated opinions that no can say, "Thus saith the LORD!" (Exodus 4:22b, and it's stated over 400 times in the O.T.)
@@henrylaurel4476 I've only seen one person who knows the truth who doesn't use King James only. Do what you want. Just don't dare question the words of God!
We can't change God's words and believe they are still God's words!
We CANNOT IMPROVE ANYTHING about God!
You might say "Thus saith the Lord" with confidence. Still doesn't make you right though. The KJV translators were well aware that their work was not perfect. So they would not say "Thus saith the Lord". They were not as arrogant and presumptuous as the KJV only cultists
what does discomfitted mean
Confuse
You maybe in the minority position amongst textual scholars BUT..........."ONE WITH GOD IS THE MAJORITY" MARTIN LUTHER SAID. 1517AD
I dont mind the KJV... and I dont mind people using the KJV. Heck, I use the KJV in my own studies from time to time.
But all I'm gonna say is... the original KJV (that is, the 1611 version) includes the Apocryphal books, and the translators believed them to be Scripture.
So how can you say that the KJV translators created an inspired translation, yet they held strongly to Catholic doctrine and affirmed the inspiration of the Apocryphal books...something that NO protestants do?
Like... why pick the KJV? Because if its age? The KJV was not the first English translation, so that's a flawed argument.
Like I said... I dont dislike the KJV. I think its a great and poetic translation (which, I may add, was the original purpose of the translation. The original 1611 version included a letter from the translators saying that their intention was to create a more readable and poetic translation--as opposed to the rather dry ones that already existed (Like the Geneva Bible)).
However, the ONLY thing "special" about the KJV is its age and historical context. It is no more or less inspired than most other legitimate translations.
I have more evidence and arguments to support my claims, but I have a feeling my time will be wasted putting them here.
Can you show me where the translators said they believed that the apocrypha was inspired? I believe you made that up.
What are these other legitimate translations?
Hopefully you don't support versions that change God's word. Hopefully it's not like the NIV that gives Jesus's title to Lucifer and calls Jesus a liar.
@@Chris-zd8cs Other legitimate translations are quite numerous... the NASB, ESV, etc.
And the NIV is not my favorite translation, but not because I agree with your "subtle" assertions listed above.
The issue to which you are referring: that the NIV changes Lucifer to Morning Star... which was also a term used to describe Jesus in places like Revelation 22:16 and 2 Peter 1:19.
Well... I dont know how deeply you want me to delve into this. I could talk about how this is conflating terms and the context of the Isaiah passage is obviously NOT talking about Jesus... and the NIV translators even made that clear by capitalizing it in Revelation when it was referring to Jesus.
But a rudimentary read of the Isaiah, if you are being honest with yourself, makes it plainly clear that Jesus has nothing to do with that passage.
Also, what about the term "lion"?
Jesus can be called the Lion of the Tribe of Judah.... but Satan is a roaring lion, seeking who he may devour (1 Pet. 5:8 KJV)
Although it is the same TERM (just like morning star and Morning Star), the context applies it in very different ways.
Again... a plain, simple, and honest reading of the text makes this clear. It seems more likely, at least to me, that people are just trying to find things wrong with it...so they take things out of context and do not provide fair assessment.
Speaking of that... Let us not forget that no translation is perfect (I know many KJV-only people disagree), but I think the facts themselves show this point. Every translation, including the KJV, has many small translation errors (albeit minor ones), spelling errors, etc. Generally, these dont change the meaning of the texts, but they still exist.
And this fact was not lost on the KJV translators. Again, just read the translators note at the beginning of the 1611 version (its photocopied and available online. I am on my phone, so I cant provide a good link at this time). The translators state that they all debated over how to precisely capture the original meaning... AND the earliest copies have many many MANY footnotes in the margins that talk about their deliberations.
Further, they say that, for this reason, it is WISE (just as St. Augustine said, which they cite as their influence) to have multiple translations of the Bible so you can get differing perspectives on its meaning.
Basically, they thought very highly of Scripture itself, but they recognized their own ability to make mistakes. Thankfully, I think they did a fantastic job with their translation,and their mistakes were minimal... but they did exist.
Basically, just read what the translators thought of their own translation...and itll tell you everything you need to know about my own arguments
+@@Chris-zd8cs
The fact that the apocrypha was cross referenced in marginal notes from the body of the text is great evidence that the translators considered it on a par with the inspired text.
"Can you show me where the translators said they believed that the apocrypha was inspired? I believe you made that up."
But because the KJ was a political document to support the Catholic state church, there could be no alteration of the Catholic texts and that included the Apocrypha.
WHY else would all the birthdays of the catholic saints be in the front page of the KJB?
The SOLE intent of the KJB was to remove the Geneva Bible from circulation - a failed operation - that it took 70years to suppress an honest Bible shows what the Christians thought of it.
@ Paul Lucas The 2 'sweetheart' codices/manuscripts of the corrupt & perverted Westcott & Hort "new" Greek text in 1881, the Vaticanus & Sinaiticus, also included much or most of the Apocryphal books, one of them even 2 that weren't Apocryphal. The KJB translators put the Apocryphal books at the back of their KJB translation; they only included them because that was the agreement they had to adhere to.
KJV only
So I suppose, you are not a Protestant?
"The KJV is the only accurate translation of the Bible" Then obviously you exclude the FIRST Protestant Bible for the America;s, The Geneva. Therefore you are not only Biblically ignorant, you are historically ignorant.
1587 GENEVA, THE Most accurate PTOTESTANT Bible. "Heb 1:3 Who being the brightnes of the glory, and the ingraued forme of his person, ........................ "
1611 KJV, Heb 1:3 Who being the brightnesse of his glory, and the expresse image of his person,
You don't have a clue, do you. The KJV, could be compared to a modern 10 million megapixel Camera. Accurate, yes, but the best, nope. The Geneva, describes "an engraving." As in a LEGAL "seal" !!! When we have a dollar [or a $100] bill engraving, when you have seen one, you have seen them all. [Until they put some other "image" on there to fool counterfeiters.] PLUS, engravings are used in LEGAL instruments. The KJV says; "When you see Jesus, you have seen "God." The Geneva says, "When you see Jesus you are not only seeing God, MORE SPECIFICALLY, you are seeing the LEGAL representative of God. We all know the beauty of the KJV, but frankly, the KJV was INTENDED as a POLITICALLY CORRECT version, because King James was offended by some of the translations found in the Geneva, HE wanted DIFFERENT WORDING!!! Of course a Bible SCHOLAR, who uses the Strongs, notices the fact that some verses [And, I think this is exactly what God INTENDED!] just possibly have better translations. After all, WE KNOW God left some things[Daniel & The Revelation come to mind.] to be understood, "LATER."
About 1/2 the scholars for the Geneva worked on the KJV, so they agree about 90% of the time, but where they do not, the Geneva is probably MORE ACCURATE, which means "KJV only" does not get ALL that God intended.
I have for about 10 years, been putting together a personal "study" Bible, using the KJV and Geneva. I also use the English Standard Version [more like the Geneva] and the Holman Christian Standard Bible [more like the KJV] and the NET Bible which has 60000 notes. Like many Christians I don't like the NIV as being too liberal, but as I said the ESV & HCSB accurately represent the KJV and Geneva, and do NOT change "MEANING.".
The great Christians of the Protestant Reformation ALL were honest enough to point out discrepancies in the King James. There are a few. BUT whether the Geneva, KJV, ESV, HCSB or the NET, NONE OF THEM CHANGE THE GOSPEL.
sothca20001 Do you read what you post, most of your post doesn't make sense.
DID You read it? If you have trouble with that, then what you say makes even more sense. You simply do not get it!
@@sothca20001 u gonna ask everyone that question? Enjoy your religion dude
All the comparisons and opinions aside, I like KJV best because of its style, it's poetic, it's a reverent rendering of the scriptures, etc. That said, I do like other versions such as the Living Bible paraphrase, the Nkjv and Amplified. I also have read some PRE-KJV versions like the Geneva and Tyndale. It's all interesting. Some versions do make me uncomfortable for different reasons. The KJV is a centuries-old trusted translation. We didn't have all these version problems until dozens of them were coming out left and right. It got beyond ridiculous.
I have numerous proofs that the KJB verses are inspired, all 31,102 of them. Thanks for the video ^ In case you wanted/cared to know a small part of one example I have:
Do you have a proper/accurate word search program?
Type exactly "in", if your program is accurate it must include UPPER and LOWER CASE. There are 12,338 lower case, and 336 upper case. You should get 12,674.
Type exactly "earth"........................................ it must specify LOWER CASE. You get 985
(If you get 987, it’s because of the EARTH in revelation, and Earth in Genesis).
Type exactly "the"........................................... it must include UPPER and LOWER CASE. There are 17 with ALL CAPS, 62,173 lower case, and 1,851 upper case. You should get 64,041.
Type exactly “Amen”……………………………it must specify UPPER CASE. You get 77.
(If you get 78, it’s because of the lower case amen in Numbers 5:22).
Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21 are the verses where these four words come from. This is proof verses are inspired. Every phone has a calculator. Add it up.
If your search program can specify what books of the bible you can search, specify only Genesis and Revelation:
Type exactly “in” your program must include UPPER and LOWER CASE. You should get 767.
(There are 754 lower case, and 13 upper case, in Genesis and Revelation).
Type exactly “amen” or “Amen”, there are no lower case amen in Genesis or Revelation. If you doubt God's word as I did, download King James Pure Bible Search and do this simple word search.
Jesus is our Amen. Jesus is in the earth. We are in the Amen. The Amen in earth. Revelation 3:14
Check out Truthis Christ on TH-cam. KJB IS PRESERVED WORD
God transformed my mind with the NIV, but now I have a KJV, NKJV and I read those most. But do go back to other translations. To say KJV is the Only preserved word of God, is a lie.
God transformed & translated my Life.
So what your saying is God in 1610 made His Word in English and that was the end of His Word?
Is not the Word of God Rich & wealthy that requires multiple translations so we can understand His Richness?
The argument that the King James Version of the Bible is the only accurate Bible is not entirely accurate. The work of Bible translation is very complicated, and misunderstanding easily arises. We do not have the original Hebrew Old Testament or the original Greek New Testament as written by inspired men of God. What we have is an Old Testament in Hebrew and thousands of Greek manuscripts of part or all of the New Testament painstakingly copied and passed on to us through the centuries. There are differences in the Greek manuscripts such as minor issues of punctuation, spelling, word order, certain verses included in some manuscripts and not in others, etc., but none of these differences affect any of the major doctrines of our Christian faith.
Some people prefer the King James translation because they have been familiar with it, often from childhood. Others prefer modern translations because they are more easily understood. Also, modern translators have the advantage of using many older Greek manuscripts of the New Testament discovered since the King James translation was made. Most scholars consider these older manuscripts more reliable than the few later manuscripts available to those who translated the King James Bible.
It is also helpful to remember that, while King James “authorized” a particular translation for the Church of England in the 17th century, it is no more authoritative for us today than any other translation. It was highly criticized in its day by those who preferred earlier translations, and it went through a number of revisions. The King James Version most widely used today is the 1769 revision.
The King James Version of the Bible has undergone several revisions since its original publication in 1611. The most widely used version of the King James Bible today is the 1769 revision. The changes made to the 1769 revision were mostly minor, such as changes in spelling, punctuation, and printing errors 234. However, there were some significant changes made to the text that affect the meaning of the passage. Here are some examples of significant changes made to the text:
KJ V Original 1611 KJV 1769
Joshua 3:11 - “Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord” was changed to “ark of the covenant of the Lord”
2 Kings 11:10 - “in the Temple” was changed to “in the temple of the LORD”
Isaiah 49:13 - “for God” was changed to “for the LORD”
Jeremiah 31:14 - “with goodnesse” was changed to “with my goodness”
Jeremiah 51:30 - “burnt their dwelling places” was changed to “burned her dwellingplaces”
Ezekiel 6:8 - “that he may” was changed to “that ye may”
Ezekiel 24:5 - “let him seethe” was changed to “let them seethe”
Ezekiel 24:7 - “powred it vpon the ground” was changed to “poured it not upon the ground”
Ezekiel 48:8 - “which they shall” was changed to “which ye shall”
Daniel 3:15 - “a fierie furnace” was changed to “a burning fiery furnace”
Matthew 14:9 - “the othes sake” was changed to “the oath’s sake”
1 Corinthians 12:28 - “helpes in gouernmets” was changed to “helps, governments”
1 Corinthians 15:6 - “And that” was changed to “After that”
1 John 5:12 - “the Sonne, hath” was changed to “the Son of God hath”
It is important to note that the changes made to the King James Version of the Bible over the years do not affect any of the major doctrines of our Christian faith.
The King James Version of the Bible uses the word “Easter” in Acts 12:4 instead of “Passover”
Also, the pagan word easter is believed to have originated from the name of a pagan goddess of spring or renewal named Eostre, who was worshipped in the spring by pagans in Northern Europe and the British Isles. The name “Easter” is derived from the Old English word “Ēastre” or “Ēostre,” which was the name of the month of April in the Anglo-Saxon calendar.
It is important to note that the use of the word “Easter” in the context of the Christian holiday is not related to the pagan goddess Eostre. But why would the translators use such a pagan word "easter" instead of Passover? The Greek word says πάσχα (Acts 12:4 GNT) Pascha which translates as Passover in every other English translation of the Bible except the KJV. So this is an error by the translators of the KJV. Thankfully the NKJV corrected their mistake. (No doubt the KJV-only people will justify this mistake and cover it up with their man-made doctrine).
In conclusion, while the King James Version of the Bible is a valuable translation, it is not the only accurate Bible. There are many other translations that are equally reliable and accurate, and it is up to each individual to choose the translation that best suits their needs and preferences. It is Christian Dogma and tradition by men who say that only the KJV is the only word of God. Apparently, they place their will, their understanding, and their doctrine and superimpose it above the Lord's word and His understanding. The Bible calls people holding on to their dogmas and their traditions of men, in these beautiful words, used by our Messiah "Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees" (Matt. 16:6 KJV) These are our modern Christian Pharisees, beware of there leven.
Yours Samuel
KJV IS THE PURE WORD OF GOD IM A FILIPINO AND TAGALOG BIBLE IS
CORRUPTED AND GOD LEAD ME TO READ KJV BIBLE I BELIEVE THAT GOD USE ENGLISH LANGUAGE TO PRESERVE HIS WORD BECAUSE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IS THE MOST SPOKEN UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE OF THIS WORLD EVEN ANY NATIONALITY READ KJV BIBLE BACAUSE KJV BIBLE IS PURE WORD PRAISE LORD JESUS CHRIST FOR HIS REVEAL TRUTH PRESERVE PURE WORD, KJV AROUND THE WORLD 🌎🌍🌏🇨🇫🇫🇮🇨🇽🇨🇩🇫🇰🇨🇳🇸🇻🇨🇳🇩🇴🇨🇱🇩🇰🇨🇬🇹🇫🇵🇫🇫🇷🇨🇽🇦🇺🇨🇦🇭🇷🇧🇿🇧🇹🇧🇪🇨🇻🇧🇾🇺🇸🇵🇭🇵🇼🇿🇦🇪🇸🇵🇼🇰🇷🇯🇵🇮🇪🇬🇾🇲🇬🇭🇰🇭🇰🇲🇻🇱🇺🇮🇷🇱🇧🇭🇰🇱🇧🇱🇷
Cults always choose a version that goes with there heresy. Stick with King James and believe Gods word.
John James. KJV onlyism is a cult, and Satan the father of lies is behind it. KJV onlyism is a false teaching, taught by false teachers. Who needs atheists when Satan has KJV onlyists doing his work.
Exactly that is why the cults including the Jehovah Witnesses before they used their own NWT. All chose the KJV. Cults that deny the deity of Christ, the Mormons, Christian Scientists all chose the KJV.
KJV IS THE PURE WORD OF GOD IM A FILIPINO AND TAGALOG BIBLE IS
CORRUPTED AND GOD LEAD ME TO READ KJV BIBLE I BELIEVE THAT GOD USE ENGLISH LANGUAGE TO PRESERVE HIS WORD BECAUSE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IS THE MOST SPOKEN UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE OF THIS WORLD EVEN ANY NATIONALITY READ KJV BIBLE BACAUSE KJV BIBLE IS PURE WORD PRAISE LORD JESUS CHRIST FOR HIS REVEAL TRUTH PRESERVE PURE WORD, KJV AROUND THE WORLD🌎🌍🌏🇨🇦🇨🇩🇧🇩🇧🇾🇭🇷🇨🇱🇻🇬🇨🇫🇧🇲🇨🇽🇧🇦🇨🇰🇧🇯🇨🇦🇧🇭🇵🇭🇺🇸🇪🇭🇸🇩🇾🇪🇿🇲🇹🇿🇰🇷🇯🇵🇮🇪🇲🇬🇬🇾🇲🇻🇭🇳🇭🇰🇭🇰🇲🇼🇲🇼🇰🇬🇮🇲🇫🇴🇬🇾🇫🇴🇮🇸🇫🇰🇮🇹🇪🇺🇭🇺.
We are dependent upon one thing concerning this issue. Did God preserve his words like he said he would, or did he not? Stick with the ol' Bible. The new stuff can be deceiving at times. The ol' black book is not trying to deceive. It is has been translated under the inspiration of the HOLY GHOST, the new stuff is being translated under the inspiration of the love of money.
what you're saying is that God continued to write scripture after the NT was done being written. To claim God specifically inspired one translation and no other version can be considered as scripture is to say he was continuing to author scripture. Evidently, you choose a date over 1500 years after the completion of the NT as the date God stopped writing scripture...why that year? why not 1612? what about the 1769, or the 1873, or even the NKJV? All of these rely on the TR, and even are really relying more on the KJV than anything else.
If the KJV is specifically inspired, why did it include the intertestamental books in 1611?
Why is it that we're allowed to translate the texts into other languages today (french, spanish, tribal languages, anything) and those people get scripture in a language familiar to them, but no english speaker is permitted the same?
Finally, the TR only covers the new testament, so if we're dogmatic about only relying on the TR, then we don't get to read the Old Testament
@@burningbaal Then the NT translations of OT verses are not inspired? God can, and does indeed inspire translation.
I thought Dr.James White as been a brilliant Bible Scholar and theologian but David W.Daniels make circles around Dr.James White and make him look like an amateur!.In a bible (KJV vs NIV) debate between Dr.James White and David W.Daniels I could bet my house on favor of David W.Daniels, hands down he is far superior in bible knowledge and history!.
NO intelligent person takes Daniels seriously.
He is part of the CHICK tract cult and lies frequently even about nonsense that is easily refuted.
A child could disprove much of their false presentation
White is a scholar and deals in truth.
Daniels is a cultic fanatic and deals in fantasy.
To the ignorant such a obvious difference may be twisted and convoluted.
David W Daniels is full of double standards and circular reasoning. He begins with the misconception that the KJV is the standard, rather than an imperfect uninspired translation. Then he is full of double standards and circular reasoning to try and defend the indefensible which is KJV onlyism. James White who deals in the truth, would expose Mr Daniels for the false teacher and KJV only cultist he is. Also David W Daniels is from Chicktracts. Nothing from Chicktracts which is full of conspiracy theories can be trusted. Then again nothing from the KJV only cult can be trusted.
KJV has many mistranslation but it is the best we have.
incorrect read what u will lol
Amen Brother. I can give to false statements by other bibles off the top of my head. First John 3:9 Other translations say, whosoever practices sin. KJV. Says whosoever doeth not sin, because HIS Seed, Ephesians 1:13, remaineth in him, and He can not sin, the Holy Spirit because he is born of God.
And John 3:thirty six. They exchange believe for obey. If we had to obey every word of God to be saved, no one would be saved. And we would not need a savior. Thank God for grace. Romans 11:six. Jesus paid it all and we paid 0. IT IS FREE, or not at all, because no man can pay his own sin debt. John 3:18. John six:47 Jesus said it, we believe it, and that settles it. First John 5:13
For me, Romans 8:1 is key. The modern versions truncate this verse, destroying its meaning and the flow of thought from Romans 7 to 8. Just about every commentary on Romans adopts the assumption, without any proof, that the ending of the verse was accidentally copied from verse 4 below. I think this is done because of doctrinal bias due to the typical translation of katakrima as "condemnation". Such commentaries unfortunately support the critical text here and cast doubt on God's word. The full verse is the original.
Since Christ was condemned by God for us (For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:) how can there be any condemnation left over? Didn't Christ take ALL of our condemnation? Thus, the verse is held by most commentaries to be a categorical statement about "position" in Christ instead of "state", or our actual behavior that was just being discussed in Romans 7. They see an abrupt change in topic in 8:1.
Yet Paul uses the word "gar" meaning "because" in verse 2 to establish the reason there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus (but only those walking after the Spirit). It is because he (Paul uses the personal word "me" connecting this to his statement of thanks on 7:25) had been set free from the law of sin and death by the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus.
The issue is the KJV (and most others) translate both krima and katakrima as "condemnation". The word "katakrima" is only used 3 times in the NT and all 3 are in Romans. Paul's use of "katakrima" in Romans 8 has to be the same as in Romans 5.
I'm not sure I agree with everything Zane Hodges wrote in his Romans commentary, but I was convinced regarding his understanding of "katakrima". It means, as stated by the standard reference BDAG, "penal servitude". The intensifying force of "kata" here means "down". The "condemnation" in 8:1 is the penalty handed down in Romans 5, which is penal servitude to the law of sin and death.
"Kjv is the only accurate translation" -that's specifically based on which verse?
Thats your strongest argument???
Justin h - yes, where in the Bible does it say the Kjv is the inspired word of God?
Based on no verse at all. Just a delusion from the KJV only cult
If salvation is by Faith alone why does it matter what Version I use? I agree its by Faith alone, so why does it matter if I prefer a EVS or NASB? I dont think you all make this into a salvation issue like the heretic Steven Anderson does right? Because I am not going to Use the KJV... I will use the MEV or NKJV, matter of fact I was saved using a NKJV. I simply can not read and comprehend the Letters of Paul in the KJV, and will not waste time trying when I can use something different. Please do not make KJV only into a salvation issue or you become just like the Lordship Salvation crowd you claim are wrong.
Versions of the Bible is not needed for salvation.
*_HOWEVER_*
I use the 1611 KJV because...
1. I feel the Holy Spirit strongly whenever I read the KJV
2. Verses are missing from modern translations
3. “wELL, tHe nEw tRaNsLatiOnS mAtCh uP wiTh moDeRn vOcAbuLary!” Well, back in the 1950’s - 1970’s, their vocabulary nearly matched up with today’s. So why the need? Why are “modern translations” popping up recently? End times is the answer.
I've watched this before - but came back today because my heart is heavy. Years ago, God opened my eyes to the truth that the KJB is His true Word. I was ignorant & I had been taught by false teachers in false churches.
I've been at peace about this for years - & Brother Arnold teaches in a way that is easy to understand. I love all his sermons.
The saddest thing to me, is that Christians are deceived about modern per-versions as I call them. I don't even refer to the King James as a version, just THE King James Bible.
It actually astounds me that people who've been Christian's for years, still cannot understand this, when it's SO clear & so simple.
You can have all the Bible knowledge in the world, but if you can't grasp that satan has sold you lies, about God's Holy Word, & you refuse to accept the truth about the KJB vs the per-versions, what good is that knowledge?
God warns us we are not to add or subtract to His Word, yet some believers deny, that all the missing verses, & words put in that change meaning, mean corrupt Bibles!
It breaks my heart & I've lost friends & had people attack me over the KJB. I will NEVER change my mind. I will always believe the KJB is the only true Bible.
Jesus said He IS the Word, how many Bibles did He mean? How many Bibles did he preserve? That makes Him a liar, & I know my God is no liar!
You used a lot of words to show you have no idea what you are talking about. Since when was the KJV the standard? It is nothing but an imperfect uninspired translation. Translated by baby sprinkling Anglicans, fallible men, like everyone. Who did their best with the few later manuscripts dedicated to the Pope that they used. Besides using the Catholic Latin Vulgate. What is so sad, is that there is this KJV only cult. Even sadder the gullible people who fall for this false teaching. A man made tradition that nullifies the word of God. Thank you Lord we have far better more accurate modern translations. In English we can understand, just as Almighty God wants us to.
KJV ONLY
The arguments about bible translations is not strong enough. Concerning different word changes in the bibles are not wrong. The only differences is in which manuscripts that is being referred to. If this gentleman knew Hebrew, he would know that Morningstar is the correct word. Lucifer is Latin translation of the Hebrew word. There are many things that can say about this.
But my point is if this man knew Hebrew and Greek he would see the truth.
Jesus came to divide not to bring peace.
Jesus came to fulfill multiple prophecies. First: to divide the jews (separate the workers of iniquity from the faithful followers) , and then to die on the cross for the sins of the world in order to save us and bring us all together, through faith.
@@lucashack5318 Also to fulfill the law
@@whitewolf836 Amen
all other r Westcott hurt catholic based whorish writ
Dear Dr. Ralph Yankee Arnold,
The only way someone can assert that the KJV is a totally accurate English translation of the Word of God, is if they never study the Word of God in the original languages. I am aware that the vast majority of KJV Only Supporters hardly ever study the Word of God in the language of the autographs, therefore they can not make such a statement, with any real authority.
Dr. Ralph Yankee Arnold I would be interesting in how you explain the translation errors in the KJV. In this situation, I consider a mistranslation to be an example in the English text of the KJV, were the meaning of the original text was not adequately rendered from the original language (in this situation, from the Hebrew, Aramaic and the Greek texts of God's Word) into the English text of the KJV. The presence of mistranslations in the KJV, distorts the meaning God is trying to communicate in His Word.
When confronted with the idea of translation errors in the KJV, most KJV Only Supporters use the denial method, or the method of ignoring the mistranslations. Resorting to either of these methods does not make the mistranslation magically disappear. Many are unwilling to honestly and scholarly confront the issue, because it offends their faith in deeply rooted traditions of man. I have become convinced that many KJV Only Supporters are more loyal to their tradition of the KJV that they are towards the Word of God. I am also convinced that this disrespect of the true of God's Word and loyalty towards the traditions of man in the KJV, grieves the Holy Spirit. As a Christian educator, who is deeply concerned about the education of the body of Jesus Christ, His church, this also deeply saddens me. Saddly, truth over tradition, does not appear to be a major concern to some Christians.
A few examples of mistranslations of the Word of God, in the KJV.
Acts 14:12 - KJV mistranslated the names of the gods used to refer to Paul and Barnabas.
Δία and Ἑρμῆν is NOT, Jupiter and Mercurius ! KJV is wrong God's Word is correct !
Gal. 2:21 - KJV uses the wrong verb tense. "ἀπέθανεν" does not mean "is dead" and Christians
do not believe Jesus Christ is dead. We do believe He died (aorist tense), like the
Word of God proclaims. Yes, we Christians believe God selected the very words, and
even the very tenses of the words, He wanted to be used in His Word, so we don't think
we have the right to change what God said in His Word.
2 Tim. 3:16 - KJV fails to render the literal translation of "θεόπνευστος" and waters down
the nature of the Word of God. Many Christians are "inspired" of God to give
wonderful, uplifting, sermons, songs, etc. But these actions that are inspired of God,
are emphatically not "θεόπνευστος" (God breathed) as the Scriptures teach in
2 Tim. 3:16, about the nature of Scripture. I chose to stand by what God said about
Scripture and avoid using theological words ("inspiration of God") that have their
origins in Roman Catholic Theology. I want the literal words.
I don't know what discipline your "Dr." is in, but serious students of God's Word should be aware of these issues, because they study the Word of God at a deeper level than those who casually study God's Word at a superficial level.
In you label yourself a "Dr." in the context of commenting on Bibliology, then you should be proficient enough in the Biblical languages to compare these mistranslations with the text of the KJV, so you can become aware of the problems with your assertion (that the KJV is an accurate English translation of the Word of God). Please, be a good Berean and check these things out so you can see for yourself.
If you disagree and contend that these examples are not mistranslations, then give objective, evidential support, from a scholarly perspective, to contend for your assertion.
God's Word is Truth even when the KJV disagrees with God's Word.
DZ
“Despite the claims of Westcott and Hort and Von Soden we don’t know the original form of the gospels and it is likely that we never shall.” Kristop Lake - famous Greek textual critic.
"Eusebius corrupted the bible on orders from Constantine."
Absolutely ludicrous.
The corruption introduced by Eusebius was described by Frederick Nolan in 1815 in his "Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testament". It is without controversy that Eusebius produces a version for Constantine. In fact Tischendorf, the discover of the Sinaiticus manuscript believed that both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus may have been part of these 50 manuscripts. So, the assertion here is not a new one. See the wikipedia article "Fifty Bibles of Constantine". Depending on how you read that statement, it may or may not be speculative. Constantine ordered the bibles. Eusebius produced them and his version introduced variations (corruptions). It is not know that Constantine or Eusebius willfully introduced corruption, but Nolan makes the case that Eusebius preferred readings that followed Origen's doctrine.
Hey King James Oniyists... how could the Israelites have been in Egypt for 430 years when your Bible says that Kohath, Amram and Moses only total up to 350?
Why does Stephen say 75 people came into Egypt in the New Testament, but your Old Testament says 70?
Why are the Apostles and Jesus using an Old Testament that completely disagrees with your Jewish Pharisee Old Testament?
there should have been their, in my comment below.
Good grief, you had to mention that?
question, do you believe that the King James Bible is the
equivalent to all the old and new testament that was first written?
because if so, then that is true faith in the preservation of the word of God
if not, what kind of hypocrite show you think you're making?
As far as English gos yes ,but I don't think thay knew Hebrew that well,for example the word God says to moses Ehyeh means ,shell be in Hebrew there is no word for I am it doesn't exist.
@Samson wait are you saying an English translation is better then the Torah aka original Hebrew
Just Compare First John 3:9 KJV against the new corrupted bibles that tell you to be saved if you live right. If we are saved we aught to live right, but living right never saved anybody. Salvation by works never works. Salvation by grace is the only salvation there is. Romans 11:6. But not for the self righteous Pharisees who believe they are so good God is going to accept them on their own merit. Matthew 7:21-23 They trust in what they do to save them, instead of the FINISHED work of Christ. They have not done the will of God. John 6:40. John 6:28-29.
I'm glad you did sermons on this because it is a serious issue. It is mind blowing how different the modern translations are from the KJV. I've recently discovered that KJV and previous (Geneva, etc.) are reliable but modern translations (NKJV and forward) have a lot of errors. I stay WAY away from the niv. The new world translation is horrific, too.
Do It Like The Bereans
The New World translation is the Jehovah Witness bible.
Christine Baker I did not know that. Scary.
Love my brilliant NIV.
calvinist ,smalvinist ! calvinism ? the word didn`t exist until 1850 with KARK MARX ! then communism ! so now we put the word on John Calvin - Calvinism ! sooooo ?
57 years or more it doesn't matter. The King James Bible is as mistranslated as all other bibles.
Fact is, no document can be perfectly translated from one language to another and than includes the holy scriptures. There is no inspired English version of the Bible! I use the KJV and recognize that it is not an inspired translation. It is a pretty good translation but like all translations contains translational errors. Therefore, we go to the Hebrew and Greek for more depth and detail. The King James Only movement leads to some very wrong Biblical Doctrine.
Give me an example of a translational error in the KJV please.
@@garvenstore The very first verse, Gen 1:1. The word heaven in the KJV is singular yet in the Hebrew it is plural. The scriptures speak of three heavens not one. There are multiple errors in the KJV.
By The Way, I use the KJV as my primary English translation as I consider it one of the best translations. However, I regularly consult the Hebrew and the Greek.
@@garvenstore The very first verse, Gen 1:1. The word heaven in the KJV is singular yet in the Hebrew it is plural. The scriptures speak of three heavens not one. There are multiple errors in the KJV.
@@normchristopherson5799It looks singular to me, but I don't speak fluent Hebrew. So you must be smarter than the 50 translators of the bible? Very arrogant.
@@garvenstore1801 I am confused. How is being educated in the original languages a matter of arrogance?
I believe the KJV is the best we have in English. I do Not believe it is without error. The preserved word of God that is without error are the original texts that the KJV is translated from. Since I don't read Hebrew and Greek I will stick with the KJV. I use to read the NASB until I started to doubt the trinity. Then I went back to my KJV and learned that 1 John 5:7 is very cleverly left out of the NASB. I don't doubt the trinity anymore and I'm back reading the KJV. ~ For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)
KJV only, has become a cult and this is VERY DANGERous. One pastor I watched for a very short time stated in a message that if you weren't KJV only you couldn't have any part in the ministry of his church. Even operating the cameras. This is wrong. These people are born again believers. WE cannot treat each other this way. Honestly I think the KJV only cult is a product of satan to drive people AWAY from the KJV because it makes KJV followers out to be a bunch of nuts. ~~ You CAN be saved reading other translations of the bible absolutely. And yes it's ok to tell other people why you believe the KJV is the best available, but to come between them and the Holy Spirit and to not allow the Holy Spirit to lead them to the translation he wants them to use is very dangerous in my opinion. Yet some "Christians" act like if you read the NIV it's just as bad as using and ouiiji board, and you ain't going to be doing any ministry in their church. Church this has gone too far. No wonder this topic causes so much debate. Yes I believe with all my heart that the KJV is the best we got, and I will not back down and use a different translation. The church that I attend is a KJV church. Not a KJV only cult. We use the KJV for public reading and pew Bibles. The messages are taught in the KJV, but adult Sunday School is always a mix of different translations and no one is looking down on anyone else. Once every 5 years or so our pastor gives a message on why he believes KJV is the best and as a church we leave it there. We teach, we educate, and let the Lord do the leading of the flock in regard to Bible translations.
Thank you for your comment. As one who has been on ‘milk’ for too long, I am blessed with more undistracted time to study the word. (Newly retired) During this time the question of Osas has come into my world, along with the differing bible translations. As far as bible translations I have done a very brief study on the history of the bible and translations, I find it disquieting to say the least. I so want to know God’s one truth not only for myself but also for others-as how do we fulfill the great commission if there is no agreement within the body of Christ? In my brief study of differing translations what came to me is some say ‘saved’ others say being saved, which leads me to believe that some say that salvation is an event and others say it is a process? At this point in my studies I am more convinced that salvation is an event, once one truly believes they are saved, sealed by the Holy Spirit and promised eternal life. Jn 3:16 For this reasons the translations that say salvation is a process I don’t find rest reading them.
Many years ago when I had questions about the Bible I asked one of my patients (I was a nurse) who was a biblical scholar something about the bible, don’t recall the specific question, but he said remember the two greatest commandments and left it at that. His word have stuck with me during this long time of me being on ‘milk’.
Our Father knows my struggles-sometimes I just want to stay on milk, as all these differing interpretations of the Bible, differing interpretations of doctrine etc etc is causing me unrest, and an inability to be as one in Christ within the body of Christ.
I can’t imagine our Father is pleased.
Father forgive us, show us your way.
1 Cor 13:12
I have recently decided to take a break from the church I was attending b/c it uses the NIV-being saved version. Also talked to someone who has been involved in BSF for many years, she does believes we are saved not being saved, yet apparently BSF uses the NIV. Honestly I sometimes just want to join a monastery or just be left alone to hear the Holy Spirit without all these different interpretations. Forgive me Father.
KJV IS THE PURE WORD OF GOD IM A FILIPINO AND TAGALOG BIBLE IS
CORRUPTED AND GOD LEAD ME TO READ KJV BIBLE I BELIEVE THAT GOD USE ENGLISH LANGUAGE TO PRESERVE HIS WORD BECAUSE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IS THE MOST SPOKEN UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE OF THIS WORLD EVEN ANY NATIONALITY READ KJV BIBLE BACAUSE KJV BIBLE IS PURE WORD PRAISE LORD JESUS CHRIST FOR HIS REVEAL TRUTH PRESERVE PURE WORD, KJV AROUND THE WORLD 🌎 🇯🇵🇬🇾🇲🇬🇮🇸🇲🇼🇮🇩🇱🇦🇭🇰🇱🇺🇭🇰🇲🇻🇱🇺🇮🇷🇮🇹🇲🇻🇮🇱🇲🇾🇲🇬🇱🇦🇯🇵🇮🇩🇱🇸🇵🇭🇺🇸🇼🇫🇸🇾🇸🇷🇿🇲🇾🇪🇸🇷🇪🇭🇸🇷🇰🇷🇯🇵🇮🇪🇭🇰🇱🇺🇭🇰🇸🇷.
Before anyone buys into this king james only nonsense make sure you know how translations work, how are they translated, what manuscripts are being used, how did the textus receptus come about? do research. A king james only person will always just give one side of the story. Chek out the old debate on king james onlyism, search on youtube for: Ankerberg KJV Discussion Complete Scholars' Position
Its almost 4 hours long but its a fair debate. not 10 KJV only guys vs one that is not or vice versa.
Should these corrupted bibles be burned?
11: 14 - "This is the gospel (in Aramaic) which is preached unto you." Parenthesis mine.
This is interesting - for so far there has NOT been ONE word spoken as to WHY the KJB belongs in the church today - anything stated so far applies to EVERY translation - even the NWT. This preachers did a GREAT job of destroying the KJO cult's favorite verse - Psalm 12: 7 - and actually was HONEST that it referred to PEOPLE, not words - and backed that up with additional scripture - BUT not a WORD to defend the KJB so far.
FOREVER settled in Heaven? ABSOLUTELY - BUT NOT on earth, and most certainly NOT the KJB with its corrupt foundation for corrupt texts and corrupt translation.
YES, GOD inspired the words of scripture - in the originals - and man has corrupted them ever since - GOD COULD have preserved them; He chose NOT to - just as he COULD have preserved the earth - but chose NOT to.
Only one bible that is pure. The pure King James Bible. All others have bitter water. So they are corrupt. Matthew five :22 Is Jesus really in danger of judgment? They removed "without a cause" making the bible a bitter pill to swallow.
I could see his position if everything he said was true, but much of what he proposes is completely false. For example. The Majority text and the TR are not the same text. The Majority Text would require over 1800 corrections to the TR. The Antioch vs Alexandrian line of manuscripts is false as well. The manuscripts were all over the known world and beyond. You can really only trace a manuscript to where you found it unless there's documented history of it.
You state the Antioch vs Alexandrian line is "false", yet that is a position that is still believed by the textual critics. Read any introduction on textual criticism over the last 150+ years and you will see I am correct. The Antioch line is most commonly called the Byzantine and used to be called the "Syrian", etc. "Families" of texts is still the leading theory. The numbers of families thought to exist changes, but nothing changes in that the Antioch line represents to bulk of the Greek manuscripts. Can you give a single "authority" that agrees with your assertion in writing? You are the one misrepresenting the fact here. If you are correct, why is it that the vast majority of Greek manuscript witnesses to a reading get a single designation "MT" in the NA apparatus? That "Majority Text" reference is the Antioch line.
You should know that the terms "Majority Text" and "Textus Receptus" are terms that are sometimes used interchangeably. See above where NA uses "Majority Text" to represent the family some call the Received Text or Textus Receptus. Yes, you are correct that the HF and the RP "Majority Text" is not the same as the Textus Receptus, but they represent the Byzantine text. And their agreement with the text underlying the KJV, or more that matter, Scrivener's 1881 TR or Stephens' 1550 TR is much greater than the CT.
@ 33:45 he LIES by saying “translated from the original manuscripts.”
1. How does he know that?
2. ...from Mss less than 500 years earlier?
3. Seems he forgot Christ walked the earth over 1500 before the “1611!”
Clearly that's not what he meant. He was meaning "from manuscripts of the original languages"
Good grief
1 Corinthians 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
The so called "scholars", "disputers", and "wise men", have been made foolish by Gods word, the KJV bible. They don't have a bible, just their own opinions.
Matthew 7:29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
So you trust the scholars who translated the KJV? Yet you don't trust them when they say their work was not perfect. So really you have nothing more than an opinion. An opinion that disagrees with KJV translators. More double standards from the KJV only cult,
and after the KJV ws translated, an older greek manuscript copy was discovered which is a more accurate manuscript and the newer bible translations are from the older more accurate Greek manuscripts. And yes His word will be preserved ..and no translator to whatever bible will take away God's power. The KJV is not God's original words because there ws no English in the original manuscript..so KJ will never be an exact copy of Gods original word ( word for word) as no original manuscript exist anymore
3:17 - Jesus promised to PRESERVE every single word in the Bible - WHERE? TRUE, every word of GOD is important - BUT God NEVER spoke a word of English - we are NOT arguing over what GOD/JESUS said - but HOW those words were transmitted and translated into OUR language - ENGLISH.
And at 4:35 he goes further and claims even the word order is inspired - ONLY in the original languages - and IF you try to translated GREEK word order into English you HAVE to make a LOT of assumptions.
The KJ translators were unaware of some important rules of Greek Grammar (GSR for example) which is why they were so weak on the Divinity of Christ, for example, allowing the JWs to form their theology of Christ from the KJB.
This is the philosophy of man - there is NOTHING inspired about the KJ or any translation - and of the popular translations today the KJB is obviously one of the poorest and least scholarly and translated from the poorest of texts.
Mediocre scholars under imperial mandate NOT to offend the rules of engagement laid down by a sodomite king using Catholic texts are NOT likely to create as honest and spiritual a translation as men whose sole purpose is to make a plain and honest translation for the glory of GOD and the edification of His people.
The KJB translators were well educated in the other languages. JW have their own version which is based off the same underlying text as the other modern versions.
@@JohnnyAGraves Absolutely correct!
God never spoke a word of English? The God you serve is an idol.
Just a heads up: GOD can and does speak English.
+@@AnHebrewChild
MY you major in ignorance.
The CONTEXT was SCRIPTURE - and NO scripture EVER was given in ENGLISH - Give your head a shake - IT was give in Hebrew, Aramaic and GREEK - NOT a WORD of SCRIPTURE was ever given by GOD in ENGLISH.
NO ENGLISH Bibles can possibly be inspired - at BEST the ENGLISH Bible is a translation of the original revelations - and ALL translations include corruptions.
"God never spoke a word of English? The God you serve is an idol.
Lovingly, YOU are an idiot!!
"Just a heads up: GOD can and does speak English."
OF course - BUT NOT in SCRIPTURE.
Think - THEN post.
It causes a LOT less embarrassment.
Yankee Arnold is wrong. The King James Version of the Bible is flawed. It contains many translation errors. The original Greek and Hebrew are the standard as to what is the word of God, not the KJV.
Michael, it is clear that you have not listened to all four messages all the way thru. I believe you jumped the gun. I do not believe the translators of the KJV were inspired. I believe the KJV is the best translation because of the manuscripts used. That is my choice. I use it for the same reason Ray Stanford did and Dr. Mark Cameron did at the old FBC. It was required there also. Other people are free to use whatever version they choose, but so am I. Are you against others who claim their translation is better, or just me? If you cannot support Florida Bible College of Tampa because we use the KJV, are you against everyone who uses it? Should I change because so many others have changed to newer versions? I honestly felt we would be supported by prayer and encouragement because we are teaching from the same Word of God, teaching the students to love the Lord, and share the gospel. I haven't changed, so sad to see so many others who have. I continue to covet only the Lord's approval, but I do still covet your prayers concerning the things we do right. Yankee
what original Greek?
The Vaudois
Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s AD. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said.John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today.
Who Has the Most to Gain? Who Has the Most to Lose?
The evidence of history shows us that the Roman Catholic religion was relentless in its effort to destroy the Vaudois and their Bible. It took them until the 1650s to finish their hateful attacks. But the Vaudois were successful in preserving God's words to the days of the Reformation.
Now we have to ask ourselves a question: Who had the most to gain by adding to or taking away from the Bible? Did the Vaudois, who were being killed for having their Bibles, have anything to gain by adding to or taking from the words of God? Compromise is what the Roman religion wanted! Had the Vaudois just followed the popes, their lives would have been much easier. But they counted the cost. This was not politics; it was their life and soul. They above all people would not want to change a single letter of the words they received from Antioch of Syria. And they paid for this with their lives.
What about the "scholars" at Alexandria, Egypt? We already know about them. They could not even make their few 45 manuscripts agree. How could we believe they preserved God's words?
The Reformation itself owes a lot to these Christians in the French Alps. They not only preserved the Scriptures, but they show to what lengths God would go to keep his promise (Psalm 12:6-7).
And that's only part of the story about the preservation of God's words
@@livingwater7580 Excellent factual points!!! 👍
I can only pity anyone ignorant enough to read the KJV. It's the worst translation of all time.