I was starting to rethink my choice in bible the KJV. But after hearing intently at the interviews, I know now what you are saying. YOU HAVE ME TOTALLY CONFUSED 🤷♀️ and that’s what God warms us about. God came for the simple not the scholar I stick to where God leads me taking heed not to fall for every doctrine
Mr. White doesn’t say you need to rethink reading the KJV. He holds it up as one of the best translations. All he is saying is that the modern translations, are also God’s word, and that the KJV is not the only credible english bible translation. Keep going with your trusted KJV, and seeking God daily. God bless.
@@WuklesModern translations are from hell. They make Jesus out to be a liar, deceitful, and more. It has to be the KJV. If it's not the KJV, it's not a bible.
To Whom It Concerns: Some say that the 1611 KJV of the Bible has 14 or 15 more books (Not verses but BOOKS!) than succeeding Authorized versions. Yet, the absence of whole swaths of this original 1611 material in newer KJV editions is not that notable! Yet, the claim that other versions have endured the removal of certain verses, words and maybe even paragraphs, elicits accusations of heinous apostasy as emanating from the pages of these Bibles of different publishers. One wonders how that can be?
This short and powerful interview made me love the Bible, God’s Word, all the more. I have often struggled with the “My sheep hear my voice,” passage, wondering if I ever really did hear a human voice calling my name, would I recognize Jesus? But as Dr. White said, regeneration causes one to love the Word of God and also causes a desire to obey. I shall no longer wonder if I have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, as I do both love His Word and strive within myself to obey. Thank you for this powerful interview. It soothes my heart and empowered me with His Spirit. I am off to do some more listening in His Word.
The problem I see in your statement your quoting James white as your final authority about your position in Christ and your walking by sight not faith.
If you like the ESV you need to compare to the king James Bible the king James Bible is what you call biblical English the ESV is an American Bible it’s not an English Bible it’s really written by a bunch of Calvinist they took the RV and updated it and make the ESV there’s many mistakes lies and things are not true and that it’s a piece of garbage you need to compare that to the king James Bible and see the difference
😂You’re a funny person!! I had seen this before but was coming to watch it again to learn more, and now after I read your comment now I’m literally busting a gut every 30 seconds when he interjects with “Wooow”, and “whoah” and “wow” and “WOW!” 🤣👍
KJV is still my favorite but now , after years of going back and forth and listening to other on the subject of KJV onlyism,, I understand there are other translations that are just fine.
There is not an intelligent thinking Christian alive today, that does not already HATE Dr. White because he is reformed, and is knowledgeable about Dr. Jordan Peterson, that can tell me that Jordan has anything over him in brilliance. Can SOMEBODY PLEASE get them to sit down and talk sometime please?!?!!? I’d PAY 💰 TO SEE THIS HAPPEN!!! 🙏
Thanks for this interview. Nice and short with deep things to ponder. I liked the interviewer's enthusiasm, too. I learnt a lot of Scripture as a child through song in the 80s (Songs of Praise book), so I still recite some verses as the old King James -- it's got a special place in my heart. But I'm so thankful for the ESV and NAS. "Love of money is THE root of ALL evil" made me doubt the Bible and God for a long time, many years ago (most the evil acts on the news were due to jealousy, pride, rage, affairs -- nothing to do with money).
That's why females in Christianity are not mean't to teach or lead men. Females are quite slow in some ways when it comes to scripture details and technicalities. God did not design the female mind to expound the scriptures. The "ALL" in that verse is saying that the love money is the root of 'every type' of evil. "ALL" covers 'type', or we could say - every 'form' of evil. The love of money has been the root of every form of evil ever committed, but's it's not the only reason that evil has been committed. God be with you.
I'm an Agnostic Atheist and I tremendously respect James White a lot. He's a great guy honestly, even though I might disagree with him on if God exists or not, and on social issue and stuff, but he is a really smart guy and he helps me understand Christian beliefs.
Philip Paul Well duh. I’m talking preaching from a vocational, pulpit position. I think that’s entirely nonsensical and a huge part of the reason why KJV-Onlyism has such an enormous presence today
In the Bibles we have....and bibles of other languages....and the manuscripts we have......come on. duh. no where does God promise to have ONLY one place to go for His word.
I like the KJV because its the Bible God put in my hands when I was born again..but then I thought it did not matter what bible I read.. but one day I saw a piece on the KJV..and the other new age bibles.. I thought no that can not be true..but I went and looks and sure enough.. Jesus in the NIV that I was reading had taken the Only Begotten Son of God and turned him into the one and only Son of God.. which of course is a lie.. not a mistake..and Mary in the new age bibles became a young woman instead of a virgin.. then I looked and sure enough some of the new age ones were calling Jesus a sinner.. because he was often angry.. if your angry at your brother your a sinner.. and they did that by taking out just three little words.. for no reason... if your angry at your brother for no reason.. why did they do that.? Think its a mistake? But the strangest thing and the one thing I did not believe was that I was told that trying to take these new age bibles out of the hands of ministers and their followers would be almost impossible..I said no way.. as soon as they see that they took out Unicorn alone will be enough.. the Unicorn is a one horned Rhino.. I know that because Science was more faithful than the new age bibles they still call the rhino the Unicornus.. this must be what God meant when he said not to change one word. You see I want to know I am reading Gods word.. No one said lets change Shakespeare to make it easier to read.. it would lose its poetry and beauty and meaning
Thank you for saying it. It is true.. I lost time reading the new latest and greatest new English version and lost some joy trying to figure out what was wrong with it and comparing bible texts. I wasted 45 days. I put it up on the shelf and returned to my old trusted bible.
Remember the king James Bible is what you call biblical English it’s written that way because that’s the way it has to be translated from the Hebrew and Greek if you do it any other way it not correct
New age Bibles 😂😂😂😂😂. Usual ignorance from a KJV only cultist. As someone quite rightly said, KJV onlyism is an idolatrous poison. Also it is a new age cult, taught by false teachers. Thank God for better translations.
At the time it was written He was the one and only son. We are not adopted into the kingdom until we are saved. It is through faith that we are called children of God.
Reason 2) Other Versions are more confusing by taking out Thee, Thy, You, etc thus ignoring the original languages and the plural and singular forms. The other translations take out the Thou, Thee, Ye, You and replace everything with you. It is important as in the Greek, Chaldean, Hebrew etc, there were plural forms of these words. So the King James translators put this into the translations. If you were teaching a class and said "you need to get the worksheet done." Are you speaking to one student, or all students? It could be one that you earlier told to get the worksheet done, or the whole group. We would need context. The ESV adds footnotes to supplement these things, the NIV takes the plural and singular out completely, the NASB tried to make it in 77 as if the Thee and Thou were reverent talking to God. Thee, Thou, Thy, Thine in the King James indicate Singular, Ye, You, Your indicate plural in the King James. That is the reason these are there. John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. Jesus is talking to Nicodemus and he says, marvel not that I say unto thee (singular talking to Nicoldemus), ye (plural) must be born again. So he states that everyone must be born again and Nicodemus shouldn't marvel at it. In Joshua 1 King James Version 1 Now after the death of Moses the servant of the Lord it came to pass, that the Lord spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying, 2 Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel. 3 Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses. God addresses Joshua (thou) and all this people. He is supposed to lead them. v 2 Every place the sole of your foot v3. This means that any Israelites' foot will mark the land given to Israel, Not just Joshua's foot. 5 There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee. Verse 5 starts a group of many promises with T words. Joshua as the leader will not have anyone stand before him as a leader like Moses. In the King James Translation, the translators were men of prayer that spoke many languages (some well over FIFTEEN) and spent hours a day in prayer. So, they were humble men of God that would not promote their work for profit, no doubt as they knew that God's word warned of such things. So if your versions says you. Is it talking to one person
@@davidemme2344 Sorry for your troubles with your injuries. I grew up on the King James Bible. It is written at about a 5th grade level. I don't mean any disrespect (with the comment on 5th grade - most other versions are at a higher level). The other versions have plenty of difficult words. Daniel 6:1 in King James talks about PRINCES other versions use Satraps or Officials. A prince is something kids understand. That is just and example. The main reason to use the KJB would be that it came from the 5000+ manuscripts that were preserved through the church age by the Lord. The modern versions MEV, NIV, NKJV et al.....these all use the CRITICAL TEXTS (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus). All versions may have some of the word of God. The King James came from the preserved manuscripts through the Lord's preservation. There are other manuscripts used for those modern versions. Bottom line: what are you trusting for salvation? So many trust Faith + Works (Calvinists, Catholics, Arminians). I have trusted Christ's finished work on the cross. He offers a free gift to those who will believe in him for forgiveness of sins. No works needed, just faith in Christ for this wretched sinner. Romans 4:5 “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”
@davidemme2344 Also you didn't answer my question. In John three in your version, Since it only says you and in context he is only talking to Nicodemus, Either you read into the text and assume. He means everybody in your version, or you're honest with good hermeneutics. And he's only talking to Nic And only he needs to be born again. I will stick with the Bible that came from the original transcripts. Not the ones from the gnostics in alexandria. Blessings
Just skimming through the comments here I see that there is more heat being shown than light. Everything from calling people liar, heretic, deceiver, going away from the truth. It indicates to me that God must work on people's hearts to reflect Jesus and to stop using such inflammatory language. Please stop the character smears as well. It reflects badly on you as well as the body of Christ.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, HOWEVER THE BIBLE TELLS US TO REBUKE ALL FORMS OF EVIL AND HERESY, TO EXPOSE CORRUPTION, SO IF THE PROBLEM IS THIS: IF YOUR NOT DOING THIS, THEN YOUR SAYING ITS OK FOR THE EVIL TO CONTINUE, AND ITS NOT OK FOR HERESY TO HAVE ANY PLACE IN SOCIETY LIKE CULTS THAT PROFESS TO BE CHRISTIAN, BUT ARE NOT AS AN EXAMPLE. THERE ARE ONLY 2 CHOICES: EXPOSE THEM OR SIT BACK AND SAY OR DO NOTHING. THERE IS NO IN BETWEEN HERE. PLEASE READ YOUR BIBLE AND LET THAT BE YOUR FINAL AUTHORITY! DON'T LET THE "OFFENDED WEAKLY HERETICS" CONVINCE YOU OTHERWISE!
I have learn't much from James White too. Especially on textual transmission and that we can trust The Bible more than any other book in history! Unlike the cultic KJV Only people who apply double standards and curse anyone who disagrees with their view which makes a mockery of Jesus Christ and His Followers!
Good interview. I have always found it disturbing when people say any bible apart from kJv is of the devil. This is the belief of many seven day Adventist
No you were incorrect the early Christians in the Baptist and the people from 14 1516 century all believe the king James Bible is the word of God not just a Seventh-day Adventist you need to catch up on your history dude
KJV Onlyists act and think more like a cult does. They act separatist and elitist, acting like they have more knowledge of the Bible than other Christians and keep to themselves, even away from other discerning, Bible believing Christians, often seem to act like they are too good to be around other God fearing Christians. They often have horrible Bible interpretation, making up things when the Bible doesn't have support of and often church history hasn't supported whatever it is they interpret. And I have caught them many times taking Bible verses out of context over and over. Many claim your walk with God will only improve if you use a KJV Bible. They make up strict rules with no real Bible support. They seem afraid of independent, career driven women and expect all women to be housewives. They have legalistic rules almost no other churches have. They all seem to be against something harmless that no other Christian worries about but them because of bad research. Their churches preach against Catholic's and yet, plenty of their churches have had sexual and emotional abuses. KJV Onlyists seem to see conspiracy in everything. They always insult people who question them with name calling or judging them by what they like. And they always act sarcastic and have a know it all attitude, even though plenty of good Bible teachers have and will put them in their place. If this isn't cultish behavior, then what is it? Reading the KJV does not give anyone an advantage. Verses that appear missing or changed have been explained many times.
+Adam Bears +Paul Robinson did I say I was KJV only anywhere in my comment? Nope. Careful with your assumptions. " NOT directed at you . . . ;-p) Sheesh - mhave I been on this trip for two years?
I would highly recommend Gail Riplinger and her infamous book "New Age Bibles" and Dr. Ruckman "Scholarship Only controversy" White is totally exposed.
There is no “disjunction” whatsoever in Titus 2 v13, in the KJV. Using “and” in an English sentence without a comma joins the two things. White is really grasping at straws here. He also uses his favorite trick of going full strawman ad hominem immediately, by claiming that KJVO people “attack others” or say that others aren’t “accessing God” without using the KJV. Nobody of any credibility is making such statements, and 9 out of 10 times the first attack in these videos and comments is against KJVO people, who are called “cultists”, or worse routinely. I have two main questions for Mr White: 1) Have you gone to codexsinaiticus.org and viewed the high resolution images of the manuscript that all modern versions are based on? What is your explanation for why the 44 pages Tischendorf stole are lily white, while the rest of the manuscript is darkened and aged looking, as people testified only a few years later, and you can see for yourself online? And which of the crossouts, overwrites, marginal additions, duplications, and outright mistakes in sinaiticus are the preserved Word of God? 2) Where can I find the preserved Word of God? Which version, translation, manuscript, *in any language* contains God’s preserved words, that we can access and read today?
The Aryans of Granville Sharpes day agreed with the KJV in those two areas in their defense of denying the deity of Christ... There are Mormons who utilize it as well. Granville Sharpe's rule has been substantiated and the KJ translators would've agreed if they had known it. They were better with Latin than Greek.
I believe James White is a very intelligent and scholarly man. I have learned many things from him. the part I struggle with is that James is a Calvinist and for reasons I can't understand he doesn't apply what he knows to his belief in Calvinism.
+hongkongphooey77 Exactly. I so agree with you. I havve heard so many good sermons from Paul Washer, but they make no sense in light of him being a calvinist.
+buffalo1d unfortunately that is not true. I would challenge you to read a book called the dark side of Calvinism by George Bryson. he does and excellent job showing all the inconsistencys between what the Bible actuality says and what Calvin and Calvinist have done in twisting scripture. I know several Calvinist I love and care for them as people and pray that they would see the greater work of the cross as told in scripture over the limited and distorted interpretations of Calvin. please I'm asking you to do the research..seek God on this issue and don't just take my word on this. thanks
hongkongphooey77 Actually, Buffalo is right, but in another way than intended: 1. you have been in calvinism for a time 2. you read your Bible 3. you decide to leave calvinism 4. Then you can`t miss calvinism. It would be stupid to miss calvinism once you have discovered that it is false. So he is right. You can´t miss calvinism :)
If the KJV is a translation from Hebrew and Greek texts then presumably those texts are at least as reliable as the KJV. If those texts are 100% accurate, then another version that accurately translates the Bible into modern English using those texts should be as reliable if not better than the KJV. Am I correct?
Yes. The reality becomes that KJV-Onlyists really believe that the KJV is superior to the original languages, even if they claim they don't believe that.
The new king James Bible is a mixture of the text receptors in the corrupted text is not an updated king James Bible because all the biblical English pronouns most have been changed which makes it incorrect the king James Bible is only correct English Bible if you know what you’re talking about you wouldn’t read these are the Bibles
KJV-Onlyism is an old, idolatrous poison given a new label as “the inspired, preserved, Word-for-Word of God.” It’s pathetic. Onlyists make ZERO distinction between the material, compiled Word of God that didn’t even exist until AD 397 and the supernatural, immaterial Word that has been there since the beginning (cf. Jn. 1:1). It’s the exact same problem with scholars like Bart Ehrman and John Dominick Crossan, only worse because we’re talking about faithful people solely convinced that they’re militantly defending God. Without this distinction, we end up in hell on earth on both ends of the spectrum. Either way, it’s just not a very discernible position.
Interesting that the agnostics and Muslims on this page say they respect James White. As a Bible Believer I have Zero respect for this man who makes his living undermining the Word of God. White calls God a Liar by claiming that we do not have a pure word of God in ANY translation. God promised to preserve his word and he has - and not just in the Greek. We as believers ARE able to hold the INSPIRED WORD of God in our hands today through any translation that is based on (Majority text) Uncorrupted text. The KJV is still the best version today.
+ Rachel Petig For someone who claims White is lying, you tell a number yourself . . . "Interesting that the agnostics and Muslims on this page say they respect James White." The respect consistency and honest scholarship. Such are seldom evident in the KJO cult. " As a Bible Believer I have Zero respect for this man who makes his living undermining the Word of God." Funny, but aren't;t YOU undermining the Word of God with your false teaching, proven illogic and errant cultism? SO I have to presume that you equate being a Bible Believer with being a KJO cultist? HOW can that be logical or true? ' White calls God a Liar by claiming that we do not have a pure word of God in ANY translation." In fact White is 100% correct. Those that mock and denigrate God are those who blame the corrupt KJB on Him - those who deliberately lie in claiming there IS a "pure" word of GOD, and who heretically ASSUME there is or even COULD be a "pure " Word of God today. And that the KJB, with it numerous errors, false teaching, and corrupt history is it. " God promised to preserve his word and he has " And you have the nerve to claim WHITE is lying? IN fact your statement is a deliberate lie, based on your own opinion, NOT GOD's word. "- and not just in the Greek. We as believers ARE able to hold the INSPIRED WORD of God in our hands today" MY MY MY - more lies from someone that accused White of lying . . . YOU are simply BLINDED by your slavish devotion to your cult. "through any translation that is based on (Majority text) Uncorrupted text." A demonstrably FALSE assumption, without any rational support. "The KJV is still the best version today. " An opinion contradicted by an enormous sea of evidence. SRY for your brainwashed control by a false cult. YOU ignore the many insertions and human "improvements" written into the Bible used by the early church the deliberate errors in translation by the KJ translators, the corruption of the Catholic texts created by Catholic Theologians. dedicated to a Catholic Pope. Your "pure word" once held the birthdays of all the Catholic saints - included Purgatory-supporting Apocrypha, etc, yet this "pure word" has been revised and amended many times. Never noticed the ITALICS in your corrupted KJ Bible? GOD not sure of what he wanted to say? Which one of those many revisions was "PURE" and if any, why the italics? Is the Apocrypha God's word or not - is GOD confused? How different is your division of the Christian church over this ungodly issue than the Judaizers of the Galatian fame? How comfortable will you be explaining to GOD how you lied about and defamed a great and godly scholar because of your cults obvious errors?
1599 Geneva >KJV Whatcha gonna do about that? 1599 was translated by common Christians, KJV commissioned my the monarch king. 1599 is the Bible of the protestants and the Pilgrims that came to America. I guess my Bible is better than yours. No, they're both fine
So, let me get this straight Mr White. You don't want to use history and manuscripts to prove the Bible's superiority (but the Bible is supposed to speak for itself) but you make your living using (your slant of) history and manuscripts to discredit/undermine the Bible. You believe only the original readings were inspired and that we cannot hold in our hands an inspiration word of God today. No wonder Muslims and agnostics like Bart Ehrman respect you so. Wolf in sheep clothing. The devil comes as an angel if light.
Paul Robinson if youre talking about erasmus or stephens textus receptus sure, but the TEXT ITSELF is complied from sources much older than 325 AD, especially since the ante-nicene fathers quoted it, and they were around before 325AD. or do you also have the book "unholy hands on the bible" or "early manuscripts, church fathers, and the authorized version". so what text did the Protestants and catholics argue over in 1611?the byzantine text? the majority text?
NO, that is incorrect. methinks you confuse texus receptus with "Majority text". The TR (which was NOT published til 1631) was based on texts no older than about 1200. The ancient Greek texts were written in KOINE greek, which none of the 47 translators understood at all by their OWN statments; neither did any European scholars, INCLUDING Erasmus and Stephanus. Hence Erasmus attempted to align his Greek text with the Latin Vulgate, and in a couple places actually translated FROM the Vulgate into Greek. Bear in mind that monks, for 1000 years beginning about the 7th century, copied texts. Some were good copyists, some terrible. I have photographs of some of the very old texts that had been amended and corrected in a different hand. SO was the correction correct? Or was it extraneous? So it seems from Erasmus writings that he simply included most of the variants in his text without any serious work ascertaining which was accurate. Don't forget that he revised it 5 times; and all 5 were used in the translation of the KJ. He saw NO reason NOT to add entire sections. Which of his revisions were correct? were any? he was by any account Luther's enemy and a defender of Catholicism. Which of the 4 endings of Mark is correct? When I became a Pentecostal, my KJO Baptist friends warned me that the last chapter of mark was NOT in any of the oldest texts. Go figure. If it helped preserve the soul of ONE person they were willing to throw their mark ending under the bus. Such certainty !!! ;-)
Paul Robinson this is all very interesting, but its not what my Dean Burgon books says, nor do the 4000 plus manuscripts that give credence to the TR, are you for the westcotts and hort abomination or something? which text do you believe? have you seen Jim Browns Grace and Truth Channel? hes the only preacher i take seriously, and ofcourse thegroxt1
+Ivan MarecicI meant fell (sp. - not fail). Past tense of the verb fall, correct? Maybe I should have said, the apple did fall far from the tree. Better?
Reason 3) If Reason 1 and 2 didn't convince you I doubt this will. The KJV leads toward individual soul liberty, it leads away from false doctrines such as: Ruckmanism, Calvinism, Unitarianism, and more. I put Ruckmanism as some supposed KJV defenders fall into the name calling camp and have no desire to be humble, but want to be right. Well, I want to be right, because I want to be righteous. I don't mean to claim any false humility, but hope my presentation here is not offensive because of me as a person. If it offends, please look and I in no means want to be a name-caller. If you are offended because you have been fooled by another translation, consider that it may be pride and not wanting to admit you made a mistake. I am thankful for learning about my mistakes and praise the Lord for leading me to his Bible (yes the KJV). I put Calvinism as this rise in what people think is the doctrine of Election has confused many. It shows up greatly in the modern versions. The KJV defines election as a vocational calling. For example Israel is God's Elect. They were chosen to give the oracles of God, be a holy nation before him, and bring the messiah. But, not all Israel are saved. Election isn't a doctrine where some are saved and some are not. This is a false doctrine and a heresy that isn't in the King James Bible. Unitarianism- Those that believe Jesus wasn't God. Some of these men worked with James Strong. James Strong was a writer on the ASV and Strong's Concordance in the late 1800s. Well, if the falling away is happening and all the modern translations use things from the "new and improved" fragments like the dead sea scrolls etc. Could Satan be stealing words from the Bible? Could Satan come to steal the word from the path? Most versions with several thousand (like 50 thousand +) ignored that take out the deity of Christ or the holiness and righteousness of God. KJV 2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: Other versions purport that the above verse takes away from the deity of Christ. However, the fact that Jesus is deity is clear in the KJV and the other versions take away in this verse from the righteousness of God. 1 John 5:7-9 King James Version 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. Maybe the modern versions want to take way from the MOST high and get the focus elsewhere. The KJV points to God, which magnifies the name of his Son. But, what is more important than the name of Jesus? God's word. Psalm 138:2 King James Version 2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. People want to say the KJV and all the other versions are God's word. That can't be true. God cannot lie. Titus 1:2 King James Version 2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; If God can lie or replace Lucifer with a name of Jesus, can we trust him about eternal life? no I know many born again believers that use other versions, but over time come to realize that the King James Bible is the pure word of God as it doesn't have mistakes such as calling Lucifer a name of Jesus. If you say something is the word of God, it can't have mistakes. If we can only rely on "God-Breathed" manuscripts, then we can either trust only the spoken word of God leading to all sorts of false doctrines in Charismaticism, Calvinism/Catholic Determinism and prophetic utterances. Or can we trust that all scripture is given by INSPIRATION of God (a noun) rather than being God-Breathed an adjective. Job 32:8 KJV “But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.” The King James Bible has a built in dictionary for words. It is the word of God. Is your God able to preserve his word in English? Did he prepare and know what would be the pre-dominant language in the end times? Matthew 24:35 King James Version 35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Or does your God let you keep guessing at fragments of dead sea scrolls hoping to get a better version from Strong's concordance working with people that didn't believe Jesus was God? I hope you find this challenging and will look at your interpretation of the bible and consider switching to the English Translation of the Bible, the KJV. We magnify the Word of God above the name of Jesus as God said to do. We defend his word. Those that say the KJV is ok, but others are better, need to be sure there are no mistakes in theirs or they would be in danger of degrading the word of God. Praise Jesus, the day star. Praise Jesus, the bright and morning star. Who is your Jesus? Do you have the right Jesus?
Jude 1:11 Woe unto them (James White and Eric Hovind)! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
Kent Hovind helped me out A Lot. In my testimony. After french public education, being bumped around by Richard Dawkins. Then I discovered Voddie Baucham talking about historical proof of the Bible being the reliable proven as the word of God. But, what about that evolution? Then Kent Hovinds stuff got Rid of that.
James White is blind on this issue. He's looking at the KJB from a historical perspective, not from an evidential perspective. God is absolutely sovereign and able to preserve His word as intended, whether or not translators are aware of the Holy Spirit at work. The proof is in the pudding as they say. There are countless (although I'm aware of thousands myself) verifying signatures in the KJB that prove that the King James Bible is the single book prophesied in Isaiah 34:16. The KJB is the book of the LORD, the God and King of Jacob (James). I can't cover the thousands of examples here, but here's just a few examples for those who may be unfamiliar: First of all, for those who don't know, the King James Bible was first published in London, England in 1611. The longest chapter in the Bible is Psalm 119, which is thematically all about God's word. It ends in verse 176. 16x11 = 176 The simple English ordinal value of KING JAMES BIBLE is 119. In English gematria K = 11 & I = 9 So the first two letters in KING (K & I) also point to 119 Acts 16:11 prophesies where the book of the LORD would be published: "Therefore loosing from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis;" Acts 16:11 First of all the tallest mountain in the Aegean Sea is on Samothracia known as Mt. Fengari, which is 1611 meters tall. If you draw a set of parallel "straight courses" from Troas and Samothracia toward Neapolis the resulting trajectory takes you directly to London, England where the KJB would be published in 1611. In Matthew 16:11 Jesus Christ warns about doubting His ability to supply bread (His written word): "How is it that ye do not understand that I SPAKE IT NOT TO YOU CONCERNING BREAD, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?" The Lord specifies that He's not talking about literal bread, and indicates that He's speaking about the living bread of His word that would be published in the book of the LORD in 1611, which the modern-day Pharisees and Sadducees would try to break up. In the KJB there are 44 English letters in Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21, which are the first and last verses of the Bible. Both these verses are divided into 27 consonants and 17 vowels each. They match perfectly by consonant and vowel count. There is a 1 in 1.48 million chance of this occurring randomly. Anyway, this is barely even scratching the surface of the evidence for the KJB as God's inspired word and book. If given the opportunity, I would debate James White myself even though I'm not a debater. I know I have the truth of God's word on my side and the evidence that God has provided for it. The fact that so many Christians doubt the veracity of God's word is why many are so uninformed about God's plan for the Second Coming. If you know that the KJB is God's inspired word, then the LORD is able to reveal the depths and treasures of His book. For example, God unsealed what is hidden in the seven thunders of Revelation 10:3 in 2022, and it's all internally verifiable within the KJB. The church is asleep just as Matthew 25:5 says. The tarrying of the Lord isn't some ethereal or sentimental notion that the Lord is going to seem like He's taking longer than we would like or expect. The tarrying of the Lord is a literal period of time that began in 2022, and just as Matthew 25:5 states, the church was asleep when this period of tarrying began. Given the opportunity, I would love to share with the church what God revealed in 2022 and open up God's word as a blessing for the Body of Christ. The Lord is coming soon and if people knew how amazing the details of God's plan are, they would stand in awe of our awesome God, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. What is concealed (now unsealed) in the seven thunders is absolutely incredible.
THE KJV also spells 'SAVIOUR' correctly. 7 letter's, which is God's number. Modern perversions spell it 'savior' (6 letters) = anti-christ. James White is just a circus clown defending modern perversions because he gets paid to, and has sold out for 30 pieces of Silver.
Where in the Bible does it say that 7 is God's number? How many letters does Saviour have in the original Greek? I would suggest that you and @fromgamestogod9850 put your faith in Christ rather than a 17th century translation committee, and spend a little more time concentrating on what God actually said, which is 98%+ uniform in the texts used by all evangelical Bible translations, and less on nonsense about heights of mountains, numbers of letters and numbers of verses and spurious multiplications that you've made up out of your own heads. And before you say - "what about the 2%" find me a doctrine that is found in the KJV but is omitted from the NIV, NKJV, ESV, CSB, NASB or NLT
I'm TR only because those bibles were here first, and our founding fathers built the world on the TR, Before these so-called; older/Newer/ better texts even came into existence and I just can't trust them.
+ William Robertson "GET DR RUCKMANS commentary series " WHY not? IF you are already immersed in a false cult- may as well go whole hog - being trained as a liar, slanderer, professional idiot, and mocker of truth is hard - and we NEED the teachings of this false teacher to make us even better at it. IF you have any doubt about Ruckman's willingness to lie repeatedly, mock truth and terrify reality - here's a quick and easy example: www.aomin.org/aoblog/1996/09/01/response-dr-ruckman/
NOT a particularly nice comment - that is the tone of a MILD KJO cultist's comment. I have never seen such vulgar violent insults as come from the KJO cultists - we need not emulate them, even mildly. WE have facts, evidence and GOD on our side but they have Catholicism, Cultism and "traditions of man" - and nothing more. WE will win in the end. THE KJO cult is no better than the Judiazers of Galatia - and they lost.
I would like for Kent Hovind to be right about KJV since I agree with everything he says yet am perplexed that White seeks to contradict him on the accuracy of the KJV in other videos, but in this interview I dont think he does. In the opening White mentions that he understands the argument that KJV is based on better texts. My thoughts tell me that he isnt contradicting Kent Hovind on this matter, but rather is compelled to deny KJV onlyism insofar as some might, although I haven't seen many who do, assert that KJV is the only way to salvation. Whilst it is undeniable that one can be saved without KJV isnt it possible that the KJV is more accurate, as Hovind says: "the modern translations do a good job of translating the wrong books". Hovind would say that the Alexandrian texts etc on which modern translations are based on are corrupt and that despite being "older" they aren't necessarily better. White says that there is no evidence that Christians were copying the bible perfectly but lets just say they did for the sake of Hovind's argument, that would mean like he says: there would be no reason to keep the old texts if they were perfectly preserved in their transcriptions as the texts wore out over time and were thus discarded. The unease at which White seems when answering on the subject of KJonlyism makes me weary because if someone was so confident in their truth why would they become so sarcastic and uneasy when trying to dismiss what should be obvious after years of study? Also when arguing lets say with Anderson, he always answers obliquely rather than directly which would help ground everyone in the truth. I suspect White may know the truth about KJV but is trying to protect people from becoming idolators of a book rather than Gods word even if he thinks the KJV could possibly be more reliable yet it cannot be "evidenced"( why keep a text if we have perfect copies of it?). If my assumptions are correct then it would be possible that he finds himself defending erroneous translations on an idealistic basis because he believes them to be similar enough in doctrine and that the issue of KJVonlyism is too dangerous. I am basing my opinion off of Kent Hovinds experience and fully trust his judgement so I would very much like to see Hovind debate White on this subject. I understand there is a vested interest in denying KJonlyism and not just for the monetary reasons of publishing costs and copyright. Given these notions there seems to be good reasons to stick to KJV assuming it has epistomological superioriy over modern texts and since there is no financial reason to adhere to it. Also, as White agrees, the problem in having too many translations which leads to confusion. Please enlighten me!
The unease he has when discussing KJV ? Dr. White wrote a great book on this subject where he goes over everything in fine detail. He's discussed the KJV onlyism on his show countless times and he even doing so now rebutting Steven Anderson. Kent Hovind won't debate or have a discussion on this subject. He knows he is way out of his league when compared to Dr. White when it comes to this subject. He has offered and reached out to Kent but no response. I'm not saying Hovind is not saved. However when he affiliates himself with Gail Riplinger that raises red flags .
don't let white's flattery confuse you they are evil! perfect examples: Psalm 12:6-7 & 1 john 5:7 & Isaiah 14:12. just look those major problems up in all the modern bible versions and you won't have doubt ever again! God is not a liar, nor is God the author of confusion of 200 different bibles! God is the author of 1 translation, the others are from man's translation inspired by satan to do so!
There is no evidence that Christians were copying the Bible perfectly. There's your problem right there. It didn't happen. Hovind can make up his story of people perfectly copying the Bible, but it doesn't appear in the extant manuscripts. What we find is that EVERY manuscript is different from the others - no two are alike. So anything that Hovind says afterward is folly because the premise doesn't hold - there is no perfect line of manuscripts. So to say that the KJV is the only infallible word of God is folly because it has readings that are found no where else in the manuscript testimony. It's a fine Bible, for sure, but you have to understand its textual limitations. For instance, 1 John 5:7 is found in that text but it is not found in any extant Greek sources from before the 16th century. That's the evidence.
Do you want some better information read some books by Dr. Sam Gibb talk to Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger material on new age Bible versions your eyes will be opened there’s only one English version the authorized version of 1611 that’s what you call biblical English it’s not archaic it’s a bunch of lies
Although James White is very informed on Bible history, he's just flat wrong on the KJB controversy. He told Wretched radio that 1 John 5:7 does not belong in the KJV, which is a lie. 1 John 5:7 has been found in several writings of the earliest church fathers, even as far back as the first century AD, which proves that it WAS in the original scriptures. The KJV is superior to modern translations.
Dylan Stewart it’s found in two Greek manuscripts (codex ravianus and no. 61). It is also found in the marginal notes on manuscripts 88 and 629. It was quoted by Cyprian sixty years before vaticanus and sinaiticus cut it out. It is cited in 380 AD By a Spanish bishop. It is cited numberoys times between 430-534 by African Christians (Hills, Believing Bible Study p. 190). Casiodorus quotes it. It is also found in the old Latin (ms. R). Furthermore, without the comma, the gender doesn’t match in the NASV.
2 Peter 2:15 (James White and Eric Hovind) ... Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
2 Peter 2:15 (Bible Reading Outreach) ...Let God be true, and YOU, using your generic claim, be a liar. Many have been blessed from James White and Eric Hovind. You have no right to wrongly use that line of Scripture to accuse these two men. You have no right whatsoever. I pray that God leads you gently to repentance.
10:30 Hey bub, you don't have to run around ragged to save the Greek manuscripts. Those are translations of the original language, Aramaic. And that Bible is still around in the original form and hasn't been changed since it was original penned by the original authors. But of course, you are too snobby and close-minded to even fathom that fact.
+ j parks 10:30 Hey bub, you don't have to run around ragged to save the Greek manuscripts. Those are translations of the original language, Aramaic. And that Bible is still around in the original form and hasn't been changed since it was original penned by the original authors. But of course, you are too snobby and close-minded to even fathom that fact. " Have you any evidence of this? I used the Peshitta for several years - and I know that statement is in the introduction to it - BUT I cannot verify it to be so - there is a 300-year gap at least between the apostles and the oldest Aramaic Bible I can find record of . . .
@@BumperMetcalfeTry asking James White where you can get a copy of that perfect translation in English Bible (which is the KJV), where you can find one, where he won't tell you that there are any. The guy is a clown!
@@BumperMetcalfelook up the video here on youtube with Will kinney confronting James white about that on his radio show.. James white is an arrogant SOB! th-cam.com/video/5H1dWcTGnUQ/w-d-xo.html
+Rachel Petig "I can see why a Muslims would respect James White. They work to the same end - undermining Jesus Christ, his deity, resurrection and the Holy Bible. " Another deliberate lie by illiterate KJO cultists. They respect him because he can SUPPORT his textual teachings on the Bible - the KJO CULTISTS cannot. Its easier to support Snow White than the KJB - as it is NOT based on any accurate Greek text - the FACT White is willing to take on the shrill, illiterate, divisive, cultists that mock scholarship, history and intelligence is the basis for their admiration. He does NOT blindly follow a corrupted - OBVIOUSLY so - text. ALL ancient texts - and all modern accurate Bibles - are far more supportive of the Trinity, the deity of Christ and the reliability of scripture than the KJB.
if only Dr white can use this same humiliity when trying to understand free will and why evangelicals ad catholics and most protestants and most people on planet earth use free will he would not a staunch 5 point calvinist... if you want this type of diversoty in tranlslation you must show the same diversity of not putting God in a box like the whole TULIP scenario. and Erics resply thw whole time was Wow!! maybe him and his dad will stop thw whole kjv only conspiracy now. even though they have good material
You don't think he HAS tried to understand the non-biblical concept of free will. Like most Calvinists, he probably used to be anti-Calvinist....until he studied the Bible and realized that this is what the Bible teaches. Virtually anyone who has gotten serious about studying the Bible eventually becomes a Calvinist.
no one becomes a calvinist ML Wilson when they study the bible . John Calvin was a catholic who disagreed with new doctrines and teachings that the roman catholic church tried to put forward. God has always been sovereign.. calvin did invent it out of thin air.
Sorry, Paul Robinson, I don't totally follow your line of reasoning, nor the reasoning of Joshua Haynes. I might agree with you, but don't get exactly how you are replying to Hanyes' viewpoint. I just know that I have read/listened to Kent Hovind, Steven Anderson , Dr. James White, and Peter Ruckman, and the only one who is godly, subject to church elders, humble, and logical is Dr. James White. Kent Hovind should stick to creation ministry, and not listen to Ruckman, nor Gail Ripplinger. White has studied the historical manuscripts far more carefully and thoroughly than any of them. White's writings are far superior, and they put me at peace as well as understanding of what God wrote in the Scripture.
@@ghostl1124 Do you think Dr. Peter Ruckman does know what he’s talking about he has not have 190 he’s read a book a day since you’re 10 years old he’s read the Bible to 180 times James White is a line snake in the grass he doesn’t know what he’s talking about he just deceiver doctor recommendation is so far out of his field and passed him it’s ridiculous James White a Calvinist he doesn’t he’s he’s a liar is what he is anybody’s got a good sense knows the Bible had to be in one book not in 10 different versions of the so-called Bible
2 Peter 1:1 doesn't introduce a disjunction. It makes sense that our Savior Jesus Christ is God because who else but God is the Savior? but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: that, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. 1 Corinthians 1:27-31 KJB
But the problem is that Granville sharp "rules" aren't historical or consistent. There have been shown both Septuagint examples and also early church writing examples that do not follow his "rules." Sorry, Titus 2:13 better follows the fact that Jesus said he would return in his Father's(his God's) glory(Matt 16:27).. it's not a deity proof-text. High knowledge of Greek isn't needed to find out that Granville was mainly doing this just to attempt to support the "deity of Christ" against the clarity of the texts coming into place now showing that many of these texts were errors in translation or copying of the texts. It was becoming clear as the real Jewish(Hebrew really) Jesus was a unitarian like all his other fellow Jews who affirmed one God, the Father as the one and only true and living God(John 17:3, 1 Cor 8:6, 1 Tim 2:5, Matt 16:16... just to name a few).
Jesus believed in one God, his heavenly Father. But you, droptozro, have to learn what God the Father believed about God the Son, and this truth is testified to by God the Holy Spirit. The trinity is taught progressively and completely as Scripture unfolds over the years from Adam to the apostle, John. The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit ------- ONE GOD, throughout eternity, Amen.
Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism. I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin, but not the Greek so out it goes. Good will towards men Doxology in Matthew Without cause God manifest in the flesh Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin, so out they go The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek and Latin so out they go. Even the yet found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8 some throw out. If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem, what would you see as a problem?
+thf adhd To the extent that he is, he is to be commended. Unfortunately, when the talks about evolution he repeats the inaccuracies of his father, often quoting him word for word (without attribution, I might add).
You judge God when you judge His word. There is no fear of our Almighty God by those like White who do such judging. You who place yourselves with letters before your name show your pride and arrogance. His mane is a above every name yet His Word is above His name. There’s a time when Jesus will say “go away I never knew you”.
This is a perfect example of using your gifts and calling to encourage the body of Christ. When James White teaches, he is most often in line with scripture. It is only when he is teaching his beliefs on Calvinism, that the audience needs to take heed. Beware of his aberrant teachings on the sovereignty of God. When one can say without question that God makes everything happen, whether good or evil, such a teaching blames God for all the evil in this world, and ignores the permissive will of God as seen in His dealings with Job. God allows the devil to do what he does, thus allowing mankind to see their necessity for God's grace in His guidance. There is a perfect purpose for all that the Lord allows, but never should we accuse Him of evil. A cursory reading of Ecclesiastes and Job, coupled with a study on the character of Christ Jesus will prove this point most profoundly.
+Brother Brett I don't think you quite understand what Calvinists believe. For we in no way blame God for all the evil in the world, we instead believe that God accomplishes His Holy purpose in spite of all the evil man does. If you examine Genesis 50:20 when Joseph is speaking to his brothers after they had sold him into slavery, Joseph tells them: "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive" (Gen. 50:20). Here we have one of the clearest proof texts in support of the compatibilism that Calvinists affirm. God meant for Joseph to be sold into slavery by his brothers, but His intentions were holy and just because He did so in order to save many lives at that time. The intentions of Joseph's brothers were evil, and they were judged based upon the evil intentions of their hearts. Same action, two different intentions. One of the things that I find interesting is that you seem respect and agree with James White only when it doesn't interfere with your traditions that you are accustomed to. I would argue that every single time that Dr. White teaches, he is still teaching Calvinism. For Calvinism isn't merely a collection of the 5 Points of TULIP, it goes much deeper than that. At it's core, Calvinism and Reformed theology recognizes God's sovereignty as Creator first, and every single other belief rests upon that central affirmation of God's sovereignty. Therefore James White is being consistent in his teaching because it is derived from the first and primary assertion of the sovereignty of God. What would you say is the central aspect of your theology? Furthermore, are the other beliefs that you hold consistent with that central aspect of your theology? I'm interested to hear your response.
Dylan Stewart Dylan, Thank you for your response. First, your opening statement, that I do not "quite understand what Calvinists believe" is an inaccurate statement to be certain, since I have both studied and accepted most of what Reformed theology teaches as truth. I have been a pastoral counselor for over 25 years. I have studied the Bible from several theological perspectives over the years, chewing the meat and spitting out the bones. I have learned what I know to be truth from the Bible, and the Bible alone! I can recall many occasions when believers would approach me and tell me I was a Calvinist. I had never read any of Calvin's works until just a few years ago. I would always respond with "No, I am a Christian". I have never been one to proclaim faith in any denominational title. The Bible teaches us that we are Christians. Our absolute identity should be in Christ. I have ministered to Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, and Mormons from an apologetic perspective since my walk with Christ began. I was a defender of the faith long before I ever studied apologetics. Muslims would always ask; "what kind of Christian are you?" My response would always be, "A Bible believing, born again Christian". Denominations under the umbrella of Christendom were created by the Catholic church. They were labels that identified followers of certain core beliefs as heretics, only because they challenged Catholic teachings and Papal authority. Christians today like to call themselves believers, Christ followers or children of God. I am who and what the Bible teaches...a Christian. Two Greek words: Christos and Ian, defined as "of Christ" or "from Christ". I am from Buffalo, therefore I am called a Buffalonian. Likewise, I am from Christ, and therefore called a Christian. I highlight this for a very clear reason. Are you a Christian or a Calvinist? Why do most followers of reformed theology insist on calling themselves Calvinists? The doctrines were formed long before John Calvin was born. I understand the psychology behind it. Identification is something we all seek, to fulfill a basic human desire to belong; but is belonging to Christ not enough? Think on this before you label yourself. To whom do you align or identify yourself with? Is it Jesus or John Calvin? Keep in mind that John Calvin was a maniacal dictator, burning people at the stake for disagreeing with his doctrines. Michael Servetus was a Spaniard that was denounced by Calvin as a heretic and ordered to be burned. Oh yes, Geneva Switzerland was reformed, but Calvin's doctrines were just a smoke screen. Jesus never killed anyone for disagreeing with him. I am reminded of the cross and how Jesus prayed for those that crucified him; "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Be careful who you identify yourself with. this is of course documented history, so you are welcome to research it. I have no issue with your reference to Joseph in Genesis. The absolute sovereignty of God is taught in scripture; but so is the permissive will of God. A cursory reading of the book of Job will attest to this truth. Do you believe that God foresees or foreknows the future? I assume you do. One could not believe in the God of the Bible without accepting the prophetic nature of the Holy Spirit. Prophesy is the result of foreknowledge. This leads me to my next point; Romans 8:29 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate..." Proginosko is the Greek word used in this verse, and it is defined simply as "foresight or foreknowledge". The Bible teaches both predestination and free will. The fact that both doctrines are in scripture is evident. Romans 9 and Eph. 1 are two of many texts that teach predestination, while free will can be seen in the mere choice of Adam in the garden, and those famous words of Joshua, "Choose you this day..." Josh. 24:15. Bringing the two together has been a matter of confusion for the church since the beginning of the church age. God has given me an adequate understanding of these two doctrines and how they are completely compatible within the context of Christian doctrine. Read Proverbs 16:1-9 with an emphasis on verse 1 and 9. Here you will see both sovereign direction and free will choice. Question: If you force someone to love you, do they really love you? Forcing yourself on someone is called rape, is it not? Yet James White teaches that God has decreed all things before the foundation of the world. In fact, Five point Calvinism teaches that salvation is brought about with no choice of the believer. What kind of love is this? Did God decree that I would be saved, thereby forcing himself on me without my consent? If you are a follower of John Calvin, then your answer must be yes. Do a TH-cam search for an interview by Hank Hannegraff, as he interviews James White on the subject of God's decree. In that video, Hank and another brother asked James if he believes that God decreed evil. James said yes. They asked him about the case of rape, and does God decree rape? James said YES. Brother, I believe in the absolute sovereignty of the Almighty, and that in his sovereign wisdom, he has given mankind the ability to choose right from wrong, left from right and good over evil. We can have this freedom and still be guided by the sovereign plan of God because of his foreknowledge. The Lord knew what we would do before we did it. He knew what choice we would make and allowed everything to happen as it did, that we would make the choice for him, when He knew we would make that choice. He never violates our free will. James White would disagree and argue this sound, Biblical logic, attempting to prove his point, that God chooses most for hell and some for heaven. How can a just God judge people for their sin if he made them sin? The central aspect of my theology is Jesus Christ! Salvation is a work of the Lord and nothing I can do can obtain it or retain it. It is as Paul stated, "a gift of God". My salvation is in the finished work of the cross. I am sealed and eternally his, because of what he did for me; but he still allowed me to choose. I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian. I am Christian! Born again by the blood of Jesus and his resurrection from the dead, made to be an eternal child of the living God. I must leave for church now. I hope this answers your question. Please check out that video with the James White interview by Hank Hannegraff. I believe you will be as shocked as I was. Be a Berean brother. Don't accept anything anyone says, but check it with scripture first and then make your decision. In Jesus always, Brother Brett
Brother Brett I have no doubt that what you've said about studying the Reformed perspective is true, but to say that the Calvinist's position makes God the author of evil is a misrepresentation of what we believe about God's decree. You also seem to have a stigma about being labeled in your denomination. To say that "I'm not calvinist or arminian, I'm a Christian" is simply a non-answer that does not facilitate a meaningful conversation between Christians. To answer your question: "Are you a Christian or a Calvinist?" I would simply retort "Why can't I be both?". I am a Christian because I have faith in Christ and have chosen to follow Him, but with regards to other doctrines concerning God's sovereignty and how I interpret scripture requires another label as well. Labels are not a bad thing. There are many denominations partially due to the Spirit and partially due to sin. I wish I could simply say that I am a Christian that believes the Bible, but that's really not a sufficient answer. Therefore the next logical question is "What do you believe the Bible teaches and how should we interpret scripture?". My answer of course would be that I follow to a Reformed understanding of the Bible. Take politics for instance, if I am asked about my political views, should I respond with "I'm not a liberal or conservative, I'm an American." ? Obviously labels help aid us in our communication to others in order to generally present to others what our views are. As of now, I really don't know what you believe because you are refusing to be labelled. What do you believe about church governing, baptism, or the nature of the Trinity? I do not know because you do not accept a label. I do not use a label because I have a need to belong to any particular group, I use labels because they make communication easier. Calvinists also accept the label of "Reformed Baptist" or "Reformed Evangelical", but we also define ourselves as Calvinist because we recognize that John Calvin was most responsible in the spread of Reformed theology during the Reformation period. It does not mean that we only follow the views of Calvin, nor does it mean that we think he's infallible in any way. We examine many church fathers and theologians and read their writings for insight and wisdom of what the scripture says. We do not substitute or equate patristic writings with the inspired scripture whatsoever, but instead recognize that it still has value in educational purposes. The Christian patriarchs that came before us faced the same issues we face today, and being that they were very well educated men, we should not simply ignore their writings because they are not on the same level as scripture. The early church fathers should act in the same way a Bible commentary does for us. We read the Bible verse, study different commentaries on it, and then check them for consistency with what the Bible has to say.
Brother Brett I also must correct your grossly unbalanced presentation concerning the affair between Servetus and John Calvin. Calvin never ordered Servetus to be burned at the stake. On the contrary, Calvin reached out numerous times to Servetus to convince him to recant his heresy, but Servetus always responded to him in the most nasty and arrogant manner in his letters to Calvin. Calvin even offered to meet with him personally, but Servetus failed to show up. John Calvin also new where Servetus was living in Geneva, and knew what his pseudonym, but never decided to turn him in. John Calvin was also not even a citizen of Geneva at this time, so he had no power to order Servetus to be killed, and he was not a "dictator" as you described him. Servetus also sought to accuse Calvin of heresy and attempted to drum up support for this false claim with his political base. This was not some unanimous decision made by Calvin at all. In fact, Geneva wrote to all the Swiss-Cantons as to what Servetus fate should be, and they ALL agreed that Servetus had committed heresy and should be burned. They even wrote to Luther's successor who was far more liberal than Luther by the way, and even he said that he should be burned. On the contrary, Calvin and his ministers pleaded with the Little Council, which was the secular council that wanted Servetus burned, to impose a less harsh punishment, but the council refused! Even on the night before Servetus was to be executed, Calvin went to meet with Servetus in order that he might try one last time to get Servetus to retract his heresy, but Servetus spat in his face! I do not know where exactly you read your history on the issues between Calvin and Servetus, but it is incredibly bias and leaves out a lot of the important historical context around the event that is crucial in interpreting that event.
Brother Brett I shall respond to the rest of your comment about God's decree of rape and man's free will later this evening. If you wish to respond to what I have posted already then feel free, but I shall be back on later tonight.
You don't judge the King James Bible, it judges you Psalm 16:11 Thou wilt shew me the path of life: In thy presence is fulness of joy; At thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore. Revelation 5:1 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.
"Yeah, hath God said?" who said that... someone was always questioning the word of God in the Bible. You don't need people like Mr. White here to tell you Greek & Hebrew. You can trust the KJV.
You’re only hearing what you want to hear or your brainwashed in the KJV-only movement. It’s not questioning, but revising the Bible as the KJV translators would have wanted.
Careful who you align yourself with Eric. We love your family's ministries but the KJB is a core issue. Stick with Gale Riplinger, Sam Gipp, Bill Grady and others. The proof is in the text brother. Going to James White for a KJB interview, is like interviewing Rosey O'Donnel on dieting. Preservation through Inspiration Perfect and pure and a copy made by a king Deut. 17.18 The KJB is THE inspired, infallible perfect Word of God..daddy raised you better than the King James just being a "good translation" or "my favourite" keep up the great work! praying for all the Hovind ministries. - in grace and truth
+Bible Truth John8.32 Gale RIplinger? You actually take her seriously? If you noticed, Gale stopped doing radio debates after she had James White on because of how badly she was embarrassed.
No, not "preservation through inspiration." It's actually "restoration through inspiration." The KJV translators had to reconstruct significant passages because of gaps in the TR.
The misnamed TR (printed in 1631) was NOT inspired in any way. IT was a political translation and nothing more. The Geneva was an HONEST translation. That cannot be said for the KJB
BTJ8.32 Everything you wrote about sticking with G.R., S.G., B.G., is wrong. You have no proof, brother. Go live in an Asian country for 3 years, learn another language, and then you will realize how translations communicate from one language to another.
you will forgive me if I don't take the word of a man like James white who suggested that a group of 14,000,000 people were to insignificant to evangelize.
Have any of you head the phrase "oldest trick in the book"? This devil is using that same oldest trick. And that is questioning God's word, casting doubts into people about what God really said and meant. This little man's damnation is just!
all scripture IS given by inspiration PRESENT tense not was given --in-spirit-ation see JOB 32:8 but there is a spirit in man ;and the inspiration of the almighty giveth them understanding ---this vs is about the spirit of GOD giving you understanding of scripture LK 24:45
WHAT BIBLE VERSION IS THAT FROM? LOL! SO IS THE NWT JEHOVAH WITNESS CULT BIBLE CONSIDERED INSPIRED OR INTENTIONAL CONFUSION?????? LET YOUR EYES BE OPENED!
There are zero "enhancements" since the KJB. All modern versions are dumbed down and strip the power out of many KJB verses. Don't listen to either of these two and do your own research. Compare the verses for yourselves. Compare 1 John 5:7 and try to reconcile it. Reading 10 different versions is not Bible study.
There are difference. No one disputes that. The question is a why are they there? It's not hard to find the answer and as it turns out there seem to be good reasons, i.e. the modern translations are closer to the originals.
@@josiahroyer1062 No sir. Do the research. The differences comes from supposed older manuscripts which are possibly fakes. Pretty much all changes comes from the Sinaiticus. Check out David Daniel's study on it.
@@Shrimpwagon of course, that is the point in which we'll disagree. To propound that the ancient manuscripts are fakes smacks of conspiracy. I've listened to a good bit of discussion on the topic and though I'm no expert I think I've done a reasonable amount of research for a layman. Yes, the differences between the kjv and modern version are manuscript differences, but saying they "are dumbed down and strip the power out" is poisoning the well. These decisions were made honestly by believing men (like James White) who have a different perspective than you. It's not a conspiracy. It's not an attack on the Bible. It is an honest evaluation of all the data available, most of which was not available to the King James translators.
@@Shrimpwagon God's words are preserved in the manuscript tradition. The current state of the critical text is essentially on top of the original. We can know because of the method of transmission that no one could have changed the truths contained in that tradition. Of course, the TR, like the critical text, is a product of textual criticism. To hold to the view that the TR or the KJV is perfect a second act of inspiration is required. Perhaps you hold to that view. Otherwise you must simply assert the authority of the TR/KJV based on the assertion itself.
When talking to a King James "onlyist" just politely ask " show me in the Bible where it says the King James is the only inspired Bible?" While you hand them a KJV
EASY PSALM 12:6-7 SAYS THE WORDS OF THE LORD ARE PURE!GOD IS NOT A LIAR! IF YOU CALL GOD A LIAR, THEN YOU HAVE A LOT TO ANSWER FOR! FAIR IS FAIR SO: SO IF GOD IS OF TRUTH LIKE JESUS CHRIST SAYS "HE IS THE TRUTH" , THEN SHOW ME THAT YOUR SO CALLED MODERN PRESERVED BIBLES SAYS THE SAME THING ON MAJOR VERSES LIKE HIS DEITY, THE TRINITY, AND WHO FELL FROM HEAVEN? IN BOTH VERSION COMPARISONS: PSALM 12:6-7, REV. 22:16 TO ISAIAH 14:12, 1 JOHN 5:7 AND THAT IS ENOUGH TO PROVE IT RIGHT THERE TO YOURSELF IF YOUR QUOTE UNQUOTE "OPEN MINDED OR OBJECTIVELY NEUTRAL" ?
Reason 2) Other Versions are more confusing by taking out Thee, Thy, You, etc thus ignoring the original languages and the plural and singular forms. The other translations take out the Thou, Thee, Ye, You and replace everything with you. It is important as in the Greek, Chaldean, Hebrew etc, there were plural forms of these words. So the King James translators put this into the translations. If you were teaching a class and said "you need to get the worksheet done." Are you speaking to one student, or all students? It could be one that you earlier told to get the worksheet done, or the whole group. We would need context. The ESV adds footnotes to supplement these things, the NIV takes the plural and singular out completely, the NASB tried to make it in 77 as if the Thee and Thou were reverent talking to God. Thee, Thou, Thy, Thine in the King James indicate Singular, Ye, You, Your indicate plural in the King James. That is the reason these are there. John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. Jesus is talking to Nicodemus and he says, marvel not that I say unto thee (singular talking to Nicoldemus), ye (plural) must be born again. So he states that everyone must be born again and Nicodemus shouldn't marvel at it. In Joshua 1 King James Version 1 Now after the death of Moses the servant of the Lord it came to pass, that the Lord spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying, 2 Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel. 3 Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses. God addresses Joshua (thou) and all this people. He is supposed to lead them. v 2 Every place the sole of your foot v3. This means that any Israelites' foot will mark the land given to Israel, Not just Joshua's foot. 5 There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee. Verse 5 starts a group of many promises with T words. Joshua as the leader will not have anyone stand before him as a leader like Moses. In the King James Translation, the translators were men of prayer that spoke many languages (some well over FIFTEEN) and spent hours a day in prayer. So, they were humble men of God that would not promote their work for profit, no doubt as they knew that God's word warned of such things. So if your versions says you. Is it talking to one person
I was starting to rethink my choice in bible the KJV. But after hearing intently at the interviews, I know now what you are saying. YOU HAVE ME TOTALLY CONFUSED 🤷♀️ and that’s what God warms us about. God came for the simple not the scholar
I stick to where God leads me taking heed not to fall for every doctrine
Mr. White doesn’t say you need to rethink reading the KJV. He holds it up as one of the best translations. All he is saying is that the modern translations, are also God’s word, and that the KJV is not the only credible english bible translation. Keep going with your trusted KJV, and seeking God daily. God bless.
The Bible says God is not the author of confusion James White’s a liar and a snake don’t believe him
@@WuklesModern translations are from hell. They make Jesus out to be a liar, deceitful, and more. It has to be the KJV. If it's not the KJV, it's not a bible.
Keep yer king James. That’s the book!
To Whom It Concerns: Some say that the 1611 KJV of the Bible has 14 or 15 more books (Not verses but BOOKS!) than succeeding Authorized versions. Yet, the absence of whole swaths of this original 1611 material in newer KJV editions is not that notable! Yet, the claim that other versions have endured the removal of certain verses, words and maybe even paragraphs, elicits accusations of heinous apostasy as emanating from the pages of these Bibles of different publishers. One wonders how that can be?
This short and powerful interview made me love the Bible, God’s Word, all the more. I have often struggled with the “My sheep hear my voice,” passage, wondering if I ever really did hear a human voice calling my name, would I recognize Jesus? But as Dr. White said, regeneration causes one to love the Word of God and also causes a desire to obey. I shall no longer wonder if I have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, as I do both love His Word and strive within myself to obey. Thank you for this powerful interview. It soothes my heart and empowered me with His Spirit. I am off to do some more listening in His Word.
The problem I see in your statement your quoting James white as your final authority about your position in Christ and your walking by sight not faith.
If you like the ESV you need to compare to the king James Bible the king James Bible is what you call biblical English the ESV is an American Bible it’s not an English Bible it’s really written by a bunch of Calvinist they took the RV and updated it and make the ESV there’s many mistakes lies and things are not true and that it’s a piece of garbage you need to compare that to the king James Bible and see the difference
I'm never using the word "wow" again.
😂You’re a funny person!!
I had seen this before but was coming to watch it again to learn more, and now after I read your comment now I’m literally busting a gut every 30 seconds when he interjects with “Wooow”, and “whoah” and “wow” and “WOW!” 🤣👍
KJV is still my favorite but now , after years of going back and forth and listening to other on the subject of KJV onlyism,, I understand there are other translations that are just fine.
There is not an intelligent thinking Christian alive today, that does not already HATE Dr. White because he is reformed, and is knowledgeable about Dr. Jordan Peterson, that can tell me that Jordan has anything over him in brilliance. Can SOMEBODY PLEASE get them to sit down and talk sometime please?!?!!?
I’d PAY 💰 TO SEE THIS HAPPEN!!! 🙏
I have learned that Hovind likes to use "Whoa" and "Wow" a lot in his acknowledgement of White's comments.
That’s because he doesn’t have anything intelligible to contribute to the conversation
That’s me all the time.
Owen Wilson
Wow! Jk I love you Brother Eric!
Thanks for this interview. Nice and short with deep things to ponder. I liked the interviewer's enthusiasm, too. I learnt a lot of Scripture as a child through song in the 80s (Songs of Praise book), so I still recite some verses as the old King James -- it's got a special place in my heart. But I'm so thankful for the ESV and NAS. "Love of money is THE root of ALL evil" made me doubt the Bible and God for a long time, many years ago (most the evil acts on the news were due to jealousy, pride, rage, affairs -- nothing to do with money).
That's why females in Christianity are not mean't to teach or lead men. Females are quite slow in some ways when it comes to scripture details and technicalities. God did not design the female mind to expound the scriptures.
The "ALL" in that verse is saying that the love money is the root of 'every type' of evil. "ALL" covers 'type', or we could say - every 'form' of evil. The love of money has been the root of every form of evil ever committed, but's it's not the only reason that evil has been committed.
God be with you.
Love the Jesus quote, Have u not read what was spoken to u by God! Great revalation.
Let us give heed to the Spirit who has promised to guide us into all truth!
Amen, kjv all the way
I'm a Muslim and I tremendously respect Dr. James White.
I'm a Christian and I tremendously respect Shabir Ally as well. Peace, Farhan, fellow son of Adam and Noah!
1 Tim 5:19
Johnny Phoenix you're a liar.
Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets. Luke 6:26
I'm an Agnostic Atheist and I tremendously respect James White a lot. He's a great guy honestly, even though I might disagree with him on if God exists or not, and on social issue and stuff, but he is a really smart guy and he helps me understand Christian beliefs.
Hey ! BOTH you guys forgot to put on a necktie for this interview. lol
99% of his dialog is WHOA! WOW! Oh... lolz
+Philip Paul 100% AGREE
"Wow" - Owen Wilson
What else would you expect from a guy that doesn’t even have a degree in theology but somehow landed a position preaching? WOW! 🥴
@@j.sethfrazer Well God doesn't require you to have a degree to preach the gospel lol he commands us all to preach the gospel after all
Philip Paul Well duh. I’m talking preaching from a vocational, pulpit position. I think that’s entirely nonsensical and a huge part of the reason why KJV-Onlyism has such an enormous presence today
glad to see eric didnt fall into the trap his dad did.
sure...
+Odyc Mboden what trap are you talking about?
KingJames BibleBeliever kjv-onlyism
Odyc Mboden So where are the every words of God? (Matt. 4:4)
In the Bibles we have....and bibles of other languages....and the manuscripts we have......come on. duh.
no where does God promise to have ONLY one place to go for His word.
DAVID W DANIELS...INFORMATION DESTROYS JAMES WHITE..
I like the KJV because its the Bible God put in my hands when I was born again..but then I thought it did not matter what bible I read.. but one day I saw a piece on the KJV..and the other new age bibles.. I thought no that can not be true..but I went and looks and sure enough.. Jesus in the NIV that I was reading had taken the Only Begotten Son of God and turned him into the one and only Son of God.. which of course is a lie.. not a mistake..and Mary in the new age bibles became a young woman instead of a virgin.. then I looked and sure enough some of the new age ones were calling Jesus a sinner.. because he was often angry.. if your angry at your brother your a sinner.. and they did that by taking out just three little words.. for no reason... if your angry at your brother for no reason.. why did they do that.? Think its a mistake? But the strangest thing and the one thing I did not believe was that I was told that trying to take these new age bibles out of the hands of ministers and their followers would be almost impossible..I said no way.. as soon as they see that they took out Unicorn alone will be enough.. the Unicorn is a one horned Rhino.. I know that because Science was more faithful than the new age bibles they still call the rhino the Unicornus.. this must be what God meant when he said not to change one word. You see I want to know I am reading Gods word.. No one said lets change Shakespeare to make it easier to read.. it would lose its poetry and beauty and meaning
Thank you for saying it. It is true.. I lost time reading the new latest and greatest new English version and lost some joy trying to figure out what was wrong with it and comparing bible texts. I wasted 45 days. I put it up on the shelf and returned to my old trusted bible.
Remember the king James Bible is what you call biblical English it’s written that way because that’s the way it has to be translated from the Hebrew and Greek if you do it any other way it not correct
New age Bibles 😂😂😂😂😂. Usual ignorance from a KJV only cultist. As someone quite rightly said, KJV onlyism is an idolatrous poison. Also it is a new age cult, taught by false teachers. Thank God for better translations.
At the time it was written He was the one and only son. We are not adopted into the kingdom until we are saved. It is through faith that we are called children of God.
Reason 2) Other Versions are more confusing by taking out Thee, Thy, You, etc thus ignoring the original languages and the plural and singular forms.
The other translations take out the Thou, Thee, Ye, You and replace everything with you. It is important as in the Greek, Chaldean, Hebrew etc, there were plural forms of these words. So the King James translators put this into the translations. If you were teaching a class and said "you need to get the worksheet done." Are you speaking to one student, or all students? It could be one that you earlier told to get the worksheet done, or the whole group. We would need context. The ESV adds footnotes to supplement these things, the NIV takes the plural and singular out completely, the NASB tried to make it in 77 as if the Thee and Thou were reverent talking to God. Thee, Thou, Thy, Thine in the King James indicate Singular, Ye, You, Your indicate plural in the King James. That is the reason these are there.
John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Jesus is talking to Nicodemus and he says, marvel not that I say unto thee (singular talking to Nicoldemus), ye (plural) must be born again. So he states that everyone must be born again and Nicodemus shouldn't marvel at it.
In Joshua 1
King James Version
1 Now after the death of Moses the servant of the Lord it came to pass, that the Lord spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying,
2 Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel.
3 Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses.
God addresses Joshua (thou) and all this people. He is supposed to lead them. v 2
Every place the sole of your foot v3. This means that any Israelites' foot will mark the land given to Israel, Not just Joshua's foot.
5 There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.
Verse 5 starts a group of many promises with T words. Joshua as the leader will not have anyone stand before him as a leader like Moses.
In the King James Translation, the translators were men of prayer that spoke many languages (some well over FIFTEEN) and spent hours a day in prayer. So, they were humble men of God that would not promote their work for profit, no doubt as they knew that God's word warned of such things.
So if your versions says you. Is it talking to one person
@@davidemme2344 Sorry for your troubles with your injuries.
I grew up on the King James Bible. It is written at about a 5th grade level. I don't mean any disrespect (with the comment on 5th grade - most other versions are at a higher level). The other versions have plenty of difficult words. Daniel 6:1 in King James talks about PRINCES other versions use Satraps or Officials. A prince is something kids understand. That is just and example.
The main reason to use the KJB would be that it came from the 5000+ manuscripts that were preserved through the church age by the Lord.
The modern versions MEV, NIV, NKJV et al.....these all use the CRITICAL TEXTS (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus).
All versions may have some of the word of God. The King James came from the preserved manuscripts through the Lord's preservation.
There are other manuscripts used for those modern versions.
Bottom line: what are you trusting for salvation?
So many trust Faith + Works (Calvinists, Catholics, Arminians).
I have trusted Christ's finished work on the cross. He offers a free gift to those who will believe in him for forgiveness of sins.
No works needed, just faith in Christ for this wretched sinner.
Romans 4:5
“But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”
@davidemme2344 Also you didn't answer my question. In John three in your version, Since it only says you and in context he is only talking to Nicodemus, Either you read into the text and assume. He means everybody in your version, or you're honest with good hermeneutics. And he's only talking to Nic And only he needs to be born again. I will stick with the Bible that came from the original transcripts. Not the ones from the gnostics in alexandria. Blessings
Hey, Dr. James White.👋🏻👍🏻
I am not a follower of Steven Anderson
Adderserpent & James sepelcher white are on the same team, don't follow any others two hellbound sinners
Just skimming through the comments here I see that there is more heat being shown than light. Everything from calling people liar, heretic, deceiver, going away from the truth. It indicates to me that God must work on people's hearts to reflect Jesus and to stop using such inflammatory language. Please stop the character smears as well. It reflects badly on you as well as the body of Christ.
Amen
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, HOWEVER THE BIBLE TELLS US TO REBUKE ALL FORMS OF EVIL AND HERESY, TO EXPOSE CORRUPTION, SO IF THE PROBLEM IS THIS: IF YOUR NOT DOING THIS, THEN YOUR SAYING ITS OK FOR THE EVIL TO CONTINUE, AND ITS NOT OK FOR HERESY TO HAVE ANY PLACE IN SOCIETY LIKE CULTS THAT PROFESS TO BE CHRISTIAN, BUT ARE NOT AS AN EXAMPLE. THERE ARE ONLY 2 CHOICES: EXPOSE THEM OR SIT BACK AND SAY OR DO NOTHING. THERE IS NO IN BETWEEN HERE. PLEASE READ YOUR BIBLE AND LET THAT BE YOUR FINAL AUTHORITY! DON'T LET THE "OFFENDED WEAKLY HERETICS" CONVINCE YOU OTHERWISE!
I have learned so much from Dr.James White.
I have learn't much from James White too. Especially on textual transmission and that we can trust The Bible more than any other book in history! Unlike the cultic KJV Only people who apply double standards and curse anyone who disagrees with their view which makes a mockery of Jesus Christ and His Followers!
lol. hahahahahahhahhahahhahaaha
+Matthew Martin amen.
+REVPIPSTER as smart as you think you are you are full of ignorance.
You will win more converts by addressing facts than through cheap insults.
Eric Hovind and James White are both doing very good work for the Lord. Listen to them.
Good interview. I have always found it disturbing when people say any bible apart from kJv is of the devil. This is the belief of many seven day Adventist
No you were incorrect the early Christians in the Baptist and the people from 14 1516 century all believe the king James Bible is the word of God not just a Seventh-day Adventist you need to catch up on your history dude
Yes, we definitely have way too many English translations. I just stick to the NASB77.
NASB is a good one! Very literal!
I go between NKJV and ESV.
NASB and NKJV ... I struggle between these two as my fave .
*WOW*
This is so lovely. Thank you.
What's with all the KJV Onlyists commenting here? Did Steven Anderson send them all here?
Probably. Cultists have a lot of time on their hands.
KJV Onlyists act and think more like a cult does. They act separatist and elitist, acting like they have more knowledge of the Bible than other Christians and keep to themselves, even away from other discerning, Bible believing Christians, often seem to act like they are too good to be around other God fearing Christians. They often have horrible Bible interpretation, making up things when the Bible doesn't have support of and often church history hasn't supported whatever it is they interpret. And I have caught them many times taking Bible verses out of context over and over. Many claim your walk with God will only improve if you use a KJV Bible. They make up strict rules with no real Bible support. They seem afraid of independent, career driven women and expect all women to be housewives. They have legalistic rules almost no other churches have. They all seem to be against something harmless that no other Christian worries about but them because of bad research. Their churches preach against Catholic's and yet, plenty of their churches have had sexual and emotional abuses. KJV Onlyists seem to see conspiracy in everything. They always insult people who question them with name calling or judging them by what they like. And they always act sarcastic and have a know it all attitude, even though plenty of good Bible teachers have and will put them in their place. If this isn't cultish behavior, then what is it?
Reading the KJV does not give anyone an advantage. Verses that appear missing or changed have been explained many times.
KJO folk ARE cultic. The cult was a spinoff of the SDA, which is also a cult. It was unknown 100 years ago.
+Adam Bears
+Paul Robinson did I say I was KJV only anywhere in my comment? Nope. Careful with your assumptions. "
NOT directed at you . . . ;-p) Sheesh - mhave I been on this trip for two years?
@@Dj.D25 my ministry name is. Alpha and Omega fish fry, but alpha and Omega is not in my new age perversion Bible ? Lol KJV is correct
So which english bible translation does White consider best?
𝔗𝔥𝔬𝔪𝔞𝔰 𝔊𝔢𝔬𝔯𝔤𝔢 esv, nasb
Probably esv
I would ask, " do you believe God preserved His inspired, infallible Words?" If your answer is yes! WHAT BIBLE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? answer me?
Which one do you think it is ?
Wow
Why would you think it's the KJV?
I would highly recommend Gail Riplinger and her infamous book "New Age Bibles" and Dr. Ruckman "Scholarship Only controversy"
White is totally exposed.
Excellent books
There is no “disjunction” whatsoever in Titus 2 v13, in the KJV. Using “and” in an English sentence without a comma joins the two things. White is really grasping at straws here.
He also uses his favorite trick of going full strawman ad hominem immediately, by claiming that KJVO people “attack others” or say that others aren’t “accessing God” without using the KJV. Nobody of any credibility is making such statements, and 9 out of 10 times the first attack in these videos and comments is against KJVO people, who are called “cultists”, or worse routinely.
I have two main questions for Mr White: 1) Have you gone to codexsinaiticus.org and viewed the high resolution images of the manuscript that all modern versions are based on? What is your explanation for why the 44 pages Tischendorf stole are lily white, while the rest of the manuscript is darkened and aged looking, as people testified only a few years later, and you can see for yourself online?
And which of the crossouts, overwrites, marginal additions, duplications, and outright mistakes in sinaiticus are the preserved Word of God?
2) Where can I find the preserved Word of God? Which version, translation, manuscript, *in any language* contains God’s preserved words, that we can access and read today?
The Aryans of Granville Sharpes day agreed with the KJV in those two areas in their defense of denying the deity of Christ... There are Mormons who utilize it as well. Granville Sharpe's rule has been substantiated and the KJ translators would've agreed if they had known it. They were better with Latin than Greek.
thanks for your input.
I believe James White is a very intelligent and scholarly man. I have learned many things from him. the part I struggle with is that James is a Calvinist and for reasons I can't understand he doesn't apply what he knows to his belief in Calvinism.
+hongkongphooey77 Exactly. I so agree with you. I havve heard so many good sermons from Paul Washer, but they make no sense in light of him being a calvinist.
+Ravenghost123 exactly :-)
+hongkongphooey77 If you read the bible you can't miss Calvinism.
+buffalo1d unfortunately that is not true. I would challenge you to read a book called the dark side of Calvinism by George Bryson. he does and excellent job showing all the inconsistencys between what the Bible actuality says and what Calvin and Calvinist have done in twisting scripture. I know several Calvinist I love and care for them as people and pray that they would see the greater work of the cross as told in scripture over the limited and distorted interpretations of Calvin. please I'm asking you to do the research..seek God on this issue and don't just take my word on this. thanks
hongkongphooey77 Actually, Buffalo is right, but in another way than intended:
1. you have been in calvinism for a time
2. you read your Bible
3. you decide to leave calvinism
4. Then you can`t miss calvinism. It would be stupid to miss calvinism once you have discovered that it is false.
So he is right. You can´t miss calvinism :)
Makes me wonder about my study bible now.
If the KJV is a translation from Hebrew and Greek texts then presumably those texts are at least as reliable as the KJV. If those texts are 100% accurate, then another version that accurately translates the Bible into modern English using those texts should be as reliable if not better than the KJV. Am I correct?
Yes. The reality becomes that KJV-Onlyists really believe that the KJV is superior to the original languages, even if they claim they don't believe that.
Actually false. Because KJV and NKJV are translated from textus receptus, and the others have been translated from the nestle-Aland critical text
@@jimmyvalentini6482 what's that mean
The new king James Bible is a mixture of the text receptors in the corrupted text is not an updated king James Bible because all the biblical English pronouns most have been changed which makes it incorrect the king James Bible is only correct English Bible if you know what you’re talking about you wouldn’t read these are the Bibles
KJV-Onlyism is an old, idolatrous poison given a new label as “the inspired, preserved, Word-for-Word of God.” It’s pathetic. Onlyists make ZERO distinction between the material, compiled Word of God that didn’t even exist until AD 397 and the supernatural, immaterial Word that has been there since the beginning (cf. Jn. 1:1). It’s the exact same problem with scholars like Bart Ehrman and John Dominick Crossan, only worse because we’re talking about faithful people solely convinced that they’re militantly defending God. Without this distinction, we end up in hell on earth on both ends of the spectrum. Either way, it’s just not a very discernible position.
wow
Interesting that the agnostics and Muslims on this page say they respect James White. As a Bible Believer I have Zero respect for this man who makes his living undermining the Word of God. White calls God a Liar by claiming that we do not have a pure word of God in ANY translation. God promised to preserve his word and he has - and not just in the Greek. We as believers ARE able to hold the INSPIRED WORD of God in our hands today through any translation that is based on (Majority text) Uncorrupted text. The KJV is still the best version today.
+ Rachel Petig
For someone who claims White is lying, you tell a number yourself . . .
"Interesting that the agnostics and Muslims on this page say they respect James White."
The respect consistency and honest scholarship. Such are seldom evident in the KJO cult.
" As a Bible Believer I have Zero respect for this man who makes his living undermining the Word of God."
Funny, but aren't;t YOU undermining the Word of God with your false teaching, proven illogic and errant cultism? SO I have to presume that you equate being a Bible Believer with being a KJO cultist? HOW can that be logical or true?
' White calls God a Liar by claiming that we do not have a pure word of God in ANY translation."
In fact White is 100% correct. Those that mock and denigrate God are those who blame the corrupt KJB on Him - those who deliberately lie in claiming there IS a "pure" word of GOD, and who heretically ASSUME there is or even COULD be a "pure " Word of God today. And that the KJB, with it numerous errors, false teaching, and corrupt history is it.
" God promised to preserve his word and he has "
And you have the nerve to claim WHITE is lying? IN fact your statement is a deliberate lie, based on your own opinion, NOT GOD's word.
"- and not just in the Greek. We as believers ARE able to hold the INSPIRED WORD of God in our hands today"
MY MY MY - more lies from someone that accused White of lying . . . YOU are simply BLINDED by your slavish devotion to your cult.
"through any translation that is based on (Majority text) Uncorrupted text."
A demonstrably FALSE assumption, without any rational support.
"The KJV is still the best version today. " An opinion contradicted by an enormous sea of evidence.
SRY for your brainwashed control by a false cult.
YOU ignore the many insertions and human "improvements" written into the Bible used by the early church the deliberate errors in translation by the KJ translators, the corruption of the Catholic texts created by Catholic Theologians. dedicated to a Catholic Pope.
Your "pure word" once held the birthdays of all the Catholic saints - included Purgatory-supporting Apocrypha, etc, yet this "pure word" has been revised and amended many times. Never noticed the ITALICS in your corrupted KJ Bible? GOD not sure of what he wanted to say? Which one of those many revisions was "PURE" and if any, why the italics?
Is the Apocrypha God's word or not - is GOD confused?
How different is your division of the Christian church over this ungodly issue than the Judaizers of the Galatian fame? How comfortable will you be explaining to GOD how you lied about and defamed a great and godly scholar because of your cults obvious errors?
1599 Geneva >KJV
Whatcha gonna do about that? 1599 was translated by common Christians, KJV commissioned my the monarch king. 1599 is the Bible of the protestants and the Pilgrims that came to America. I guess my Bible is better than yours. No, they're both fine
3:04 the marketplace of ideas. enough heard
So, let me get this straight Mr White. You don't want to use history and manuscripts to prove the Bible's superiority (but the Bible is supposed to speak for itself) but you make your living using (your slant of) history and manuscripts to discredit/undermine the Bible. You believe only the original readings were inspired and that we cannot hold in our hands an inspiration word of God today. No wonder Muslims and agnostics like Bart Ehrman respect you so. Wolf in sheep clothing. The devil comes as an angel if light.
Dr White uses a Jawbone! :D
Haha
Just like Samson?
WOWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!
we should use the text it was translated from, the GREEK Textus Receptus.
Funny, the TR wasn't published til 1631. HOW then was the KJ translated from it?
SRY to point out these inconvenient truths . . .
Paul Robinson if youre talking about erasmus or stephens textus receptus sure, but the TEXT ITSELF is complied from sources much older than 325 AD, especially since the ante-nicene fathers quoted it, and they were around before 325AD. or do you also have the book "unholy hands on the bible" or "early manuscripts, church fathers, and the authorized version". so what text did the Protestants and catholics argue over in 1611?the byzantine text? the majority text?
NO, that is incorrect. methinks you confuse texus receptus with "Majority text".
The TR (which was NOT published til 1631) was based on texts no older than about 1200. The ancient Greek texts were written in KOINE greek, which none of the 47 translators understood at all by their OWN statments; neither did any European scholars, INCLUDING Erasmus and Stephanus.
Hence Erasmus attempted to align his Greek text with the Latin Vulgate, and in a couple places actually translated FROM the Vulgate into Greek.
Bear in mind that monks, for 1000 years beginning about the 7th century, copied texts. Some were good copyists, some terrible. I have photographs of some of the very old texts that had been amended and corrected in a different hand. SO was the correction correct? Or was it extraneous?
So it seems from Erasmus writings that he simply included most of the variants in his text without any serious work ascertaining which was accurate. Don't forget that he revised it 5 times; and all 5 were used in the translation of the KJ. He saw NO reason NOT to add entire sections. Which of his revisions were correct? were any? he was by any account Luther's enemy and a defender of Catholicism.
Which of the 4 endings of Mark is correct?
When I became a Pentecostal, my KJO Baptist friends warned me that the last chapter of mark was NOT in any of the oldest texts. Go figure. If it helped preserve the soul of ONE person they were willing to throw their mark ending under the bus.
Such certainty !!! ;-)
Paul Robinson this is all very interesting, but its not what my Dean Burgon books says, nor do the 4000 plus manuscripts that give credence to the TR, are you for the westcotts and hort abomination or something? which text do you believe? have you seen Jim Browns Grace and Truth Channel? hes the only preacher i take seriously, and ofcourse thegroxt1
Paul Robinson what about when the ante-nicene fathers quoted mark 16? and john 1-5:7, and all the rest?
The apple (Eric Hovind) fail far from the tree (Kent Hovind). I'm glad.
+Micah Martin I hope you meant fall not fail
+Ivan MarecicI meant fell (sp. - not fail). Past tense of the verb fall, correct? Maybe I should have said, the apple did fall far from the tree. Better?
All good :)
Reason 3) If Reason 1 and 2 didn't convince you I doubt this will.
The KJV leads toward individual soul liberty, it leads away from false doctrines such as: Ruckmanism, Calvinism, Unitarianism, and more.
I put Ruckmanism as some supposed KJV defenders fall into the name calling camp and have no desire to be humble, but want to be right.
Well, I want to be right, because I want to be righteous. I don't mean to claim any false humility, but hope my presentation here is not offensive because of me as a person. If it offends, please look and I in no means want to be a name-caller. If you are offended because you have been fooled by another translation, consider that it may be pride and not wanting to admit you made a mistake. I am thankful for learning about my mistakes and praise the Lord for leading me to his Bible (yes the KJV).
I put Calvinism as this rise in what people think is the doctrine of Election has confused many. It shows up greatly in the modern versions. The KJV defines election as a vocational calling. For example Israel is God's Elect. They were chosen to give the oracles of God, be a holy nation before him, and bring the messiah. But, not all Israel are saved. Election isn't a doctrine where some are saved and some are not. This is a false doctrine and a heresy that isn't in the King James Bible.
Unitarianism- Those that believe Jesus wasn't God. Some of these men worked with James Strong. James Strong was a writer on the ASV and Strong's Concordance in the late 1800s. Well, if the falling away is happening and all the modern translations use things from the "new and improved" fragments like the dead sea scrolls etc. Could Satan be stealing words from the Bible?
Could Satan come to steal the word from the path? Most versions with several thousand (like 50 thousand +) ignored that take out the deity of Christ or the holiness and righteousness of God.
KJV 2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
Other versions purport that the above verse takes away from the deity of Christ. However, the fact that Jesus is deity is clear in the KJV and the other versions take away in this verse from the righteousness of God.
1 John 5:7-9
King James Version
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
Maybe the modern versions want to take way from the MOST high and get the focus elsewhere. The KJV points to God, which magnifies the name of his Son. But, what is more important than the name of Jesus? God's word.
Psalm 138:2
King James Version
2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
People want to say the KJV and all the other versions are God's word. That can't be true. God cannot lie.
Titus 1:2
King James Version
2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
If God can lie or replace Lucifer with a name of Jesus, can we trust him about eternal life? no
I know many born again believers that use other versions, but over time come to realize that the King James Bible is the pure word of God as it doesn't have mistakes such as calling Lucifer a name of Jesus.
If you say something is the word of God, it can't have mistakes. If we can only rely on "God-Breathed" manuscripts, then we can either trust only the spoken word of God leading to all sorts of false doctrines in Charismaticism, Calvinism/Catholic Determinism and prophetic utterances. Or can we trust that all scripture is given by INSPIRATION of God (a noun) rather than being God-Breathed an adjective.
Job 32:8 KJV
“But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.”
The King James Bible has a built in dictionary for words. It is the word of God.
Is your God able to preserve his word in English? Did he prepare and know what would be the pre-dominant language in the end times?
Matthew 24:35
King James Version
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Or does your God let you keep guessing at fragments of dead sea scrolls hoping to get a better version from Strong's concordance working with people that didn't believe Jesus was God?
I hope you find this challenging and will look at your interpretation of the bible and consider switching to the English Translation of the Bible, the KJV.
We magnify the Word of God above the name of Jesus as God said to do. We defend his word. Those that say the KJV is ok, but others are better, need to be sure there are no mistakes in theirs or they would be in danger of degrading the word of God. Praise Jesus, the day star. Praise Jesus, the bright and morning star. Who is your Jesus?
Do you have the right Jesus?
The King James Bible - inspired, inerrant, infallible. Praise God!
So what did you think about the content of the video?
The KJV translators would quite rightly disagree with you.
@@samlawrence2695 why does anyone think that the King James Bible translators opinion matters more than God's word?
@@KJBTRUTHbecause they understand greek and hebrew and even textual criticism than you do.
Is White really suggesting the definite article creates a disjunction? That's total nonsense. I thought he was more intelligent than that. OMG!
He is scraping the barrel to find faults with the King James Bible. Pathetic! FAIL
And you use a blasphemy here to make a comment. That is of deep concern Lisa Bell.
Jude 1:11 Woe unto them (James White and Eric Hovind)! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
No, Allan, you have. Woe to you.
Keanu Reeves likewise says, "Whoa."
tintinismybelgian 😂😂😂
@@tintinismybelgian lol
Hovind Jr is much more reasonable than his father. Like "wow!" :)
Kent Hovind helped me out A Lot. In my testimony. After french public education, being bumped around by Richard Dawkins. Then I discovered Voddie Baucham talking about historical proof of the Bible being the reliable proven as the word of God. But, what about that evolution? Then Kent Hovinds stuff got Rid of that.
@@isaacleillhikar4566 Oh yeah Kent Hovind is good on the science stuff. However Church History and Textual Criticism are not his thing lol.
@@winburna852 Church History, yeah, he doesnt know the facts. Wether the King James is better, and what he says about that's good though.
James White is blind on this issue. He's looking at the KJB from a historical perspective, not from an evidential perspective.
God is absolutely sovereign and able to preserve His word as intended, whether or not translators are aware of the Holy Spirit at work.
The proof is in the pudding as they say.
There are countless (although I'm aware of thousands myself) verifying signatures in the KJB that prove that the King James Bible is the single book prophesied in Isaiah 34:16. The KJB is the book of the LORD, the God and King of Jacob (James).
I can't cover the thousands of examples here, but here's just a few examples for those who may be unfamiliar:
First of all, for those who don't know, the King James Bible was first published in London, England in 1611.
The longest chapter in the Bible is Psalm 119, which is thematically all about God's word. It ends in verse 176. 16x11 = 176
The simple English ordinal value of KING JAMES BIBLE is 119.
In English gematria K = 11 & I = 9
So the first two letters in KING (K & I) also point to 119
Acts 16:11 prophesies where the book of the LORD would be published:
"Therefore loosing from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis;" Acts 16:11
First of all the tallest mountain in the Aegean Sea is on Samothracia known as Mt. Fengari, which is 1611 meters tall.
If you draw a set of parallel "straight courses" from Troas and Samothracia toward Neapolis the resulting trajectory takes you directly to London, England where the KJB would be published in 1611.
In Matthew 16:11 Jesus Christ warns about doubting His ability to supply bread (His written word):
"How is it that ye do not understand that I SPAKE IT NOT TO YOU CONCERNING BREAD, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?"
The Lord specifies that He's not talking about literal bread, and indicates that He's speaking about the living bread of His word that would be published in the book of the LORD in 1611, which the modern-day Pharisees and Sadducees would try to break up.
In the KJB there are 44 English letters in Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21, which are the first and last verses of the Bible.
Both these verses are divided into 27 consonants and 17 vowels each. They match perfectly by consonant and vowel count.
There is a 1 in 1.48 million chance of this occurring randomly.
Anyway, this is barely even scratching the surface of the evidence for the KJB as God's inspired word and book.
If given the opportunity, I would debate James White myself even though I'm not a debater. I know I have the truth of God's word on my side and the evidence that God has provided for it.
The fact that so many Christians doubt the veracity of God's word is why many are so uninformed about God's plan for the Second Coming.
If you know that the KJB is God's inspired word, then the LORD is able to reveal the depths and treasures of His book. For example, God unsealed what is hidden in the seven thunders of Revelation 10:3 in 2022, and it's all internally verifiable within the KJB. The church is asleep just as Matthew 25:5 says. The tarrying of the Lord isn't some ethereal or sentimental notion that the Lord is going to seem like He's taking longer than we would like or expect. The tarrying of the Lord is a literal period of time that began in 2022, and just as Matthew 25:5 states, the church was asleep when this period of tarrying began.
Given the opportunity, I would love to share with the church what God revealed in 2022 and open up God's word as a blessing for the Body of Christ. The Lord is coming soon and if people knew how amazing the details of God's plan are, they would stand in awe of our awesome God, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
What is concealed (now unsealed) in the seven thunders is absolutely incredible.
THE KJV also spells 'SAVIOUR' correctly. 7 letter's, which is God's number. Modern perversions spell it 'savior' (6 letters) = anti-christ. James White is just a circus clown defending modern perversions because he gets paid to, and has sold out for 30 pieces of Silver.
Where in the Bible does it say that 7 is God's number?
How many letters does Saviour have in the original Greek?
I would suggest that you and @fromgamestogod9850 put your faith in Christ rather than a 17th century translation committee, and spend a little more time concentrating on what God actually said, which is 98%+ uniform in the texts used by all evangelical Bible translations, and less on nonsense about heights of mountains, numbers of letters and numbers of verses and spurious multiplications that you've made up out of your own heads.
And before you say - "what about the 2%" find me a doctrine that is found in the KJV but is omitted from the NIV, NKJV, ESV, CSB, NASB or NLT
I'm TR only because those bibles were here first, and our founding fathers built the world on the TR,
Before these so-called; older/Newer/ better texts even came into existence and I just can't trust them.
GET DR RUCKMANS commentary series
+ William Robertson "GET DR RUCKMANS commentary series "
WHY not? IF you are already immersed in a false cult- may as well go whole hog - being trained as a liar, slanderer, professional idiot, and mocker of truth is hard - and we NEED the teachings of this false teacher to make us even better at it.
IF you have any doubt about Ruckman's willingness to lie repeatedly, mock truth and terrify reality - here's a quick and easy example:
www.aomin.org/aoblog/1996/09/01/response-dr-ruckman/
NOT a particularly nice comment - that is the tone of a MILD KJO cultist's comment. I have never seen such vulgar violent insults as come from the KJO cultists - we need not emulate them, even mildly.
WE have facts, evidence and GOD on our side but they have Catholicism, Cultism and "traditions of man" - and nothing more. WE will win in the end. THE KJO cult is no better than the Judiazers of Galatia - and they lost.
Yeah, Ruckman's books do make good doorstops!
I would like for Kent Hovind to be right about KJV since I agree with everything he says yet am perplexed that White seeks to contradict him on the accuracy of the KJV in other videos, but in this interview I dont think he does. In the opening White mentions that he understands the argument that KJV is based on better texts. My thoughts tell me that he isnt contradicting Kent Hovind on this matter, but rather is compelled to deny KJV onlyism insofar as some might, although I haven't seen many who do, assert that KJV is the only way to salvation. Whilst it is undeniable that one can be saved without KJV isnt it possible that the KJV is more accurate, as Hovind says: "the modern translations do a good job of translating the wrong books". Hovind would say that the Alexandrian texts etc on which modern translations are based on are corrupt and that despite being "older" they aren't necessarily better.
White says that there is no evidence that Christians were copying the bible perfectly but lets just say they did for the sake of Hovind's argument, that would mean like he says: there would be no reason to keep the old texts if they were perfectly preserved in their transcriptions as the texts wore out over time and were thus discarded. The unease at which White seems when answering on the subject of KJonlyism makes me weary because if someone was so confident in their truth why would they become so sarcastic and uneasy when trying to dismiss what should be obvious after years of study? Also when arguing lets say with Anderson, he always answers obliquely rather than directly which would help ground everyone in the truth. I suspect White may know the truth about KJV but is trying to protect people from becoming idolators of a book rather than Gods word even if he thinks the KJV could possibly be more reliable yet it cannot be "evidenced"( why keep a text if we have perfect copies of it?). If my assumptions are correct then it would be possible that he finds himself defending erroneous translations on an idealistic basis because he believes them to be similar enough in doctrine and that the issue of KJVonlyism is too dangerous. I am basing my opinion off of Kent Hovinds experience and fully trust his judgement so I would very much like to see Hovind debate White on this subject. I understand there is a vested interest in denying KJonlyism and not just for the monetary reasons of publishing costs and copyright. Given these notions there seems to be good reasons to stick to KJV assuming it has epistomological superioriy over modern texts and since there is no financial reason to adhere to it. Also, as White agrees, the problem in having too many translations which leads to confusion.
Please enlighten me!
The unease he has when discussing KJV ? Dr. White wrote a great book on this subject where he goes over everything in fine detail. He's discussed the KJV onlyism on his show countless times and he even doing so now rebutting Steven Anderson. Kent Hovind won't debate or have a discussion on this subject. He knows he is way out of his league when compared to Dr. White when it comes to this subject. He has offered and reached out to Kent but no response. I'm not saying Hovind is not saved. However when he affiliates himself with Gail Riplinger that raises red flags .
don't let white's flattery confuse you they are evil! perfect examples: Psalm 12:6-7 & 1 john 5:7 & Isaiah 14:12. just look those major problems up in all the modern bible versions and you won't have doubt ever again! God is not a liar, nor is God the author of confusion of 200 different bibles! God is the author of 1 translation, the others are from man's translation inspired by satan to do so!
There is no evidence that Christians were copying the Bible perfectly. There's your problem right there. It didn't happen. Hovind can make up his story of people perfectly copying the Bible, but it doesn't appear in the extant manuscripts. What we find is that EVERY manuscript is different from the others - no two are alike. So anything that Hovind says afterward is folly because the premise doesn't hold - there is no perfect line of manuscripts. So to say that the KJV is the only infallible word of God is folly because it has readings that are found no where else in the manuscript testimony. It's a fine Bible, for sure, but you have to understand its textual limitations. For instance, 1 John 5:7 is found in that text but it is not found in any extant Greek sources from before the 16th century. That's the evidence.
Do you want some better information read some books by Dr. Sam Gibb talk to Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger material on new age Bible versions your eyes will be opened there’s only one English version the authorized version of 1611 that’s what you call biblical English it’s not archaic it’s a bunch of lies
Although James White is very informed on Bible history, he's just flat wrong on the KJB controversy. He told Wretched radio that 1 John 5:7 does not belong in the KJV, which is a lie. 1 John 5:7 has been found in several writings of the earliest church fathers, even as far back as the first century AD, which proves that it WAS in the original scriptures. The KJV is superior to modern translations.
+valueoftruthdotorg Can you proof that?
+valueoftruthdotorg Name me one early church father in the first 500 years that cited 1 John 5:7 as canonical, I would really love to see that.
I think he's at a loss for words...maybe he's come to his senses? One can only hope.
Michael Harrington I greatly admire Dr. James White, I listen to him all the time, and I followed the whole event with himself, Riplinger and Hovind.
Dylan Stewart it’s found in two Greek manuscripts (codex ravianus and no. 61). It is also found in the marginal notes on manuscripts 88 and 629. It was quoted by Cyprian sixty years before vaticanus and sinaiticus cut it out. It is cited in 380 AD By a Spanish bishop. It is cited numberoys times between 430-534 by African Christians (Hills, Believing Bible Study p. 190). Casiodorus quotes it. It is also found in the old Latin (ms. R). Furthermore, without the comma, the gender doesn’t match in the NASV.
2 Peter 2:15 (James White and Eric Hovind) ... Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
2 Peter 2:15 (Bible Reading Outreach) ...Let God be true, and YOU, using your generic claim, be a liar. Many have been blessed from James White and Eric Hovind. You have no right to wrongly use that line of Scripture to accuse these two men. You have no right whatsoever. I pray that God leads you gently to repentance.
@18:48 your graphics are out of whack! Love Dr james white.
JAMES JUDAS WHITE IS A HERETIC!!!
10:30 Hey bub, you don't have to run around ragged to save the Greek manuscripts. Those are translations of the original language, Aramaic. And that Bible is still around in the original form and hasn't been changed since it was original penned by the original authors. But of course, you are too snobby and close-minded to even fathom that fact.
+ j parks
10:30 Hey bub, you don't have to run around ragged to save the Greek manuscripts. Those are translations of the original language, Aramaic. And that Bible is still around in the original form and hasn't been changed since it was original penned by the original authors. But of course, you are too snobby and close-minded to even fathom that fact. "
Have you any evidence of this?
I used the Peshitta for several years - and I know that statement is in the introduction to it - BUT I cannot verify it to be so - there is a 300-year gap at least between the apostles and the oldest Aramaic Bible I can find record of . . .
The NT was NOT written in Aramaic originally.
wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow
wow wow wowoowowowowowo
Two dudes who are NOT Bible believers but bible correctors
We are so grateful for the revealed word of God!
@@creationtoday you said it all. Yer not grateful for the written word. The perfect Bible exists. It’s call the King James Bible
@@BumperMetcalfeTry asking James White where you can get a copy of that perfect translation in English Bible (which is the KJV), where you can find one, where he won't tell you that there are any. The guy is a clown!
@@brianc81 amen
@@BumperMetcalfelook up the video here on youtube with Will kinney confronting James white about that on his radio show.. James white is an arrogant SOB! th-cam.com/video/5H1dWcTGnUQ/w-d-xo.html
I can see why a Muslims would respect James White. They work to the same end - undermining Jesus Christ, his deity, resurrection and the Holy Bible.
+Rachel Petig
"I can see why a Muslims would respect James White. They work to the same end - undermining Jesus Christ, his deity, resurrection and the Holy Bible. "
Another deliberate lie by illiterate KJO cultists. They respect him because he can SUPPORT his textual teachings on the Bible - the KJO CULTISTS cannot. Its easier to support Snow White than the KJB - as it is NOT based on any accurate Greek text - the FACT White is willing to take on the shrill, illiterate, divisive, cultists that mock scholarship, history and intelligence is the basis for their admiration. He does NOT blindly follow a corrupted - OBVIOUSLY so - text.
ALL ancient texts - and all modern accurate Bibles - are far more supportive of the Trinity, the deity of Christ and the reliability of scripture than the KJB.
if only Dr white can use this same humiliity when trying to understand free will and why evangelicals ad catholics and most protestants and most people on planet earth use free will he would not a staunch 5 point calvinist... if you want this type of diversoty in tranlslation you must show the same diversity of not putting God in a box like the whole TULIP scenario.
and Erics resply thw whole time was Wow!! maybe him and his dad will stop thw whole kjv only conspiracy now. even though they have good material
You don't think he HAS tried to understand the non-biblical concept of free will. Like most Calvinists, he probably used to be anti-Calvinist....until he studied the Bible and realized that this is what the Bible teaches. Virtually anyone who has gotten serious about studying the Bible eventually becomes a Calvinist.
+ML Wilson I second that...it happened to me as well:)
no one becomes a calvinist ML Wilson when they study the bible .
John Calvin was a catholic who disagreed with new doctrines and teachings that the roman catholic church tried to put forward.
God has always been sovereign.. calvin did invent it out of thin air.
Sorry, Paul Robinson, I don't totally follow your line of reasoning, nor the reasoning of Joshua Haynes. I might agree with you, but don't get exactly how you are replying to Hanyes' viewpoint. I just know that I have read/listened to Kent Hovind, Steven Anderson , Dr. James White, and Peter Ruckman, and the only one who is godly, subject to church elders, humble, and logical is Dr. James White. Kent Hovind should stick to creation ministry, and not listen to Ruckman, nor Gail Ripplinger. White has studied the historical manuscripts far more carefully and thoroughly than any of them. White's writings are far superior, and they put me at peace as well as understanding of what God wrote in the Scripture.
@@ghostl1124 Do you think Dr. Peter Ruckman does know what he’s talking about he has not have 190 he’s read a book a day since you’re 10 years old he’s read the Bible to 180 times James White is a line snake in the grass he doesn’t know what he’s talking about he just deceiver doctor recommendation is so far out of his field and passed him it’s ridiculous James White a Calvinist he doesn’t he’s he’s a liar is what he is anybody’s got a good sense knows the Bible had to be in one book not in 10 different versions of the so-called Bible
Whoa
2 Peter 1:1 doesn't introduce a disjunction. It makes sense that our Savior Jesus Christ is God because who else but God is the Savior?
but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: that, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
1 Corinthians 1:27-31 KJB
KJB spells correctlt 'SAVIOUR' 7 letters, which is God's number. Savior (6 letters) is Anti-christ.
But the problem is that Granville sharp "rules" aren't historical or consistent. There have been shown both Septuagint examples and also early church writing examples that do not follow his "rules." Sorry, Titus 2:13 better follows the fact that Jesus said he would return in his Father's(his God's) glory(Matt 16:27).. it's not a deity proof-text. High knowledge of Greek isn't needed to find out that Granville was mainly doing this just to attempt to support the "deity of Christ" against the clarity of the texts coming into place now showing that many of these texts were errors in translation or copying of the texts. It was becoming clear as the real Jewish(Hebrew really) Jesus was a unitarian like all his other fellow Jews who affirmed one God, the Father as the one and only true and living God(John 17:3, 1 Cor 8:6, 1 Tim 2:5, Matt 16:16... just to name a few).
Jesus believed in one God, his heavenly Father. But you, droptozro, have to learn what God the Father believed about God the Son, and this truth is testified to by God the Holy Spirit. The trinity is taught progressively and completely as Scripture unfolds over the years from Adam to the apostle, John. The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit ------- ONE GOD, throughout eternity, Amen.
+ThomasG10mtn It's sad that you think you're only blocking me, Thomas. The truth is that you're blocking out the entire world.
Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism.
I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the
Latin,
but not the Greek so out it goes.
Good will towards men
Doxology in Matthew
Without cause
God manifest in the flesh
Are a majority in the Greek but not in the
Latin,
so out they go
The PA and Mark
16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek
and Latin so out they go.
Even the yet found in the two of the
earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8
some throw out.
If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a
problem,
what would you see as a problem?
nothing like your dad Eric
+thf adhd To the extent that he is, he is to be commended. Unfortunately, when the talks about evolution he repeats the inaccuracies of his father, often quoting him word for word (without attribution, I might add).
You judge God when you judge His word.
There is no fear of our Almighty God by those like White who do such judging.
You who place yourselves with letters before your name show your pride and arrogance.
His mane is a above every name yet His Word is above His name.
There’s a time when Jesus will say “go away I never knew you”.
This is a perfect example of using your gifts and calling to encourage the body of Christ. When James White teaches, he is most often in line with scripture. It is only when he is teaching his beliefs on Calvinism, that the audience needs to take heed.
Beware of his aberrant teachings on the sovereignty of God. When one can say without question that God makes everything happen, whether good or evil, such a teaching blames God for all the evil in this world, and ignores the permissive will of God as seen in His dealings with Job. God allows the devil to do what he does, thus allowing mankind to see their necessity for God's grace in His guidance.
There is a perfect purpose for all that the Lord allows, but never should we accuse Him of evil. A cursory reading of Ecclesiastes and Job, coupled with a study on the character of Christ Jesus will prove this point most profoundly.
+Brother Brett I don't think you quite understand what Calvinists believe. For we in no way blame God for all the evil in the world, we instead believe that God accomplishes His Holy purpose in spite of all the evil man does.
If you examine Genesis 50:20 when Joseph is speaking to his brothers after they had sold him into slavery, Joseph tells them:
"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive" (Gen. 50:20).
Here we have one of the clearest proof texts in support of the compatibilism that Calvinists affirm. God meant for Joseph to be sold into slavery by his brothers, but His intentions were holy and just because He did so in order to save many lives at that time. The intentions of Joseph's brothers were evil, and they were judged based upon the evil intentions of their hearts. Same action, two different intentions.
One of the things that I find interesting is that you seem respect and agree with James White only when it doesn't interfere with your traditions that you are accustomed to. I would argue that every single time that Dr. White teaches, he is still teaching Calvinism. For Calvinism isn't merely a collection of the 5 Points of TULIP, it goes much deeper than that. At it's core, Calvinism and Reformed theology recognizes God's sovereignty as Creator first, and every single other belief rests upon that central affirmation of God's sovereignty.
Therefore James White is being consistent in his teaching because it is derived from the first and primary assertion of the sovereignty of God.
What would you say is the central aspect of your theology? Furthermore, are the other beliefs that you hold consistent with that central aspect of your theology? I'm interested to hear your response.
Dylan Stewart Dylan, Thank you for your response. First, your opening statement, that I do not "quite understand what Calvinists believe" is an inaccurate statement to be certain, since I have both studied and accepted most of what Reformed theology teaches as truth. I have been a pastoral counselor for over 25 years. I have studied the Bible from several theological perspectives over the years, chewing the meat and spitting out the bones. I have learned what I know to be truth from the Bible, and the Bible alone! I can recall many occasions when believers would approach me and tell me I was a Calvinist. I had never read any of Calvin's works until just a few years ago. I would always respond with "No, I am a Christian". I have never been one to proclaim faith in any denominational title. The Bible teaches us that we are Christians. Our absolute identity should be in Christ.
I have ministered to Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, and Mormons from an apologetic perspective since my walk with Christ began. I was a defender of the faith long before I ever studied apologetics. Muslims would always ask; "what kind of Christian are you?" My response would always be, "A Bible believing, born again Christian". Denominations under the umbrella of Christendom were created by the Catholic church. They were labels that identified followers of certain core beliefs as heretics, only because they challenged Catholic teachings and Papal authority. Christians today like to call themselves believers, Christ followers or children of God. I am who and what the Bible teaches...a Christian. Two Greek words: Christos and Ian, defined as "of Christ" or "from Christ". I am from Buffalo, therefore I am called a Buffalonian. Likewise, I am from Christ, and therefore called a Christian. I highlight this for a very clear reason. Are you a Christian or a Calvinist? Why do most followers of reformed theology insist on calling themselves Calvinists? The doctrines were formed long before John Calvin was born. I understand the psychology behind it. Identification is something we all seek, to fulfill a basic human desire to belong; but is belonging to Christ not enough? Think on this before you label yourself. To whom do you align or identify yourself with? Is it Jesus or John Calvin?
Keep in mind that John Calvin was a maniacal dictator, burning people at the stake for disagreeing with his doctrines. Michael Servetus was a Spaniard that was denounced by Calvin as a heretic and ordered to be burned. Oh yes, Geneva Switzerland was reformed, but Calvin's doctrines were just a smoke screen. Jesus never killed anyone for disagreeing with him. I am reminded of the cross and how Jesus prayed for those that crucified him; "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Be careful who you identify yourself with. this is of course documented history, so you are welcome to research it.
I have no issue with your reference to Joseph in Genesis. The absolute sovereignty of God is taught in scripture; but so is the permissive will of God. A cursory reading of the book of Job will attest to this truth.
Do you believe that God foresees or foreknows the future? I assume you do. One could not believe in the God of the Bible without accepting the prophetic nature of the Holy Spirit. Prophesy is the result of foreknowledge. This leads me to my next point; Romans 8:29 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate..." Proginosko is the Greek word used in this verse, and it is defined simply as "foresight or foreknowledge". The Bible teaches both predestination and free will. The fact that both doctrines are in scripture is evident. Romans 9 and Eph. 1 are two of many texts that teach predestination, while free will can be seen in the mere choice of Adam in the garden, and those famous words of Joshua, "Choose you this day..." Josh. 24:15. Bringing the two together has been a matter of confusion for the church since the beginning of the church age. God has given me an adequate understanding of these two doctrines and how they are completely compatible within the context of Christian doctrine. Read Proverbs 16:1-9 with an emphasis on verse 1 and 9. Here you will see both sovereign direction and free will choice.
Question: If you force someone to love you, do they really love you? Forcing yourself on someone is called rape, is it not? Yet James White teaches that God has decreed all things before the foundation of the world. In fact, Five point Calvinism teaches that salvation is brought about with no choice of the believer. What kind of love is this? Did God decree that I would be saved, thereby forcing himself on me without my consent? If you are a follower of John Calvin, then your answer must be yes.
Do a TH-cam search for an interview by Hank Hannegraff, as he interviews James White on the subject of God's decree. In that video, Hank and another brother asked James if he believes that God decreed evil. James said yes. They asked him about the case of rape, and does God decree rape? James said YES.
Brother, I believe in the absolute sovereignty of the Almighty, and that in his sovereign wisdom, he has given mankind the ability to choose right from wrong, left from right and good over evil. We can have this freedom and still be guided by the sovereign plan of God because of his foreknowledge. The Lord knew what we would do before we did it. He knew what choice we would make and allowed everything to happen as it did, that we would make the choice for him, when He knew we would make that choice. He never violates our free will. James White would disagree and argue this sound, Biblical logic, attempting to prove his point, that God chooses most for hell and some for heaven. How can a just God judge people for their sin if he made them sin?
The central aspect of my theology is Jesus Christ! Salvation is a work of the Lord and nothing I can do can obtain it or retain it. It is as Paul stated, "a gift of God". My salvation is in the finished work of the cross. I am sealed and eternally his, because of what he did for me; but he still allowed me to choose.
I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian. I am Christian! Born again by the blood of Jesus and his resurrection from the dead, made to be an eternal child of the living God.
I must leave for church now. I hope this answers your question. Please check out that video with the James White interview by Hank Hannegraff. I believe you will be as shocked as I was. Be a Berean brother. Don't accept anything anyone says, but check it with scripture first and then make your decision.
In Jesus always,
Brother Brett
Brother Brett I have no doubt that what you've said about studying the Reformed perspective is true, but to say that the Calvinist's position makes God the author of evil is a misrepresentation of what we believe about God's decree.
You also seem to have a stigma about being labeled in your denomination. To say that "I'm not calvinist or arminian, I'm a Christian" is simply a non-answer that does not facilitate a meaningful conversation between Christians. To answer your question: "Are you a Christian or a Calvinist?" I would simply retort "Why can't I be both?". I am a Christian because I have faith in Christ and have chosen to follow Him, but with regards to other doctrines concerning God's sovereignty and how I interpret scripture requires another label as well.
Labels are not a bad thing. There are many denominations partially due to the Spirit and partially due to sin. I wish I could simply say that I am a Christian that believes the Bible, but that's really not a sufficient answer. Therefore the next logical question is "What do you believe the Bible teaches and how should we interpret scripture?". My answer of course would be that I follow to a Reformed understanding of the Bible. Take politics for instance, if I am asked about my political views, should I respond with "I'm not a liberal or conservative, I'm an American." ? Obviously labels help aid us in our communication to others in order to generally present to others what our views are.
As of now, I really don't know what you believe because you are refusing to be labelled. What do you believe about church governing, baptism, or the nature of the Trinity? I do not know because you do not accept a label. I do not use a label because I have a need to belong to any particular group, I use labels because they make communication easier.
Calvinists also accept the label of "Reformed Baptist" or "Reformed Evangelical", but we also define ourselves as Calvinist because we recognize that John Calvin was most responsible in the spread of Reformed theology during the Reformation period. It does not mean that we only follow the views of Calvin, nor does it mean that we think he's infallible in any way. We examine many church fathers and theologians and read their writings for insight and wisdom of what the scripture says. We do not substitute or equate patristic writings with the inspired scripture whatsoever, but instead recognize that it still has value in educational purposes.
The Christian patriarchs that came before us faced the same issues we face today, and being that they were very well educated men, we should not simply ignore their writings because they are not on the same level as scripture. The early church fathers should act in the same way a Bible commentary does for us. We read the Bible verse, study different commentaries on it, and then check them for consistency with what the Bible has to say.
Brother Brett I also must correct your grossly unbalanced presentation concerning the affair between Servetus and John Calvin.
Calvin never ordered Servetus to be burned at the stake. On the contrary, Calvin reached out numerous times to Servetus to convince him to recant his heresy, but Servetus always responded to him in the most nasty and arrogant manner in his letters to Calvin. Calvin even offered to meet with him personally, but Servetus failed to show up.
John Calvin also new where Servetus was living in Geneva, and knew what his pseudonym, but never decided to turn him in. John Calvin was also not even a citizen of Geneva at this time, so he had no power to order Servetus to be killed, and he was not a "dictator" as you described him.
Servetus also sought to accuse Calvin of heresy and attempted to drum up support for this false claim with his political base.
This was not some unanimous decision made by Calvin at all. In fact, Geneva wrote to all the Swiss-Cantons as to what Servetus fate should be, and they ALL agreed that Servetus had committed heresy and should be burned. They even wrote to Luther's successor who was far more liberal than Luther by the way, and even he said that he should be burned.
On the contrary, Calvin and his ministers pleaded with the Little Council, which was the secular council that wanted Servetus burned, to impose a less harsh punishment, but the council refused!
Even on the night before Servetus was to be executed, Calvin went to meet with Servetus in order that he might try one last time to get Servetus to retract his heresy, but Servetus spat in his face!
I do not know where exactly you read your history on the issues between Calvin and Servetus, but it is incredibly bias and leaves out a lot of the important historical context around the event that is crucial in interpreting that event.
Brother Brett I shall respond to the rest of your comment about God's decree of rape and man's free will later this evening. If you wish to respond to what I have posted already then feel free, but I shall be back on later tonight.
You don't judge the King James Bible, it judges you
Psalm 16:11
Thou wilt shew me the path of life: In thy presence is fulness of joy; At thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.
Revelation 5:1
And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.
"Yeah, hath God said?" who said that... someone was always questioning the word of God in the Bible. You don't need people like Mr. White here to tell you Greek & Hebrew. You can trust the KJV.
You’re only hearing what you want to hear or your brainwashed in the KJV-only movement. It’s not questioning, but revising the Bible as the KJV translators would have wanted.
To many wows....otherwise great interview
Careful who you align yourself with Eric. We love your family's ministries but the KJB is a core issue. Stick with Gale Riplinger, Sam Gipp, Bill Grady and others. The proof is in the text brother. Going to James White for a KJB interview, is like interviewing Rosey O'Donnel on dieting. Preservation through Inspiration Perfect and pure and a copy made by a king Deut. 17.18 The KJB is THE inspired, infallible perfect Word of God..daddy raised you better than the King James just being a "good translation" or "my favourite" keep up the great work! praying for all the Hovind ministries. - in grace and truth
+Bible Truth John8.32 Gale RIplinger? You actually take her seriously? If you noticed, Gale stopped doing radio debates after she had James White on because of how badly she was embarrassed.
No, not "preservation through inspiration." It's actually "restoration through inspiration." The KJV translators had to reconstruct significant passages because of gaps in the TR.
Gail Riplinger is a serial liar and adulteress - and you think a young man in God's work should follow her?
The misnamed TR (printed in 1631) was NOT inspired in any way. IT was a political translation and nothing more. The Geneva was an HONEST translation. That cannot be said for the KJB
BTJ8.32 Everything you wrote about sticking with G.R., S.G., B.G., is wrong. You have no proof, brother. Go live in an Asian country for 3 years, learn another language, and then you will realize how translations communicate from one language to another.
you will forgive me if I don't take the word of a man like James white who suggested that a group of 14,000,000 people were to insignificant to evangelize.
I'm quite sure you either mis-heard him, or you (or the people you got that from) have taken his words out of context.
The problem is that all the other version are from Catholic Church
You might want to research that statement. It is not correct.
@@creationtoday I have
James white-out
No wonder the Muslims dislike the Bible whilst these evangelists squabble over these bibles.....
Have any of you head the phrase "oldest trick in the book"? This devil is using that same oldest trick. And that is questioning God's word, casting doubts into people about what God really said and meant. This little man's damnation is just!
all scripture IS given by inspiration PRESENT tense not was given --in-spirit-ation see JOB 32:8 but there is a spirit in man ;and the inspiration of the almighty giveth them understanding ---this vs is about the spirit of GOD giving you understanding of scripture LK 24:45
WHAT BIBLE VERSION IS THAT FROM? LOL! SO IS THE NWT JEHOVAH WITNESS CULT BIBLE CONSIDERED INSPIRED OR INTENTIONAL CONFUSION?????? LET YOUR EYES BE OPENED!
Wow, two of the biggest unsaved false prophets of all time. Not very noteworthy
Noran Davis any evidence of their being unsaved? How is it that you have this ability?
Neither are prophets. Neither are that big. And both are saved Christians. You are right though that there are 2 of them. Well done on that point!
The less crazy of the Hovinds
There are zero "enhancements" since the KJB. All modern versions are dumbed down and strip the power out of many KJB verses. Don't listen to either of these two and do your own research. Compare the verses for yourselves. Compare 1 John 5:7 and try to reconcile it. Reading 10 different versions is not Bible study.
There are difference. No one disputes that. The question is a why are they there? It's not hard to find the answer and as it turns out there seem to be good reasons, i.e. the modern translations are closer to the originals.
@@josiahroyer1062 No sir. Do the research. The differences comes from supposed older manuscripts which are possibly fakes. Pretty much all changes comes from the Sinaiticus. Check out David Daniel's study on it.
@@Shrimpwagon of course, that is the point in which we'll disagree. To propound that the ancient manuscripts are fakes smacks of conspiracy. I've listened to a good bit of discussion on the topic and though I'm no expert I think I've done a reasonable amount of research for a layman.
Yes, the differences between the kjv and modern version are manuscript differences, but saying they "are dumbed down and strip the power out" is poisoning the well. These decisions were made honestly by believing men (like James White) who have a different perspective than you. It's not a conspiracy. It's not an attack on the Bible. It is an honest evaluation of all the data available, most of which was not available to the King James translators.
@@josiahroyer1062 The translators had all they needed. So what Bible should I be reading? Where are God's preserved words?
@@Shrimpwagon God's words are preserved in the manuscript tradition. The current state of the critical text is essentially on top of the original. We can know because of the method of transmission that no one could have changed the truths contained in that tradition.
Of course, the TR, like the critical text, is a product of textual criticism. To hold to the view that the TR or the KJV is perfect a second act of inspiration is required. Perhaps you hold to that view. Otherwise you must simply assert the authority of the TR/KJV based on the assertion itself.
When talking to a King James "onlyist" just politely ask " show me in the Bible where it says the King James is the only inspired Bible?" While you hand them a KJV
EASY PSALM 12:6-7 SAYS THE WORDS OF THE LORD ARE PURE!GOD IS NOT A LIAR! IF YOU CALL GOD A LIAR, THEN YOU HAVE A LOT TO ANSWER FOR! FAIR IS FAIR SO: SO IF GOD IS OF TRUTH LIKE JESUS CHRIST SAYS "HE IS THE TRUTH" , THEN SHOW ME THAT YOUR SO CALLED MODERN PRESERVED BIBLES SAYS THE SAME THING ON MAJOR VERSES LIKE HIS DEITY, THE TRINITY, AND WHO FELL FROM HEAVEN? IN BOTH VERSION COMPARISONS: PSALM 12:6-7, REV. 22:16 TO ISAIAH 14:12, 1 JOHN 5:7 AND THAT IS ENOUGH TO PROVE IT RIGHT THERE TO YOURSELF IF YOUR QUOTE UNQUOTE "OPEN MINDED OR OBJECTIVELY NEUTRAL" ?
@@jeff1992000 -- Where in Psalm 12 is the KJV mentioned?
Your Dad know your sponsoring a person A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. Proverbs 6:19
That's dumb and he's playing a game of course it's not going to correct the Greek of the Hebrew but it will correct other version
There are people who believe it is "re-inspired" to the point that it could correct the Greek and Hebrew.
Reason 2) Other Versions are more confusing by taking out Thee, Thy, You, etc thus ignoring the original languages and the plural and singular forms.
The other translations take out the Thou, Thee, Ye, You and replace everything with you. It is important as in the Greek, Chaldean, Hebrew etc, there were plural forms of these words. So the King James translators put this into the translations. If you were teaching a class and said "you need to get the worksheet done." Are you speaking to one student, or all students? It could be one that you earlier told to get the worksheet done, or the whole group. We would need context. The ESV adds footnotes to supplement these things, the NIV takes the plural and singular out completely, the NASB tried to make it in 77 as if the Thee and Thou were reverent talking to God. Thee, Thou, Thy, Thine in the King James indicate Singular, Ye, You, Your indicate plural in the King James. That is the reason these are there.
John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Jesus is talking to Nicodemus and he says, marvel not that I say unto thee (singular talking to Nicoldemus), ye (plural) must be born again. So he states that everyone must be born again and Nicodemus shouldn't marvel at it.
In Joshua 1
King James Version
1 Now after the death of Moses the servant of the Lord it came to pass, that the Lord spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying,
2 Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel.
3 Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses.
God addresses Joshua (thou) and all this people. He is supposed to lead them. v 2
Every place the sole of your foot v3. This means that any Israelites' foot will mark the land given to Israel, Not just Joshua's foot.
5 There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.
Verse 5 starts a group of many promises with T words. Joshua as the leader will not have anyone stand before him as a leader like Moses.
In the King James Translation, the translators were men of prayer that spoke many languages (some well over FIFTEEN) and spent hours a day in prayer. So, they were humble men of God that would not promote their work for profit, no doubt as they knew that God's word warned of such things.
So if your versions says you. Is it talking to one person
Wow
*WOW*
3:45
Wow
Wow