I have english as a second language and i have no issues with understanding the Kjv. It does not take all that long to get used to it. Just look up the occasional words you don't understand and write them down for reference over time you will start to remember their meaning. It will get you to understand the Kjv better and increase your vocabulary.
Problem for myself and I imagine you would be the same Phil we both know to whom we serve and the day is coming when He will ask us to give an account of our holding fast to truth Praise our Lord for you Phil I have often encountered your wonderful heart towards salvation Hallelujah
What is he trying to say ? There are not just two Text Families; there are several text type families. Westcott and Hort were the first to identify text types and they identified four distinct text types: 1. the Western Texts, 2. the Syrian Texts, 3. the Neutral Texts and 4. the Alexandrian texts. Westcott and Hort did a great service but no one follows Westcott and Hort's ideas any longer. Since that time many, many more Greek manuscripts have been found and these classifications have been revised New Testament Textual Scholars Aland & Ashland organized the Greek manuscripts of the NT into the following categories: Category I - Alexandrian Text Type (combined the Neutral Texts & Alexandrian Texts) Category II - Egyptian Text Type Category III - Eclectic/Caesarean Text Type Category IV - Western Text Type Category V - Byzantine Text Type (Westcott and Hort's Syrian Text Type) They are organized from the earliest manuscripts to the most recent manuscripts. In the past we used to think of Manuscripts as being categorized by location, but now we know that is not as significant of a factor any longer because so many manuscripts have mixed features. For Example: the Codex Alexandrinus exhibits the Alexandrian Text type, except in the Gospels. The Gospels of Codex Alexandrinus are of the Byzantine Text Type. Two significant factors has enabled more much efficient research of the various Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. 1. Computers Because of the use of computers, we are able to study and compare the texts more efficiently and more quickly. This ability to compare the various Greek Manuscripts with computers has revolutionized Textual studies and research, and old suppositions are falling and the whole discipline is changing. The old ideas of early textual criticism of Westcott and Hort have been left in the dust. .2. Access to The Manuscripts If a scholar wanted to compare manuscripts they would have to travel to places the manuscripts were located and they were not permitted to remove the manuscripts to another location of compare with another manuscript. This made the comparison work very labor intensive and tedious. However, now thanks to the Work of Dr. Daniel Wallace, the director of the "Center for the study of the New Testament Manuscripts" (CSNTM), he has given scholars the ability to go on the internet and see high resolution, digitized copies of Greek manuscript for study, research and comparison (for free !! Thanks Dr. Wallace !! Great work !). This also preserves the content of manuscripts from being destroyed and lost forever. Wallace has also contributed by the discovery of new manuscripts that were once unknown. Be Well, DZ
Dear @@KJBChristian Hello ! "you drank the koolaid bruh." OK, The Koolaid that Jesus made. Dear User, It is easy to set back and take pot shots at others making assertions and claims. It is another thing to provide objective, evidential, support for your assertions and claims. We can discuss the issues ...... if you are willing and capable. I invite you to this challenge. Apparently you think something I said was wrong. If you feel that you are strongly correct, then tell and explain to me what I said that is incorrect. Give facts and documentation and we can discuss this like gentlemen, in the love of Jesus The Christ. If you don't think your perspective is defensible and cannot stand up to the evaluation of true, Godly scholarship, then you may prefer to avoid this challenge and avoid responding. IF you are not willing to defend your assertions, then perhaps it is best to avoid making comments you cannot defend. Be Well, in the living presence of our Lord Jesus, the Christ, DZ
If Westcott & Hort did such a wonderful job on translations, then why are the publishers of the new bibles ashamed to tell us from what text they are translated from?
Dear@@Jorge-sp9yk Hello ! You seem to be confused about the issues. Westcott & Hort did NOT do such a wonderful job on translations, because they were not known as translators. Let me explain for you what they did. They took the Greek manuscripts and compiled them to make a Greek text. That is Greek manuscripts, to Greek text - no translation ! This is basically the same thing Erasmus did in taking some Greek manuscripts and compiling a Greek text that we know of today as the "Textus Receptus". Both Erasmus and Westcott & Hort conducted the work of Constructive Textual Criticism (not to be confused with Form Criticism and Higher Criticism, which are destructive processes). You asked, "why are the publishers of the new bibles ashamed to tell us from what text they are translated from?" I don't see any evidence that publishers are ashamed to reveal text sources. About every translation I haven my library provides that information in the preface. You can also look up that information in Wikipedia where the textual sources are easy to find. If you think other wise, give some examples to provide so evidence for your accusation. You seem to imply that you think modern English translations use the Westcott & Hort Greek text. Hardly anyone uses the Westcott & Hort Greek Text for NT translation any more (and probably not any translations in my lifetime, and I am old). The Westcott & Hort Greek text is obsolete and probably only used for historic comparison studies. I have several Greek texts in my library, but I don' have a Westcott & Hort Greek text. The last published edition of the Westcott & Hort Greek text, was in 1925, almost 100 years ago. The Greek text often used today for many translations of the Scriptures differs from the Westcott & Hort Greek Text in hundreds of places (according to Aland, and he would be one to know that fact). You might want to check your sources of information because it appears you information is not too reliable and accurate. Be Well and Have a wonderful Christ-centered Christmas ! DZ
Yes very much so. It's clear when you look at the history, the RCC has been opposed to it's believers reading the Bible because it's beyond their understanding.
Dear @richhunter5013 I will take that really "old time religion" like in the first century when the Jerusalem church was started. There was no KJV Bible there but later in the century we had the Scriptures in the Hebrew and Greek, in it purest form of God's Word, without all the translation errors of the KJV. DZ
Dear @Buzz-rh4dz. Hello ! Actually, that would be a fairly good combination to uses to conduct some serious Study of the Scriptures, if one does not study God's Word in the original languages that God Chose to write his written word in. That would be my recommendation if you can only read English and you can only afford two Bibles. The KJV is not a good translation to conduct deep Study of the Scriptures for various reasons; the most important being accuracy to God's Word. It is highly recommended to follow the wise advice of the translators of the KJV and always use a variety of Translations of the Scriptures if you want to understand the meaning of the Scriptures (you can see this statement in the Preface of the 1611 KJV). Many KJV Only Supporters are unaware of this fact. The KJV translators were very opposed to the idea of KJV only ! Yeh, a bit ironic isn't it !! They trust the KJV translators, but they don't trust them DZ
Dear@@Buzz-rh4dz Hello ! My grand mother decided to stick with he KJV and I believe for very legitimate reasons. She had learned a lot of verses word for word out of the KJV and did not want to confuse that learning. I think that is a good and legitimate reason ! Someone once told me his church used the KJV in services so when in services it is easier to use the same translation. Good Idea In the past I would go to assisted living facilities and would used the KJV. That is a sensible decision. When I conduct historic research, I may used the KJV, And every Christmas I must read the Christmas story from the KJV, or it just doesn't "Feel" like Christmas. Yeh ! I know. I like those sentimental feelings and the nostalgia of old time Christmas. You may have good reasons for "Sticking with the KJV". Just be aware of the weaknesses in this translation of God's Word. That is the caution point Legitimate Reasons Some claim it is the perfect Word of God. That is an extremely naive perspective resulting from theological illiteracy. Some claim it is a perfect translation of God's Word Another extremely naive perspective resulting from failing to compare the text of the KJV against the Text of the Textus Receptus. If someone makes that claim then it is clear that have not done the research. I have found many translation errors in the text of the KJV Some claim it is the only translation of God's Word for English speaking people Silly idea !! They should read the wise words of the translators of the KJV. They said if anyone wants to understand the meaning of the scriptures they should use a variety of translations. (See the preface of the 1611 KJV) The KJV translators opposed the idea of KJV only as evidenced by the Preface of the 1611 KJV. Some claim it is best to use only one translation. I recommend at least one literal translation (ESV) and one free translation (NIV) They balance out things so well. If you use only literal, you are likely to have problems with 1st century cultural idioms, which free translations do a better job of, but you also want to know what literal words are used Some claim the KJV is best because it has been around the Longest Nope ! That idea does not even need a response. It is a silly idea. T Model fords have been around longer that most cars people have but most people would not be interested in using one. Of course it is alway best to study the scriptures using the original languages that God chose to give us His written word in. there is a depth of meaning and understanding of God's Word that you are very unlikely to get and understand by using a translation of God's Word. I don't know of any good reason why someone should stick with the KJV if they are committed to conducting serious, in-depth study of the Scripture. I can discuss this with you if you are willing. I have had seminary training and 40 years of Biblical research on the issue so "this old dog can hunt" (If you catch that idiom). There are other translations of God's Word that are simply better than the KJV, but as I said, it is best to go to the Hebrew and Greek to get the pure meat of His word. Be Well, DZ
@@GodisGracious1031Ministries The concept of 1 John 5:7b (Comma Johanneum) is a true concept, but it is not actual canon Scripture. It is an interpolation that the Roman Catholic Church persuaded Erasmus to put into His Greek Text, which later became known as the Textus Receptus and used by the translators of the KJV and they translated the Interpolation and added it to the text of the KJV. The first edition of Erasmus' Greek text did not have the Comma Johanneum. The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) scolded Erasmus for omitting it, but Erasmus told them it is not in any of the Greek manuscripts he had. So the RCC commissioned a a Franciscan friar, named "Froy" to take an existed Greek manuscript that did not have the Comma Johanneum and he added the Comma Johanneum after 1 John 5:7a in this new manuscript. So essentially it was made to order. We still have this manuscript and it is called "Minuscule 61" or know as "Codex Montfortianus" and is now located at Trinity College, in Dublin. Since the Roman Catholic Church now had a Greek manuscript with the Comma Johanneum (created just after Erasmus' first edition), they gave it to him and told he now he has one with the verse, obviously expecting Erasmus to include the addition they had made to his next edition of His Greek text, Which he did in obedience to the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope. That is how 1 John 5:7b was added to the Textus Receptus and the KJV translated and copied it into it's English text. However Christian scholars recognize that it was not originally in the Scriptures and does not have the confirmation of the more accurate Greek texts. This is emphatically not a textual issue of text Families !!! The vast majority of Manuscripts that do not have I John 5:7b are from the Majority Text Family (The Byzantine Manuscripts) People claiming it is a Alexandrian variant ( and I have heard quite a few make that erroneous claim). simply do not know what they are talking about and are mis informing and misleading people !!! That is an example of Biblical illiteracy. Be Well, DZ
Hosea 4:6 KJV - My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. Proverbs 24:21 KJV - My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change:
We seem to live in an age where the idea is pervasive that: newer is always better. Which, of course, is often not true. The idea that the book which brought the Word of God to the English speaking world for three and a half centuries is suddenly such a challenge to understand that the world cannot find God without a new translation is rather comical.
They didn’t want to use the majority TEXT, they just wanted to “Fill in the blanks”. Not the text, just 1John 5:7 and the long version of Mark ,etc. ‘Just fillin the blanks ” YOUR OWN EXACT WORDS .I ASSURE TOU THOSE WERE THE ONLY-CHANGES IN THE Bible.
I would bet you are right: with child (sanctity of life in the womb case declared), appearance like the Son of God (fourth man in the fiery furance, pre-incarnate Jesus from a known pagan worshipper's own lips of acknowledgement, Daniel 3:25) baptism conditional on confessed profession of faith and belief (Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch, from Acts) . Yet very likely still conferring a title for Christ to Satan - Morning Star (Rev 22:16 vs their Isaiah 14:12) obscuring the divinity of Christ, his bodily resurrection, and the many references to the blood, letter out. Yes, we don't have to read it all to know where the changes are generally going to occur.
The majority texts are a group of ancient texts of more than 5000 manuscripts which read basically the same in content, which was used to translate the King James Bible. The other Group of texts are the minority texts, which consist of five manuscripts that early translators refused as corrupted. 2 schoars in the late 1800s named Westcot and Hort used these rejected texts to produce the NIV, and have influenced all new versions of modern bibles with corrupted texts, mostly from the Sianaticus and the Roman Catholic Vaticanus. Westcot and Hort were involved in witchery.
The Westcott and Hort Greek text that is used in all modern bibles is called the "modern critical text." However, you will be hard pressed to find a publisher that will admit it.
Dear @hubertlancaster 1. "majority texts ... which was used to translate the King James Bible" Actually the KJV used the Textus Receptus as Its NT Greek Text Source and the Textus Receptus was based on some of the less reliable Greek manuscripts of the Majority Text Manuscripts. There are a couple Geek Texts compiled from the Majority Text manuscripts (Hodges & Farstad's Greek Text and Robinson & Pierpont's Greek Text) that use much better Greek manuscripts and provide us with a much better Greek text than the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus is technically a minority text because it has significant differences from the Majority text manuscripts and Greek texts. 2. "The other Group of texts are the minority texts, which consist of five manuscripts " What !!! There are many more Greek manuscripts other than just "five manuscripts" !! You really need to conduct your due diligence in research before you make such a silly assertion. Go to Wikipedia and type in Alexandrian Text-type and you will see a list of Alexandrian Manuscripts. There are about 21 notable manuscripts and many other Papyri, Uncials, and Minuscules. There are also other Greek manuscripts in the Western Text Type, Caesarean Text Type and Neutral Text Type. I can only assume you are getting your information from KJV Only Sources which are often poor sources of reliable accurate information. 3. "early translators refused as corrupted. " WHAT !!! Says who ?? That is an unsupported opinion. Give objective documented references to support such an assertion. (Words and assertions are easy to make when you provide not reasonable objective evidence). 4. "Westcott and Hort used these rejected texts to produce the NIV, " Wildly naive statement ! Westcott and Hort did not produce the NIV; they were dead by the time the NIV was translated. The NIV did not use the Westcott and Hort Greek Text as the NT text source fro the NT of the NIV. Look it up !!!! Where are you getting this misinformation ??? 5. Modern Translations do not use the Westcott and Hort Greek Text either !!! Some modern translations use an accurate Greek Text of the Majority text Manuscripts; more accurate to God's Word than the Textus Receptus that was used by the KJV. See the Hodges & Farstad's Greek Text and The Robinson & Pierpont Greek Text. See the WEB Bible; uses The Robinson & Pierpont Greek Text as the NT Greek source text. Note the WEB Bible was created completely as a public domain translation of the Scriptures. 6. Roman Catholic Vaticanus. Actually the KJV has much more influence from Roman Catholic theology and culture, and the Anglican Church (since it is a denominational translation of the Anglican Church), than the Modern translations of God's Word made by conservative Christians. Anyone studying the origins and text of the KJV will clearly see these influences. 7. Westcott and Hort were involved in witchery. We all know where this rumor came from !!! It was Gail Riplinger that created and spread this rumor because she failed to conduct due diligence in research . This kind of slander is not a trait of Genuine Christians
The textual notes in the NKJV tell many of the differences in the TR, MT and the CT. Most of the differences between the TR and MT are found in Revelation, though most of the MT lines up with the TR.
@@jonathankinner6231 Thanks for your reply. I was asking for more of a high- level description of the difference. For example, is the TR a text based on a subset of the manuscripts which comprise the MT? It's my limited understanding that Erasmus, who started the ball rolling on the TR, used a certain number of Greek manuscripts that he had access to, but were not a totality of the known Greek manuscripts of the time. Whereas, the Majority Text...is this a text which accounts for the language in all extant Greek manuscripts? I ask because I heard James White once say that the TR is not the same as the MT, so I was trying to get a firm understanding of the difference in terms of source manuscripts. It seemed like Dr. Stringer was using the terms interchangeably, which was confusing me in light of what I had heard James White say. I know James White isn't a friend of the TR/MT and I don't receive what he says uncritically, but one must be informed on this issue to be prepared for arguments from those who take the same position on the matter.
@@Constans99 That is true. I noticed Dr. Stringer doing the same thing. As far as my limited understanding the modern MT position is a textual critique all on its own but based on different theories on textual transmission through church history than the CT, though they share some similarities. Maurice A. Robinson is the scholar that I know of that propagates the MT position in scholarly circles. Here is a link to an article he wrote on the subject: rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v06/Robinson2001.html. Perhaps that will help.
www.wayoflife.org/free_ebooks/bible_version_question_answer_database.php I believe you will find the answer to your questions in this free ebook. I do however think that Dr. Stringer is referring to the majority text as the received text as this was another name that was used like the traditional text to represent the recieved text or in Latin TR. There is another Majority text that was published by the nkjv editors known as the farstad and hodge majority text theory, and this text is different than the received text. Also, you will glean a better understanding of Erasmus and his work from this ebook.
@@Constans99 Making this as simple as possible: the Traditional Text is that put together by Erasmus, Beza, and the Elziver brothers. The Majority Text is taken from some 430 Greek manuscripts put together by Herman Von Soden (who was no KJV supporter). Hodges and Farstad's Majority Text is Von Soden's...far from a majority, but very similar to the Traditional Text (about 1800 differences of minor importance).
"Pure and perfect", no. No translation is inspired, only the originals. Is the KJV a faithful and accurate translation? In general, yes. The Puritans considered the KJV to be a corruption of Scripture as compared to the 1560 Geneva. Many people think King James just wanted to do away with the marginal notes, but that's simply not true. There were many changes made to the Scripture itself. For just one example, Matthew 6:24 of the 1560 Geneva reads, "Ye cannot serve God and riches," while the KJV has replaced "riches" with the obscure and meaningless word "mammon". A very careful comparison will show there are many such changes to Scripture in the KJV.
I listened this Tuesday, October 18, 2022. I very much enjoyed it; it seemed pass by quicker than an hour. I greatly needed the information on copyright laws with England being generally disregarded by a good number of countries around the world, after America declared them void declaring/gaining Independence. I was debating with someone on Twitter years ago about the King James Version of the Holy Bible being better. I made the statement that it holds no copyright as one of it's pluses; I was contradicted in return with a link to an article that King James declared the copy right law would last forever, beyond the usual 100 years time previously allowed for such things, and that he or the heirs of the translators confurred those rights to Oxford University, but they have never made an issue of the copyright being enforced when infringed upon . I was left feeling confused about the difference in information. I figured there was some explanation to rightly consider it free but, I didn't know what. I then learned that the US Congress later commissioned or agreed to purchase an American Standard English Version of The Holy Bible for the military use rather than use the KJV, and my mind was further blown. I had thought, or seemed recall that most of the New English Translations starting coming out and circulating with wider acceptance closer to the 1930's. I'm glad I know this is why Shakespeare is considered in the public domain, probably a number of classic English writers too.
If I had known that before I bought it, I would never have got an ESV. I only bought this to understand if it was better than the KJV, I was wrong, the KJV got a very good Textus Receptus.
I am a Gideon and I can verify what Stringer says about the ESV. I would never use the ESV, even with the 14 missing verses put back in and all the missing words and phrases put back in. For the most part, the ESV is 95% like the other new bibles with the Westcott & Hort Modern Critical Text for the NT.
The other major question to ask is whether the translation has a Dispensational bias. All minority text Bibles, in my research so far , have Scofield's Dispensational interpretation perversions.
Dr. Stringer commends the ESV for indicating the source texts used. In contrast, i cannot find a preface in my copy of the King James Version that states what source texts were used.
It's not copyrighted so anyone, or any publisher can publish it, so it's not surprising that many do not state what text the KJV is stranslated from. I had some really ond NIV and other translations and they went into detail on the texts and which documents were used in translation. Now almost any new translation or Bible will not state that kind of information in it any more. There is probably a reason for that..
@@Dreadshoop ESV The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (5th ed., 1997), and on the Greek text in the 2014 editions of the Greek New Testament (5th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (28th ed., 2012), edited by Nestle and Aland. Source: www.esv.org/preface/ CSB The textual base for the New Testament is the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th edition, and the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament, 4th corrected edition. The text for the Old Testament is the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 5th edition. At times, however, the translators have followed an alternative manuscript tradition, disagreeing with the editors of these texts about the original reading. Source: www.bible-researcher.com/csb-intro.html MEV The Modern English Version is a translation of the Textus Receptus and the Jacob ben Hayyim edition of the Masoretic Text, using the King James Version as the base manuscript. Source: modernenglishversion.com/faq/ NASB HEBREW TEXT: In the present translation the latest edition of Rudolf Kittel's BIBLIA HEBRAICA has been employed together with the most recent light from lexicography, cognate languages, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. GREEK TEXT: Consideration was given to the latest available manuscripts with a view to determining the best Greek text. In most instances the 26th edition [previous editions read, "23rd edition"] of Eberhard Nestle's NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE was followed. Source: NASB Preface NET The starting point for the Hebrew text14 translated to produce the NET Bible Old Testament was the standard edition known as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS). As for the Greek text used in the NET Bible New Testament, an eclectic text was followed, differing in several hundred places from the standard critical text as represented by the Nestle-Aland 27th edition. Source: netbible.com/net-bible-preface NKJV For the New King James Version the text used was the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica, with frequent comparisons being made with the Bomberg edition of 1524-25. In light of these facts, and also because the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the footnotes. Source: www.bible-researcher.com/nkjv.html NLT The translators of the Old Testament used the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible as their standard text. They used the edition known as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1977) with its up-to-date textual apparatus, a revision of Rudolf Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica (Stuttgart, 1937). The translators also compared the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint and other Greek manuscripts, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, and any other versions or manuscripts that shed light on textual problems. The translators of the New Testament used the two standard editions of the Greek New Testament: the Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies (fourth revised edition, 1993), and Novum Testamentum Graece, edited by Nestle and Aland (twenty-seventh edition, 1993). Source: www.tyndale.com/nlt/faq/ NRSV For the Old Testament the Committee has made use of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1977; ed. sec. emendata, 1983). For the New Testament the Committee has based its work on the most recent edition of The Greek New Testament, prepared by an interconfessional and international committee and published by the United Bible Societies (1966; 3rd ed. corrected, 1983; information concerning changes to be introduced into the critical apparatus of the forthcoming 4th edition was available to the Committee). Source: www.bible-researcher.com/nrsvpreface.html KJV OT: it doesn't say, no preface in KJV1769 NT: it doesn't say, no preface in KJV1769
Am kenyan and I do understand the king James bible and English not my first language. I heard that from an American can't I couldn't understand why he couldn't understand an he was a orthodox priest and I seem to correct him alot on his scriptures using king james Bible 🤔
6m55s "they don't want us to know the answer." thank you for that. reminds me of the shell-game style explanation in the preface of the NKJV. which, if read carefully enough, demonstrates that NKJV is not related to the AV. the fact that they plug in the reading of the AV betrays the fact, (much as this licensing of the ESV to the Gideon's) that they are stealing prestige from the AV, while forced to make the reading similar in case they are compared. My hear breaks at how difficult it is to share the fact that there is a significant difference in bibles, due to these differing source texts. one appears to the uninitiated as a kook, as this is unheard of. a bottom line argument is that the picture that is painted--Christians have been stuck with error for many centuries, and only now have an accurate source text--is contrary to the character of the God of truth. Tyndale paid a price for his translating and smuggling. I like to think that he was using good sources, and knew so.
I agree just the fact nobody attacks any version besides the kjv They applaud any bible except it That alone tells me it's the truth Then add the men that died to do the work they did in it and how Godly of lives they lived all historically checkable for anyone curious seals the deal for me
@@jgvtc559 your comment is incompetent and without knowledge. They do not attack the KJV. They "defend" against KJV ONLYISTS. Apparently you know little or nothing of the textual criticism of the Hebrew and Greek Old Testament or Greek New Testament or you would be embarrassed at your comment. My 1611 revision of the Bishops Bible/KJV includes the reviser's/translators letter to the reader, which refutes (you would call it an attack) every single point of attempted argumentation for KJV onlyism! There is no such thing as an "authorized version" by the way. The copyrighted Bishops Bible/1611 KJV is a revision/translation as the revisers/translators claim in their letter, you would know this if you had a 1611. KJV onlyists usually defend the 1611, but use a modern corruption of it, how strange is that? The KJV contains all sorts of variants just as 100 percent of all the ancient mss. do- indisputable fact! KJV onlyism was started by 7th day Adventist Benjamin G. Wilkinson in his 1930 book where he constantly quotes Ellen G. White. The denial of all the facts surrounding this cult like belief is unmitigated and destructive to the Body of Christ.
I took all my Bibles except my 2 KJV down to my street library and left them there. I put a note inside each one (ESV, Living bible and one other) that I was relinquishing them because of the deliberate changes and omissions in it compared to the KJV.
Dear @marlenachetwynd2925 You would be wiser to study the issue deeply and objectively, and you would have discovered that you should have kept at least the ESV, because it is a much more accurate translation of God's Word than the KJV, which does have quite a few translation errors. I have discovered this fact through comparing the text of the ESV and the text of the KJV, against the Greek and Hebrew text of God's Word. I can testify that The ESV is a considerably better, more accurate translation of God Word, than the KJV, because of the evidence that is quite clear to anyone willing the compare these three texts. The Living Bible is not a real translation of God's Word, but instead a paraphrase with limited use. Conservative Christian scholars do not recommend the Living Bible. It is more like an expanded Children's Bible story book that covers all the stories in the Bible. There are many changes, omissions and additions in the KJV. But in general the Gospel Message is quite clear and if you live by its teachings you can certainly live a life honoring to God. This proves God can use the imperfect things for His glory (a factual principle that every genuine Christian understands and agrees with). However, if you are a serious student of the Scriptures, and need to use a translation of The Scriptures then the ESV is an excellent translation. Keep in mind it is highly recommended to used multiple translations to understand the Scriptures. This is what the KJV translators told us to do, in the preface of the 1611 KJV. The KJV translators were opposed to the idea of KJV Only and they clearly said, Be Well, DZ
@@marlenachetwynd2925 If you are convinced that the KJV is the best translation, with all others seriously flawed, why would you leave them in a place where others could find and read them? Makes no sense at all.
@@toddhawk9921 because the note inside them should make then investigate and compare so the message continues to be passed on and doesn't die in the rubbish bin
They won't tell you what is in it... the Bible we read is spiritual food. Try giving someone natural food and see if they eat any of it when you refuse to tell them what is in it. Spiritual food is even MORE necessary to vent.
John 20:31 English Standard Version: but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. Revised Standard Version: but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.
The TR is NOT known as the "Majority text". The TR is the TR, the Majority text is a different text-type (although agrees with the TR 98% of the time).
Dr. Stringer is confusing the issue by referring to the Traditional Text as the Majority Text. They are not the same: some 1800 minor differences in spelling, or word choice.
Spelling was not standardized till after the 1611KJV so as suspect over %90 of your claim here is irrelevant. Even you admit they are minor differences too; look at the differences from the KJV and any of the moderns translated fro the Alexandrian source text, the differences are serious and affect doctrine consistently.
I just saw another series of Dr Stringers shared here on TH-cam from the Philippines about the Dangers of Calvinism. Well, there's a New Calvinism movement that's a blend meant to cater to what the young people want, but while they espouse the Tulip points of Calvinism they don't claim to be Calvinists but Reformers which is just double speak for Calvinism. So it doesn't surprise me that the New English Translations are trying to steal terms that once upon a time, as Dr Stringer still uses them meant only the Textus Receptus Manuscripts, or haven't you noticed all words and meaning are being distorted and made new?
I have it... If I recall correctly I got it from a friend after some representative from the Gideons gave a talk at his church. If you still want one, maybe contact Gideons Int'l directly? For the record tho, it is still missing _several_ TR / KJV readings. That's a fact. For a run down of dozens of the remaining discrepancies, search TH-cam for "E Grant Jones Gideons ESV"
I grew up on the KJV and to this day still prefer it. But I believe much of these critics of the "Modern Bibles" are either confused or disingenuous. Dr. Stringer tells a story here of a lesbian pastor who was unaware that the Bible condemns homosexuality because she uses a modern bible. How? 1 Cor. 6:9 is actually CLEARER in most modern bibles than the KJV! Even the NIV (which I do not endorse at all) lists among those who will not inherit the Kingdom of God: "Men who have sex with men." The KJV translates this as: "Abusers of themselves with mankind" How in the world would the King James be more readily understood here than a "modern version"?
Not every instance is unclear, true, but I tried to get into reading the Holy Bible with an NIV and then a NKJV, and I did read passages that obscured fornication, adultery, sodomy with simple sexual immorality. If you are an open homosexual, sexual immorality may be much different to your knowledge and understanding. It might mean not getting confirmed consent or not using dental dam or condemns and lubricant. A pedophile would also have a lowered standard under such a term too. Considering how few people read their modern translations, including both Old and New Testament passages and then compare and consider the two together, he ain't wrong. No, at the end of the day, each new English translation has to justify it's need and it's presence in the world, and they all pretty much say to change with the changing times of the English language in modern use. And yet God changes not but is the same yesterday, today, and forevermore. One good translation in English was all that was needed, everyone that has come after has generally been to sell more books and make merchandise of you, which also prevents those investment dollars from funding a language still without the written word of God. Think about those things and many others which can show how these have worked as little foxes to spoil the common and uniform knowledge of the word of God in a lost and dying world from generation to generation. Satan, since the Garden of Eden, has ever continued to question and cast doubt on the word of God. Far from making it clear, these translations often have preachers literally saying, this is not a good reading, the such and such is better here, but in another place, they'll say the same thing and refer to another one, thereby eroding any confidence a person could have in the word of God, and if all people English speaking stuck with the King James Version and worked on sounding out the meaning, they'd never have to choose any other and bounce back and forth. It's not that the English needs to be plainer or more modernized, it just needs to be diligently read, studied, and thought on. It's the Bread of Life, you've got to chew on it like the cow with her cud, double the work for proper, good digestion.
I did the same comparison and the ESV and NASB were very clear to me that homosexuality is a sin because the word "homosexuality" is used in both where it is not used in the AKJV. It is used in the KJV. For my comparison I used 1 Corinthians 6:9.
I could hand a man an ESV Bible and he could read it, discover the gospel, place his trust in Christ for salvation, and begin to learn how to live as a Christian. Correct? Yes!
@@toddhawk9921 Say the same person gets saved and he starts believing every word of God you have just given a spiritually hungry man the equivalent of fast food garbage instead of a strong meal that will satisfy the hunger for truth. Trying to justify the Esv as in "it can get someone saved" is no justification because YOU CAN ALREADY DO THAT AND MUCH BETTER WITH A KJV
If I am going to feast on garbage. I would much rather it be garbage in English I can understand. Rather than the garbage of the archaic English in the KJV The hypocrites of the KJV only cult, are like the Pharisees. Putting heavy burdens on people with this KJV only deception. Meanwhile God is using the ESV to bring many to Christ. Yet this "mind is full of poison" deceiver calls it garbage. Just shows how blasphemous and idolatrous the KJV only cult that Satan has raised up is. God wants us to understand his word, that is why he has blessed us with more accurate modern translations. Satan does not want us to understand his word. So he has raised up the KJV only cult.
If that is true, I would seriously wonder if he's ever been born again and has the Holy Spirit in him as his teacher. The Bible is not like all other books. It cannot be comprehended by the carnal mind. The carrot stick that Satan holds out to everyone is that if they get a new version in modern English THEN they will understand the Bible better! It simply is not true. I had NEVER read any Bible in my entire life when I got saved in 1977 at the age of 20. I immediately got an intense craving to read the word of God which fortunately was the KJV and God opened my understanding to many doctrines that I still believe to this day.
Dear@@randyd9805 , Hello ! I understand the point that you are making about the Holy Spirit, BUT. Be careful about the assumption that just because the text of the KJV may have some things that are hard to understand because of the use of the older Early Modern English words, that in no way means they are spiritual discerned. Let say there is a man who could not read (illiterate) and therefore could not read and understand the any of what is printed in a Bible if it was set before him, BUT he was a genuine, dedicated Christian. Surely you would not say this man is not a Christian because he cannot understand the Bible. I could give you a list of words from the KJV in which you would probably not know what many of them mean. And Some words that you may think you know the meaning of, but since they meant something different back in 1611 from what they mean today, you would probably misunderstand the actual meaning of the Word. You lack of understanding of these words would not be cause for me to assume you are not a Christian, or that you are not listening to the Holy Spirit, or that you are spiritually discerned. The KJV has some portions that are hard to understand because it is an old translation of God's Word. Old translations lose accuracy because words change through time. Not understanding an older translation is not to be used as an indicator of salvation or spirituality ! DZ
They need to stop going to the Greek, the Nestle text is already at its 28th, and we don't have the same understanding of Biblical Hebrew/Greek as those in the 1611s and earlier. Also, all these lexicons and nazis... correct the Greek and different meanings. They need to just study, the KJB as Gail says defines itself.
Dear@@GodisGracious1031Ministries OF COURSE we need the Greek !!!! Where do you think the NT of the KJV came from !!!! DUHHH ! The reason KJV Only Supporters want people to stop looking at the Greek (the Textus Receptus) is because when one does compare the Greek text of the Textus Receptus against the text of the KJV, they can clearly see the Translation errors in the KJV. KJV Only Supporters want to hide this fact. ! Its a coverup ! They tell you anything to keep you from looking ! Nestle text is already at its 28th. Yes! Tell me why they keep updating it. I suspect you have no understanding of Why and you will just parrot some silly idea of why that they have told you. You said we don't, "have the same understanding of Biblical Hebrew/Greek as those in the 1611s and earlier." That is partially true. Today's conservative Christian NT scholars have a better understanding of Koine Greek that that ever imagined in 1611. The KJV translators had an excellent understanding of Classical Greek. However, much of the NT was not written in Classical Greek. Most of it was written in Koine Greek (the Common every day greek of the common man). Koine has some different vocabulary words, differences in grammar and nuances. "Also, all these lexicons and nazis." WHAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHO TOLD YOU THAT !!! AND HOW could anyone believe something so silly ????????? Are you mentioning Gail Riplinger ??? Everyone Recognizes her for her very sloppy scholarship and misrepresentations. She has a terrible reputation. Even KJV Only supporters have called her out for her lying. We all remember the time when she tried to have a radio debate against a real Christian scholar (Dr. White). she was so embarrassed by Dr. White that she refuses to ever have a debate ever again. Dr. White said any time you want to have another debate, but she says, no ! Personally, I prefer real scholars you live a moral Christian life. To me moral ivies is important because a genuine followers of Christ should live lives honoring to God. Riplinger has a reputation of marriage and divorce without biblical reasons and lying about it to keep her book sales up. It is embarrassing that anyone would consider her very poor misrepresentations as worthy of any consideration. Tell me why they keep updating Nestle text. I strongly suspect you have no idea why. Be Well, DZ
@@GodisGracious1031Ministries You should study the issue before you make statements that are not true !! Question for you, do you accept the Greek Textus Receptus as the perfect Word of God's New Testament in the Greek Language ?? I look forward to hearing your response. DZ
Jeremiah 14:14 Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart. Proverbs 23:12 Apply thine heart unto instruction, and thine ears to the words of knowledge. Genesis 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. Joel 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Revelation 6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth. Luke 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Philippians 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: Ezekiel 33:22 Now the hand of the LORD was upon me in the evening, afore he that was escaped came; and had opened my mouth, until he came to me in the morning; and my mouth was opened, and I was no more dumb. Habakkuk 1:12 Art thou not from everlasting, O LORD my God, mine Holy One? we shall not die. O LORD, thou hast ordained them for judgment; and, O mighty God, thou hast established them for correction. 2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. Acts 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Good presentation man I’ve been an ESV reader for quite a while. (Started out with KJV though) and I still read both. I’ve recently started to check out this manuscript debate. It’s very interesting. However, I will comment on one point that you made. It’s where you made the lesbian member/ preacher look innocent for not knowing that homosexuality was wrong. The ESV absolutely says it’s wrong. So let’s not make it look like it has a soft stance. :) that’s all
I can't say I've heard or read the ESV, but I've read the NIV, and not in all places but in enough, it took the words like fornication, adultery, sodomy, and made it rather: sexual immorality. Now, if you lean homosexually or heterosexually, you'll have a different take on what sexual immorality is to you. Now you can search out the meaning or you let your feeling or thoughts define it, and that's part of the issue with these other translations, when they don't literally change the meaning, they muddy the waters. With child be came pregnant which led to today's debates, is it human life and when. Who gets to say? If you don't know that God has already declared it by your translation's rendering, than you can think as you please.
And I bet if you sat down and read the two side by side, slowly and carefully like you was double checking your paper for inadvertent mistakes, you'd see they changed way more than you even realized. And you should ask yourself why? Why do we even need another English Translation? Because if for nothing else, they wise to make merchandise of you. You only need a new Bible if yours falls apart or is lost.
May all read a sincere TRANSLATION of the bible in English. 8 call faitful translations such as KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB. Im no scholar but i trust these people. God will not leave you in the dark id you are seeking you will find.
Sadly the ESV Gideons's still have 1 John 5:7 and a few others not readded. Can check Acts 8 v 37 on the Gideons's website under the scripture of the day, find the calendar, and go back to that date, and see.
Dear @GodisGracious1031Ministries They do not put the 1 John 5:7-8, because in all probablility it was not originally in the text of God's Word. It was added at a later time upon the insistence of Roman Catholic Theologians. You should research the history of how it was added to God's Word !!! DZ
Dear @@GodisGracious1031Ministries , Hello ! There is no evidence the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7b) was considered to be Scripture in the early church, and no evidence it was quoted "as Scripture". It is not in the Greek Scriptures of the NT for about the first one thousand years, after the first century Church. We can find some variations of the statement in quotations among the church fathers. It appears to be an early creed of the Christian Church and Christian theologians to express their belief in the trinity. It appears to have originated during the time the church was fighting the trinitarian heresys. For example: in his work titled "Unity of the Church (1.6), the 3rd-century Church father Cyprian quoted John 10:30: and wrote "Again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one". He quoted the Comma Johanneum but apparently as providing a commentary of the text of John 10:30 which is related to the deity of Jesus (a point related to the trinity) So, yes it was a quotation that was around in the early church (third century onward), but as a commentary and or a early creed of the trinity, but NOT as Scripture. The Roman Catholic Church had added the Comma Johanneum to some of the Latin Vulgate manuscripts around the 5th century onward, but it is not found in the early Vulgate manuscripts, (see Codex Fuldensis and the Codex Amiatinus for examples) It is totally absent in the Ethiopic, Aramaic, Syriac, Georgian, Arabic and from the early pre-12th century Armenian,. manuscripts. It is apparent that the early church did not consider the Comma Johanneum to be a part of Scripture and that it was added to the text of Scripture at a later time. At a later time, some scribe/copyist, who's coping the text of 1 John 5:7a, thought these verses were speaking about the trinity and wrote his early creed of the trinity (the text of 1 John 5:7b, the Comma Johanneum) in the margins or the text he was copying. Then at a later time, some other copyist was copying that text and copied what was in the margins into the actual text of the Scriptures. We see this progression in some of the later Greek manuscripts that do contain the Comma Johanneum (some in the margins and later some in the text) The Roman Catholic priest, Erasmus, produced two editions of his Greek text ((1516 edition & 1519 edition). and neither of his Greek Texts contained the Comma Johanneum. The Roman Catholic theologians and leaders criticized Erasmus because his Greek text did not include the Comma Johanneum, but Erasmus explain that it was not in any of the Greek manuscripts he had and used to compile his Greek text. It so happened, that in 1520, a new Greek manuscript was copied from a manuscript that did not contain the Comma Johanneum and this copyist (a Franciscan monk named Roy,) who made this new manuscript, added the Comma Johanneum to this new manuscript, and then this new manuscript (now containing the Comma Johanneum) was then given to Erasmus and Erasmus was persuaded to include the Comma Johanneum in his third edition of his Greek text (because now he had a Greek Manuscript that contained the Comma Johanneum). Erasmus added the Comma Johanneum to his third edition of His Greek text, much to the satisfactions of the Roman Catholic leaders. However iErasmus expressed that he though the Comma Johanneum was not authentically a part of the canon of Scripture. Of course, most od the reformation translations of the Bible used the Greek text (later editions) of Erasmus' Greek text, including the KJV of 1611 and that is how the Comma Johanneum was added to the KJV. It is notable that Luther’s German New Testament of 1522 (one of the iconic reformation Translations of the Bible), does not contain the Comma Johanneum. Martin Luther stated in his “Lecture on the First Epistle of John” that the Comma Johanneum had been “clumsily inserted by the zeal of the old theologians against the Arians … I could easily make fun of the fact that there is no more unsuitable place of proof for the Trinity.” Like Erasmus, Luther was aware that the Comma Johanneum was not an actual authentic part of the Scriptures. The evidence clearly supports the idea that the Comma Johanneum was not a part of the authentic Word of God. Basically the only reason you are trying to claim it is authentic is because it is in the KJV and you are supporting Roman Catholic and Anglican tradition instead of Biblical evidence for the authentic Word of God. Be Well , and chose to follow the evidence instead of your traditions of men. DZ
@@gregorylatta8159 The KJV was translated by Calvinists for the Calvinist Church of England. Do your research. The KJV is very biased towards Calvinism. I know a lot of Calvinists that use the KJV.
@gregorylatta8159 do your research, and by that, i mean go and read what the translators believed and what the Church of England teaches (read the 39 articles). Don't go to heretics like Ruckman or Riplinger, who have absolutely no idea what the KJV translators believed or what the Church of England believed.
I write this long after the fact. I recently bought myself an ESV. Have the KJV all these years. Unbeknown that the Gideons did it before me, I wrote the missing verses from the KJV into my new ESV. English, however, is my second language. Also have two translations in my home language, Afrikaans. The 1953 translation from the Textus Receptus and the newer translation, think it is 1988, from the Alexandria texts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus). The KJV is my fallback position, however. Likewise, nobody explained to me it is difficult to understand.
Keep in mind that the KJV has added some words to the text. Some on who mistakenly is using the KJV as the measuring standard would be mislead into thinking that words were taken out when in reality word were adder into the KJV. You can never know which translation is adding or subtracting without comparing it with the God's Word as God originally wrote it in the Hebrew and Greek !!!!!
Dear @@koosvanzyl2605 , Hello ! So are you saying that the idea that some newer translations are missing verses is a matter of opinion ? And the idea the KJV has added verses is a matter of opinion ? Some of these ideas are not just a matter of personal opinion ! There are some objective realities concerning these matters. For example: we know the comma johanneum (1 John 5:7b) was added to the Greek Manuscripts at a later time, about a thousand years after John wrote the epistle. There are no early Greek manuscripts of the NT that contain the comma johanneum. That verse was added to the Greek text and then the KJV used that Greek text that included the addition, and that is why the comma johanneum is in the KJV. We are quite certain it was not originally in the epistle of 1 John when John wrote it. This is a matter of evidence, not personal opinion ! But then again, there are people who disregard objective evidence preferring to create their own realities on the basis of their opinions. I would say they you would not want a heart surgeon that disregards the evidence of sound medicine and instead just exercises their opinion with no evidence. Be Well, DZ
Godly men of inspiration wrote the KJV. That hasn’t happened since. Ungodly men of satanic persuasion were given perverted texts and sold them to unsuspecting seekers.
Woow so that means you’ve now got a scrambled egg text . That still must contravene Our Fathers statement add and I will add the plagues of life deduct and I will remove thy name from the book of life. That must also mean by association of this corruption every person aware of all this scrambling of scripture will be held accountable as if they had personally removed and added words .
“But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” 1 Peter 2:9 ESV This is racist.
@@robusc4940 modern versions of the Bible began in the 1800’s. The complete, inspired, English version was compiled in 1611. The King James was and has been THE Holy Bible. It has done more work for the Kingdom of God than any work in history. There was and is no reason or justification for changing it, and doing so is blasphemy. “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:” 1 Peter 2:9 KJV(not racist)
@@TheArtisticGardener777 I'm a KJV fan. My response was to your "This is racist" I should've pointed out that 1 Pet 2:9 etc was written by the Apostles in the 1st century AD My question rephrased then is, was 1 Pet 2:9 politically correct in the 1 century AD when the Apostles wrote their epistles etc ? Coverdale Bible 1535 was the first complete Modern English OT & NT Bible so predates the 1611 KJV. There are also earlier English translations eg Tavener, Great, Bishops.
@@robusc4940 yeah, I’m not into being “politically correct”. I believe in being moral, as best as I can, but wokeism or anything like that, I could care less. I do not believe in racism and I do not believe the Bible or Jesus teaches racism. This nation has struggled with racism and when these modern versions were written, slavery and racism were rampant. We are not a chosen “race”. What race are the interpreters of the modern versions of the Bible referring to? Obviously the white race. This is the perpetuating of racism and it’s not Christ like. The King James is The Holy Bible. Yes, there were others leading up to it, but this Holy Scripture delivered to us by the working of the Holy Spirit is The Word of God. And believing The Word is everything. Attacking It or disparaging It or CHANGING It! Is blasphemy, as the Lord Himself warned us against. If you start compromising the Word of God, you are lost. That is not to say that I believe only people who read only the King James can be believers. You can be a believer and never even read the Bible. It is by the name of Jesus by which we are saved. And the modern versions can lead people to Jesus. But after you are saved, you should immerse yourself in God’s Word, and study to show yourself approved a workman worthy of salvation, and if you are studying corrupt versions of the Bible, you will err. This is the devil’s work. It is confusion. And God is not the author of confusion. His Word is so complex and living, and to do violence to It is a great offense to God. He can overcome it. He will save whom He will, but these corrupt, modern versions are a travesty. This is but one example of error, there are tens of thousands in the hundreds of English versions that, by law, have to differ from each other by at least 10%. This is pure evil, as is racism.
@@TheArtisticGardener777 AGREED. For us to enter Heaven we must only place our faith/trust/belief in the death/burial/resurrection of Christ to forgive/save us. That's what Christ through Paul taught that applies to us in this current age of grace. The other Apostles had a different audience and there are MANY who reject/distort what Paul taught. eg reduce Paul from THE in KJV (and earlier) Rom 11:13, Rom 15:16 to AN/A in most modern Bibles. Why do that ? Who has the highest authority ? THE Boss of a company or a boss in a company ?
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 “not 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?
For a Bible based on the majority text, read the World Englisj Bible. The TR is about 25% different from the Majority text. Plus, the WEB bible is much more accurate than the KJV, which of course KJV onlo cultists will never acknowledge. Also, the WEB has no copy right. It is public domane.
Funny how we're called cultists for believing God perfectly preserved his word. If, however, we went along with all the modern Bible proponents and claimed that God does not want us to have access to his complete inerrant word, at least to the present, then we'd fit right in. What's your final authority for ALL matters of faith and practice? The Bible? Which Bible? Is it inerrant, infallible, complete? If not, then it cannot be your final authority.
I was chuckling along good naturedly at some of your goofy but inconsequential claims and arguments till I got to the nonsense about the lesbian pastor. Find me ONE real Bible translation (not a goofy paraphrase like TPT) that doesn’t reference homosexuality-ONE. There’s NOT one and certainly you must know it-you’re LYING. That, my friend, is a sin, and I’d think you’d know it, of all people. Repent or burn! Rev 21:8
Correction: American LAW does not recognize the Crown’s copyright; that doesn’t mean it doesn’t EXIST. It just means you are choosing not to honor it and knowing you won’t be prosecuted-you’re a lawbreaker and a thief.
ESV - Easy Satanic Version - Who knows the TRUTH? Is GOD... As well as NKJV APOCALYPSE 22 Final Attestation 18 and 19 18 " I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book. If anyone shall add to them. God will ad unto him the plagues of that are written in this book" 19 "And if anyone shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his portion of the tree of life, and from the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book."
I am not sure why so many stubborn KJV only believers prefer to reject the data derived from original manuscripts that were not yet found when TR was used for KJV translation. Any open minded scholarly Bible translator would include all of the current manuscript data available now that was unavailable when TR was written for the purpose of making a modern accurate Bible translation in my opinion. Including footnotes that help to explain the varied manuscripts only serves to make a more complete understanding of the Bible than simply insisting that KJV is the only true text. Last but not least, I would encourage reading multiple translations since few of us have the knowledge of ancient languages to read the Bible in those early languages. Any confusion allows people to engage in further discussion and study to resolve that problem with no loss in faith. As for modernists, that is a relative term. Erasmus was a modernist in his era as compared to earlier Bible transcribers, so using that argument is a logical fallacy. There are many critical text Bibles besides KJV Bibles that condemn homosexuality, so that is also a false criticism from this speaker. Read 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 or Romans 1:26-27 for yourself in ESV, NASB to confirm this. I guess this dogmatic speaker did not check his facts, before he came to the wrong conclusion on this. Even the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod which is probably the most conservative Lutheran Church has both the ESV and KJV Bibles in their churches.
Sam Gipp did say in a debate with James White and Dan Wallace, l think it was in Christian answers. He said, English is the inspired language for the KJV just as Hebrew and kone was in the past. Everything would have to be in English from the KJV into other languages for it to be the true word of God. He had an old and expired translinier as his greek authority. It was so tragic his poor scholarly foundation, it made the other guys look unknowing. And they where good Christian men. Dr. Phil has much more credibility in his approach to this arguments.
I love the ad hominem arguments. I DON'T actually feel this way, but someone could say... "I would never read a Bible that has its text source compiled by a catholic, borrows from the Vulgate, revised by calvinist, then translated by Anglicans. The hasty generalization at the end was also wonderful. Yes, there are some trash versions out there, but the ESV, NASB, CSB all clearly spell out homesexualitly is a sin more clearly than the KJV because they actually use the word homesexual, which leaves no doubt. It's also interesting that those who use the eclectic text position are the ones that are publicly debating those who attack the word of God and they defend it well.
@@Daniel-lz9ps Haha, I forgot about this post until the notification. I used to be King James Only--even went to a high profile ifb Bible college, so I know the textual arguments well. I always believed that if something is actually true then it should hold it's own when put under the light of public examination. Do you ever wonder why there aren't any kjv guys in high profile debates against guys like Bart Ehrman? I have seen kjv guys debate against non kjv people in high profile debates, which can be found easily on TH-cam, and they lose horribly. As a fun side note, most modern translations use an eclectic text approach, not W & H ( they use all of the available texts). Regarding lucifarian, I won't say I agree with their theology, but if you actually read their writings, you would see they were not satanists, and no, reading other people's books about their writing where things are taken out of context doesn't count( fake news has been around for a while). I also don't agree with the theology of Erasmus who was a moderate Roman Catholic, but I don't hold that against the kjv. I don't have a problem with people who are kjv only--i don't agree--but I do have a problem when a speaker misrepresents the other side. I think getting a grip should mean honest dialog and not using ad hominem attacks.
@@ihaufle123 God has only ever had one version of his word, not many. God is not the author of confusion. He did not allow the ancient Israelites to "update" the book of Isaiah or the Pentateuch, the Psalms, etc. because they didn't like all those archaic Hebrew words.
And welcome to 2022 where we now have men and women that believe they can be women/men or non binary, gender fluid, etc. How does the word, homosexual, accurately capture the world now which the new EVS translation made so much clearer than the KJV now? Weird how God proves over time how English can change with the times but his word can still be the same yesterday, and today, and forevermore for those that can be satisfied with reading and drinking from the waters from one whole cistern. Yeah, the logic drawn out further from these new modern English translation has slowly lead us here. If the words of the Bible should evolve over time, surely God's meaning has evolved with it too. With child became pregnant, and eventually the understood pregnant with a baby didn't mean an actual baby in the beginning or until birth. Just wait until they push it past birth, as former Governor Ralph Northam was saying around 2016, 17, or 18 on the radio, being a medical doctor. Yeah, give me the old 1611 English standard that sent missionary to the lost and dying around the world around them sharing the Gospel; I've seen and tasted the difference and I can see what anything but the KJV is doing in churches, in homes, and the world.
@@toshamccarty5115 Amen, God has defiantly used the KJV throughout history to see many saved and still is today. Lives can still be changed with it. No arguing that, but that by itself doesn't prove it is the only translation to use. I'm part of a church that uses the ESV where I have personally seen and heard of lives changed as well. People have been saved from drugs and immorality. I'm associated with with a ministry that has seen countless marriages saved without using a single verse from the KJV. There are missionaries outside of the IFB movement who have seen many, and I mean many who have turned from their idols to serve the true and living God using other versions. I say this next part not to be disrespectful or attacking, but your statement that you have seen what happens to churches who do not use the KJV is a harsh statement that you know you haven't really thought out. There are indeed some churches that do not use the KJV that should not even be called churches because of how watered down and immoral they have become but that doesn't mean the translation was the issue. I could easily say the same thing. I actually have seen churches that use the KJV where sexual abuse was prominent in the leadership, but I don't believe that is becaus the KJV caused it, and the same would have to be said about other conservative transactions. I have seen some great churches and bad churches using KJV and non KJV translations. Regarding, how does the use of homosexual make the newer version more clear than the KJV on homosexuality, that is easy to answer. The same reason that updating the word besom to broom is easier to understand for the modern reader. Regarding your association with all newer versions to the decline of sexual morality in our culture, that is kind of post hoc. There are definitely some liberal translations out there, but not all non KJV translations are liberal nor have they led to the continual decline of our society. For example, my pastor peaching from the ESV, strongly and clearly calling homosexuals to repent, and the many who have been saved have genuine changed lives reading from other conservative translations. The comments about language changing but his words not changing, also Amen!.... to a point. I believe all of the original words have been preserved all many of the Ancient Greek--and not only Greek--manuscripts. The problems with your assertion are translation and meaning. It is a fact that meanings of words change, again the KJV calls a broom a besom. Do you call the broom in your house a besom? The greek words in the manuscripts also carried certain meaning for the time they were written. The translators have to make choices to choose words that best convert the meaning of the words found in the manuscripts that are in other languages to English in a way that perseveres the accurate meaning of the words. I tough job to be sure. Also, keep in mind that there were other English translations before the KJV that didn't match word for word of what was found in the KJV. They had options such as the Tyndale, Biships, etc.. If an English translation published in 1611 is the perfect standard, then we have a problem with history because nothing perfectly matches the KJV for the first 1600 years, which would mean that God did not really preserve his Word; he failed and had to recompile it 1600 years later. Not to mention that fact there have been changes since 1611 in the KJV, and there were not just spelling and punctuation changes.
![Public Square CEO Supports Faith-Based Spending [Special Guest Michael Seifert]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/6VQ2MoJ_cXY/mqdefault.jpg)
I have english as a second language and i have no issues with understanding the Kjv. It does not take all that long to get used to it. Just look up the occasional words you don't understand and write them down for reference over time you will start to remember their meaning. It will get you to understand the Kjv better and increase your vocabulary.
Also, I found a lot of these words after Looking up, were already defined in that verse or cross-refrenced. Amzing.
@@GodisGracious1031Ministries 🙌
I finished high school, finished a 1st year of 6th form pre college with no degree, went into the Military and I understand the KJV well enough.
Excellent. Much love. Full respect. Thank you.
Greetings dearly beloved in the name of Jesus Christ our Saviour and Lord ❤✝️🔥
Stay True To The KJB I'm enjoying your sermons.
Problem for myself and I imagine you would be the same Phil we both know to whom we serve and the day is coming when He will ask us to give an account of our holding fast to truth
Praise our Lord for you Phil I have often encountered your wonderful heart towards salvation
Hallelujah
What is he trying to say ? There are not just two Text Families; there are several text type families.
Westcott and Hort were the first to identify text types and they identified four distinct text types:
1. the Western Texts, 2. the Syrian Texts, 3. the Neutral Texts and 4. the Alexandrian texts.
Westcott and Hort did a great service but no one follows Westcott and Hort's ideas any longer. Since that time many, many more Greek manuscripts have been found and these classifications have been revised
New Testament Textual Scholars Aland & Ashland organized the Greek manuscripts of the NT into the following categories:
Category I - Alexandrian Text Type (combined the Neutral Texts & Alexandrian Texts)
Category II - Egyptian Text Type
Category III - Eclectic/Caesarean Text Type
Category IV - Western Text Type
Category V - Byzantine Text Type (Westcott and Hort's Syrian Text Type)
They are organized from the earliest manuscripts to the most recent manuscripts. In the past we used to think of Manuscripts as being categorized by location, but now we know that is not as significant of a factor any longer because so many manuscripts have mixed features. For Example: the Codex Alexandrinus exhibits the Alexandrian Text type, except in the Gospels. The Gospels of Codex Alexandrinus are of the Byzantine Text Type.
Two significant factors has enabled more much efficient research of the various Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.
1. Computers
Because of the use of computers, we are able to study and compare the texts more efficiently and more quickly. This ability to compare the various Greek Manuscripts with computers has revolutionized Textual studies and research, and old suppositions are falling and the whole discipline is changing. The old ideas of early textual criticism of Westcott and Hort have been left in the dust.
.2. Access to The Manuscripts
If a scholar wanted to compare manuscripts they would have to travel to places the manuscripts were located and they were not permitted to remove the manuscripts to another location of compare with another manuscript. This made the comparison work very labor intensive and tedious. However, now thanks to the Work of Dr. Daniel Wallace, the director of the "Center for the study of the New Testament Manuscripts" (CSNTM), he has given scholars the ability to go on the internet and see high resolution, digitized copies of Greek manuscript for study, research and comparison (for free !! Thanks Dr. Wallace !! Great work !). This also preserves the content of manuscripts from being destroyed and lost forever. Wallace has also contributed by the discovery of new manuscripts that were once unknown.
Be Well, DZ
Dear @@KJBChristian Hello !
"you drank the koolaid bruh." OK, The Koolaid that Jesus made.
Dear User,
It is easy to set back and take pot shots at others making assertions and claims.
It is another thing to provide objective, evidential, support for your assertions and claims.
We can discuss the issues ...... if you are willing and capable. I invite you to this challenge.
Apparently you think something I said was wrong. If you feel that you are strongly correct, then tell and explain to me what I said that is incorrect. Give facts and documentation and we can discuss this like gentlemen, in the love of Jesus The Christ.
If you don't think your perspective is defensible and cannot stand up to the evaluation of true, Godly scholarship, then you may prefer to avoid this challenge and avoid responding. IF you are not willing to defend your assertions, then perhaps it is best to avoid making comments you cannot defend.
Be Well, in the living presence of our Lord Jesus, the Christ, DZ
If Westcott & Hort did such a wonderful job on translations, then why are the publishers of the new bibles ashamed to tell us from what text they are translated from?
Dear@@Jorge-sp9yk Hello !
You seem to be confused about the issues.
Westcott & Hort did NOT do such a wonderful job on translations, because they were not known as translators.
Let me explain for you what they did. They took the Greek manuscripts and compiled them to make a Greek text. That is Greek manuscripts, to Greek text - no translation !
This is basically the same thing Erasmus did in taking some Greek manuscripts and compiling a Greek text that we know of today as the "Textus Receptus". Both Erasmus and Westcott & Hort conducted the work of Constructive Textual Criticism (not to be confused with Form Criticism and Higher Criticism, which are destructive processes).
You asked, "why are the publishers of the new bibles ashamed to tell us from what text they are translated from?"
I don't see any evidence that publishers are ashamed to reveal text sources. About every translation I haven my library provides that information in the preface. You can also look up that information in Wikipedia where the textual sources are easy to find.
If you think other wise, give some examples to provide so evidence for your accusation.
You seem to imply that you think modern English translations use the Westcott & Hort Greek text. Hardly anyone uses the Westcott & Hort Greek Text for NT translation any more (and probably not any translations in my lifetime, and I am old). The Westcott & Hort Greek text is obsolete and probably only used for historic comparison studies. I have several Greek texts in my library, but I don' have a Westcott & Hort Greek text.
The last published edition of the Westcott & Hort Greek text, was in 1925, almost 100 years ago.
The Greek text often used today for many translations of the Scriptures differs from the Westcott & Hort Greek Text in hundreds of places (according to Aland, and he would be one to know that fact).
You might want to check your sources of information because it appears you information is not too reliable and accurate.
Be Well and Have a wonderful Christ-centered Christmas ! DZ
" You-can't-understand-it." Doesn't that sound popish?
Yes very much so. It's clear when you look at the history, the RCC has been opposed to it's believers reading the Bible because it's beyond their understanding.
yep and they claim it is full of errors and their sheeples believe it.
@@scotrugby4529 AMEN
The King James is all I known
And I know all I need to know
Give me that old time religion
Dear @richhunter5013
I will take that really "old time religion" like in the first century when the Jerusalem church was started. There was no KJV Bible there but later in the century we had the Scriptures in the Hebrew and Greek, in it purest form of God's Word, without all the translation errors of the KJV.
DZ
@@Silverheart1956
However, when you combine, KJV, with Hebrew/Greek
You see how numeric it is
Check out Ruth is Christ Channel
ESV and NIV were required txts at the Christian College I attended.
That's so sad.
Dear @Buzz-rh4dz. Hello !
Actually, that would be a fairly good combination to uses to conduct some serious Study of the Scriptures, if one does not study God's Word in the original languages that God Chose to write his written word in.
That would be my recommendation if you can only read English and you can only afford two Bibles.
The KJV is not a good translation to conduct deep Study of the Scriptures for various reasons; the most important being accuracy to God's Word.
It is highly recommended to follow the wise advice of the translators of the KJV and always use a variety of Translations of the Scriptures if you want to understand the meaning of the Scriptures (you can see this statement in the Preface of the 1611 KJV).
Many KJV Only Supporters are unaware of this fact.
The KJV translators were very opposed to the idea of KJV only !
Yeh, a bit ironic isn't it !! They trust the KJV translators, but they don't trust them DZ
@Silverheart1956
Na, I've done extensive study on the issue. I'll stick to the KJV.
@@Buzz-rh4dz God bless, and yes.
Dear@@Buzz-rh4dz Hello !
My grand mother decided to stick with he KJV and I believe for very legitimate reasons. She had learned a lot of verses word for word out of the KJV and did not want to confuse that learning. I think that is a good and legitimate reason !
Someone once told me his church used the KJV in services so when in services it is easier to use the same translation. Good Idea
In the past I would go to assisted living facilities and would used the KJV. That is a sensible decision.
When I conduct historic research, I may used the KJV, And every Christmas I must read the Christmas story from the KJV, or it just doesn't "Feel" like Christmas. Yeh ! I know. I like those sentimental feelings and the nostalgia of old time Christmas.
You may have good reasons for "Sticking with the KJV".
Just be aware of the weaknesses in this translation of God's Word.
That is the caution point
Legitimate Reasons
Some claim it is the perfect Word of God.
That is an extremely naive perspective resulting from theological illiteracy.
Some claim it is a perfect translation of God's Word
Another extremely naive perspective resulting from failing to compare the
text of the KJV against the Text of the Textus Receptus. If someone makes
that claim then it is clear that have not done the research. I have found many translation errors in the text of the KJV
Some claim it is the only translation of God's Word for English speaking people
Silly idea !! They should read the wise words of the translators of the KJV.
They said if anyone wants to understand the meaning of the scriptures they
should use a variety of translations. (See the preface of the 1611 KJV)
The KJV translators opposed the idea of KJV only as evidenced by the
Preface of the 1611 KJV.
Some claim it is best to use only one translation.
I recommend at least one literal translation (ESV) and one free translation (NIV)
They balance out things so well. If you use only literal, you are likely to have
problems with 1st century cultural idioms, which free translations do a better
job of, but you also want to know what literal words are used
Some claim the KJV is best because it has been around the Longest
Nope ! That idea does not even need a response. It is a silly idea.
T Model fords have been around longer that most cars people have
but most people would not be interested in using one.
Of course it is alway best to study the scriptures using the original languages that God chose to give us His written word in. there is a depth of meaning and understanding of God's Word that you are very unlikely to get and understand by using a translation of God's Word.
I don't know of any good reason why someone should stick with the KJV if they are committed to conducting serious, in-depth study of the Scripture. I can discuss this with you if you are willing. I have had seminary training and 40 years of Biblical research on the issue so "this old dog can hunt" (If you catch that idiom).
There are other translations of God's Word that are simply better than the KJV, but as I said, it is best to go to the Hebrew and Greek to get the pure meat of His word.
Be Well, DZ
The majorotu text does not have 1John 5:7
1 John 5:7 is a real verse.
@@GodisGracious1031Ministries
The concept of 1 John 5:7b (Comma Johanneum) is a true concept, but it is not actual canon Scripture.
It is an interpolation that the Roman Catholic Church persuaded Erasmus to put into His Greek Text, which later became known as the Textus Receptus and used by the translators of the KJV and they translated the Interpolation and added it to the text of the KJV.
The first edition of Erasmus' Greek text did not have the Comma Johanneum. The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) scolded Erasmus for omitting it, but Erasmus told them it is not in any of the Greek manuscripts he had.
So the RCC commissioned a a Franciscan friar, named "Froy" to take an existed Greek manuscript that did not have the Comma Johanneum and he added the Comma Johanneum after 1 John 5:7a in this new manuscript. So essentially it was made to order. We still have this manuscript and it is called "Minuscule 61" or know as "Codex Montfortianus" and is now located at Trinity College, in Dublin.
Since the Roman Catholic Church now had a Greek manuscript with the Comma Johanneum (created just after Erasmus' first edition), they gave it to him and told he now he has one with the verse, obviously expecting Erasmus to include the addition they had made to his next edition of His Greek text, Which he did in obedience to the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope.
That is how 1 John 5:7b was added to the Textus Receptus and the KJV translated and copied it into it's English text.
However Christian scholars recognize that it was not originally in the Scriptures and does not have the confirmation of the more accurate Greek texts.
This is emphatically not a textual issue of text Families !!!
The vast majority of Manuscripts that do not have I John 5:7b are from the Majority Text Family (The Byzantine Manuscripts)
People claiming it is a Alexandrian variant ( and I have heard quite a few make that erroneous claim). simply do not know what they are talking about and are mis informing and misleading people !!! That is an example of Biblical illiteracy.
Be Well, DZ
Hosea 4:6 KJV - My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.
Proverbs 24:21 KJV - My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change:
We seem to live in an age where the idea is pervasive that: newer is always better. Which, of course, is often not true. The idea that the book which brought the Word of God to the English speaking world for three and a half centuries is suddenly such a challenge to understand that the world cannot find God without a new translation is rather comical.
The TR text is not the majority text.
yes it is.
Come quick Lord Jesus pls.
They didn’t want to use the majority TEXT, they just wanted to “Fill in the blanks”. Not the text, just 1John 5:7 and the long version of Mark ,etc. ‘Just fillin the blanks ” YOUR OWN EXACT WORDS .I ASSURE TOU THOSE WERE THE ONLY-CHANGES IN THE Bible.
I would bet you are right: with child (sanctity of life in the womb case declared), appearance like the Son of God (fourth man in the fiery furance, pre-incarnate Jesus from a known pagan worshipper's own lips of acknowledgement, Daniel 3:25) baptism conditional on confessed profession of faith and belief (Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch, from Acts) . Yet very likely still conferring a title for Christ to Satan - Morning Star (Rev 22:16 vs their Isaiah 14:12) obscuring the divinity of Christ, his bodily resurrection, and the many references to the blood, letter out. Yes, we don't have to read it all to know where the changes are generally going to occur.
Have you tried putting baking soda on your tooth? It will heal toothache fast.
There are 3 primary text types. While the TR is much closer to the MT they are not the same. 1 John 5:7 is a primary example.
The majority texts are a group of ancient texts of more than 5000 manuscripts which read basically the same in content, which was used to translate the King James Bible. The other Group of texts are the minority texts, which consist of five manuscripts that early translators refused as corrupted. 2 schoars in the late 1800s named Westcot and Hort used these rejected texts to produce the NIV, and have influenced all new versions of modern bibles with corrupted texts, mostly from the Sianaticus and the Roman Catholic Vaticanus. Westcot and Hort were involved in witchery.
The Westcott and Hort Greek text that is used in all modern bibles is called the "modern critical text." However, you will be hard pressed to find a publisher that will admit it.
Dear@@Jorge-sp9yk Hello !
Your information is incorrect ! DZ
Dear @hubertlancaster
1. "majority texts ... which was used to translate the King James Bible"
Actually the KJV used the Textus Receptus as Its NT Greek Text Source and the Textus Receptus was based on some of the less reliable Greek manuscripts of the Majority Text Manuscripts. There are a couple Geek Texts compiled from the Majority Text manuscripts (Hodges & Farstad's Greek Text and Robinson & Pierpont's Greek Text) that use much better Greek manuscripts and provide us with a much better Greek text than the Textus Receptus.
The Textus Receptus is technically a minority text because it has significant differences from the Majority text manuscripts and Greek texts.
2. "The other Group of texts are the minority texts, which consist of five manuscripts "
What !!! There are many more Greek manuscripts other than just "five manuscripts" !! You really need to conduct your due diligence in research before you make such a silly assertion.
Go to Wikipedia and type in Alexandrian Text-type and you will see a list of Alexandrian Manuscripts. There are about 21 notable manuscripts and many other Papyri, Uncials, and Minuscules. There are also other Greek manuscripts in the Western Text Type, Caesarean Text Type and Neutral Text Type.
I can only assume you are getting your information from KJV Only Sources which are often poor sources of reliable accurate information.
3. "early translators refused as corrupted. "
WHAT !!! Says who ?? That is an unsupported opinion.
Give objective documented references to support such an assertion. (Words and assertions are easy to make when you provide not reasonable objective evidence).
4. "Westcott and Hort used these rejected texts to produce the NIV, "
Wildly naive statement ! Westcott and Hort did not produce the NIV; they were dead by the time the NIV was translated. The NIV did not use the Westcott and Hort Greek Text as the NT text source fro the NT of the NIV. Look it up !!!! Where are you getting this misinformation ???
5. Modern Translations do not use the Westcott and Hort Greek Text either !!!
Some modern translations use an accurate Greek Text of the Majority text Manuscripts; more accurate to God's Word than the Textus Receptus that was used by the KJV.
See the Hodges & Farstad's Greek Text and The Robinson & Pierpont Greek Text.
See the WEB Bible; uses The Robinson & Pierpont Greek Text as the NT Greek source text.
Note the WEB Bible was created completely as a public domain translation of the Scriptures.
6. Roman Catholic Vaticanus.
Actually the KJV has much more influence from Roman Catholic theology and culture, and the Anglican Church (since it is a denominational translation of the Anglican Church), than the Modern translations of God's Word made by conservative Christians.
Anyone studying the origins and text of the KJV will clearly see these influences.
7. Westcott and Hort were involved in witchery.
We all know where this rumor came from !!! It was Gail Riplinger that created and spread this rumor because she failed to conduct due diligence in research . This kind of slander is not a trait of Genuine Christians
@@Jorge-sp9yk Stick with the King James Version which is Spiritual in content and true.
Dr. Stringer...what, if anything, is the difference between the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text?
The textual notes in the NKJV tell many of the differences in the TR, MT and the CT. Most of the differences between the TR and MT are found in Revelation, though most of the MT lines up with the TR.
@@jonathankinner6231 Thanks for your reply. I was asking for more of a high- level description of the difference. For example, is the TR a text based on a subset of the manuscripts which comprise the MT? It's my limited understanding that Erasmus, who started the ball rolling on the TR, used a certain number of Greek manuscripts that he had access to, but were not a totality of the known Greek manuscripts of the time. Whereas, the Majority Text...is this a text which accounts for the language in all extant Greek manuscripts? I ask because I heard James White once say that the TR is not the same as the MT, so I was trying to get a firm understanding of the difference in terms of source manuscripts. It seemed like Dr. Stringer was using the terms interchangeably, which was confusing me in light of what I had heard James White say. I know James White isn't a friend of the TR/MT and I don't receive what he says uncritically, but one must be informed on this issue to be prepared for arguments from those who take the same position on the matter.
@@Constans99 That is true. I noticed Dr. Stringer doing the same thing. As far as my limited understanding the modern MT position is a textual critique all on its own but based on different theories on textual transmission through church history than the CT, though they share some similarities. Maurice A. Robinson is the scholar that I know of that propagates the MT position in scholarly circles. Here is a link to an article he wrote on the subject: rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v06/Robinson2001.html. Perhaps that will help.
www.wayoflife.org/free_ebooks/bible_version_question_answer_database.php
I believe you will find the answer to your questions in this free ebook. I do however think that Dr. Stringer is referring to the majority text as the received text as this was another name that was used like the traditional text to represent the recieved text or in Latin TR. There is another Majority text that was published by the nkjv editors known as the farstad and hodge majority text theory, and this text is different than the received text. Also, you will glean a better understanding of Erasmus and his work from this ebook.
@@Constans99 Making this as simple as possible: the Traditional Text is that put together by Erasmus, Beza, and the Elziver brothers. The Majority Text is taken from some 430 Greek manuscripts put together by Herman Von Soden (who was no KJV supporter). Hodges and Farstad's Majority Text is Von Soden's...far from a majority, but very similar to the Traditional Text (about 1800 differences of minor importance).
Doctor Stringer, Is the Textus Receptus or the King James bible the pure perfect word of God?
Yes ...
Yea
"Pure and perfect", no. No translation is inspired, only the originals. Is the KJV a faithful and accurate translation? In general, yes. The Puritans considered the KJV to be a corruption of Scripture as compared to the 1560 Geneva. Many people think King James just wanted to do away with the marginal notes, but that's simply not true. There were many changes made to the Scripture itself. For just one example, Matthew 6:24 of the 1560 Geneva reads, "Ye cannot serve God and riches," while the KJV has replaced "riches" with the obscure and meaningless word "mammon". A very careful comparison will show there are many such changes to Scripture in the KJV.
@@me73941 Are you Dr. Stringer?
@@godssavingark6635 If you're waiting for Dr. Stringer to answer your question, I think you will be waiting a long time dear friend.
I listened this Tuesday, October 18, 2022. I very much enjoyed it; it seemed pass by quicker than an hour. I greatly needed the information on copyright laws with England being generally disregarded by a good number of countries around the world, after America declared them void declaring/gaining Independence. I was debating with someone on Twitter years ago about the King James Version of the Holy Bible being better. I made the statement that it holds no copyright as one of it's pluses; I was contradicted in return with a link to an article that King James declared the copy right law would last forever, beyond the usual 100 years time previously allowed for such things, and that he or the heirs of the translators confurred those rights to Oxford University, but they have never made an issue of the copyright being enforced when infringed upon . I was left feeling confused about the difference in information. I figured there was some explanation to rightly consider it free but, I didn't know what. I then learned that the US Congress later commissioned or agreed to purchase an American Standard English Version of The Holy Bible for the military use rather than use the KJV, and my mind was further blown. I had thought, or seemed recall that most of the New English Translations starting coming out and circulating with wider acceptance closer to the 1930's. I'm glad I know this is why Shakespeare is considered in the public domain, probably a number of classic English writers too.
If I had known that before I bought it, I would never have got an ESV. I only bought this to understand if it was better than the KJV, I was wrong, the KJV got a very good Textus Receptus.
If the KJV didn't vary from the texts Receptus so much !
I am a Gideon and I can verify what Stringer says about the ESV. I would never use the ESV, even with the 14 missing verses put back in and all the missing words and phrases put back in.
For the most part, the ESV is 95% like the other new bibles with the Westcott & Hort Modern Critical Text for the NT.
The other major question to ask is whether the translation has a Dispensational bias. All minority text Bibles, in my research so far , have Scofield's Dispensational interpretation perversions.
No the best question is if it is accurate on salvation.
The King James Bible is the only Bible for me. ...Obey the Lord !!!
Dr. Stringer commends the ESV for indicating the source texts used. In contrast, i cannot find a preface in my copy of the King James Version that states what source texts were used.
It's not copyrighted so anyone, or any publisher can publish it, so it's not surprising that many do not state what text the KJV is stranslated from. I had some really ond NIV and other translations and they went into detail on the texts and which documents were used in translation. Now almost any new translation or Bible will not state that kind of information in it any more. There is probably a reason for that..
@@Dreadshoop
ESV
The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (5th ed., 1997), and on the Greek text in the 2014 editions of the Greek New Testament (5th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (28th ed., 2012), edited by Nestle and Aland. Source: www.esv.org/preface/
CSB
The textual base for the New Testament is the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th edition, and the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament, 4th corrected edition. The text for the Old Testament is the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 5th edition. At times, however, the translators have followed an alternative manuscript tradition, disagreeing with the editors of these texts about the original reading. Source: www.bible-researcher.com/csb-intro.html
MEV
The Modern English Version is a translation of the Textus Receptus and the Jacob ben Hayyim edition of the Masoretic Text, using the King James Version as the base manuscript.
Source:
modernenglishversion.com/faq/
NASB
HEBREW TEXT: In the present translation the latest edition of Rudolf Kittel's BIBLIA HEBRAICA has been employed together with the most recent light from lexicography, cognate languages, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. GREEK TEXT: Consideration was given to the latest available manuscripts with a view to determining the best Greek text. In most instances the 26th edition [previous editions read, "23rd edition"] of Eberhard Nestle's NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE was followed.
Source: NASB Preface
NET
The starting point for the Hebrew text14 translated to produce the NET Bible Old Testament was the standard edition known as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS).
As for the Greek text used in the NET Bible New Testament, an eclectic text was followed, differing in several hundred places from the standard critical text as represented by the Nestle-Aland 27th edition. Source: netbible.com/net-bible-preface
NKJV
For the New King James Version the text used was the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica, with frequent comparisons being made with the Bomberg edition of 1524-25. In light of these facts, and also because the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the footnotes. Source: www.bible-researcher.com/nkjv.html
NLT
The translators of the Old Testament used the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible as their standard text. They used the edition known as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1977) with its up-to-date textual apparatus, a revision of Rudolf Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica (Stuttgart, 1937). The translators also compared the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint and other Greek manuscripts, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, and any other versions or manuscripts that shed light on textual problems.
The translators of the New Testament used the two standard editions of the Greek New Testament: the Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies (fourth revised edition, 1993), and Novum Testamentum Graece, edited by Nestle and Aland (twenty-seventh edition, 1993).
Source: www.tyndale.com/nlt/faq/
NRSV
For the Old Testament the Committee has made use of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1977; ed. sec. emendata, 1983). For the New Testament the Committee has based its work on the most recent edition of The Greek New Testament, prepared by an interconfessional and international committee and published by the United Bible Societies (1966; 3rd ed. corrected, 1983; information concerning changes to be introduced into the critical apparatus of the forthcoming 4th edition was available to the Committee). Source: www.bible-researcher.com/nrsvpreface.html
KJV
OT: it doesn't say, no preface in KJV1769
NT: it doesn't say, no preface in KJV1769
The KJV translators didn’t hide their sources either. They used Erasmus’ collected text.
The Translators to the Reader is the longer preface meant for the Reader.
Am kenyan and I do understand the king James bible and English not my first language. I heard that from an American can't I couldn't understand why he couldn't understand an he was a orthodox priest and I seem to correct him alot on his scriptures using king james Bible 🤔
6m55s "they don't want us to know the answer." thank you for that. reminds me of the shell-game style explanation in the preface of the NKJV. which, if read carefully enough, demonstrates that NKJV is not related to the AV. the fact that they plug in the reading of the AV betrays the fact, (much as this licensing of the ESV to the Gideon's) that they are stealing prestige from the AV, while forced to make the reading similar in case they are compared. My hear breaks at how difficult it is to share the fact that there is a significant difference in bibles, due to these differing source texts. one appears to the uninitiated as a kook, as this is unheard of. a bottom line argument is that the picture that is painted--Christians have been stuck with error for many centuries, and only now have an accurate source text--is contrary to the character of the God of truth. Tyndale paid a price for his translating and smuggling. I like to think that he was using good sources, and knew so.
I agree just the fact nobody attacks any version besides the kjv
They applaud any bible except it
That alone tells me it's the truth
Then add the men that died to do the work they did in it and how Godly of lives they lived all historically checkable for anyone curious seals the deal for me
@@jgvtc559 your comment is incompetent and without knowledge. They do not attack the KJV. They "defend" against KJV ONLYISTS. Apparently you know little or nothing of the textual criticism of the Hebrew and Greek Old Testament or Greek New Testament or you would be embarrassed at your comment. My 1611 revision of the Bishops Bible/KJV includes the reviser's/translators letter to the reader, which refutes (you would call it an attack) every single point of attempted argumentation for KJV onlyism! There is no such thing as an "authorized version" by the way. The copyrighted Bishops Bible/1611 KJV is a revision/translation as the revisers/translators claim in their letter, you would know this if you had a 1611. KJV onlyists usually defend the 1611, but use a modern corruption of it, how strange is that? The KJV contains all sorts of variants just as 100 percent of all the ancient mss. do- indisputable fact! KJV onlyism was started by 7th day Adventist Benjamin G. Wilkinson in his 1930 book where he constantly quotes Ellen G. White. The denial of all the facts surrounding this cult like belief is unmitigated and destructive to the Body of Christ.
I took all my Bibles except my 2 KJV down to my street library and left them there. I put a note inside each one (ESV, Living bible and one other) that I was relinquishing them because of the deliberate changes and omissions in it compared to the KJV.
Dear @marlenachetwynd2925
You would be wiser to study the issue deeply and objectively, and you would have discovered that you should have kept at least the ESV, because it is a much more accurate translation of God's Word than the KJV, which does have quite a few translation errors.
I have discovered this fact through comparing the text of the ESV and the text of the KJV, against the Greek and Hebrew text of God's Word. I can testify that The ESV is a considerably better, more accurate translation of God Word, than the KJV, because of the evidence that is quite clear to anyone willing the compare these three texts.
The Living Bible is not a real translation of God's Word, but instead a paraphrase with limited use. Conservative Christian scholars do not recommend the Living Bible. It is more like an expanded Children's Bible story book that covers all the stories in the Bible.
There are many changes, omissions and additions in the KJV. But in general the Gospel Message is quite clear and if you live by its teachings you can certainly live a life honoring to God. This proves God can use the imperfect things for His glory (a factual principle that every genuine Christian understands and agrees with).
However, if you are a serious student of the Scriptures, and need to use a translation of The Scriptures then the ESV is an excellent translation. Keep in mind it is highly recommended to used multiple translations to understand the Scriptures. This is what the KJV translators told us to do, in the preface of the 1611 KJV. The KJV translators were opposed to the idea of KJV Only and they clearly said,
Be Well, DZ
@@marlenachetwynd2925 If you are convinced that the KJV is the best translation, with all others seriously flawed, why would you leave them in a place where others could find and read them? Makes no sense at all.
@@toddhawk9921 because the note inside them should make then investigate and compare so the message continues to be passed on and doesn't die in the rubbish bin
Where was this video recorded? What is a ruck-manite?
Ruckman-ite comes from Dr. Peter Ruckman, which is a proponent of KJV-only.
If they won't tell you it IS because they are hiding so REJECT WHAT THEY OFFER. Don't buy.
The sad part is, most people will buy the new bibles simply because they say they are "easy to read." and have no idea what they are translated from.
They won't tell you what is in it... the Bible we read is spiritual food. Try giving someone natural food and see if they eat any of it when you refuse to tell them what is in it. Spiritual food is even MORE necessary to vent.
Fantastico
This was interesting.
So the Greek majority text is the most accurate? I listen to the Greek majority and KJV while I sleep sometimes.
The King James is all I known
And I know all I need to know
Narrow minded anti Christian perspective
John 20:31
English Standard Version: but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
Revised Standard Version: but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.
The TR is NOT known as the "Majority text". The TR is the TR, the Majority text is a different text-type (although agrees with the TR 98% of the time).
TR is from the MT
@@kingston163 In some cases, yes. But it's also almost totally different in the book of Revelation and other passages.
@@kylec8950 What Bible can I rely on as being 100% the word of GOD in the English language?
@@kingston163 I don't know.
@@kingston163 any that faithfully translate the original Greek and Hebrew
Dr. Stringer is confusing the issue by referring to the Traditional Text as the Majority Text. They are not the same: some 1800 minor differences in spelling, or word choice.
Spelling was not standardized till after the 1611KJV so as suspect over %90 of your claim here is irrelevant. Even you admit they are minor differences too; look at the differences from the KJV and any of the moderns translated fro the Alexandrian source text, the differences are serious and affect doctrine consistently.
I just saw another series of Dr Stringers shared here on TH-cam from the Philippines about the Dangers of Calvinism. Well, there's a New Calvinism movement that's a blend meant to cater to what the young people want, but while they espouse the Tulip points of Calvinism they don't claim to be Calvinists but Reformers which is just double speak for Calvinism. So it doesn't surprise me that the New English Translations are trying to steal terms that once upon a time, as Dr Stringer still uses them meant only the Textus Receptus Manuscripts, or haven't you noticed all words and meaning are being distorted and made new?
I'm trying to find this updated esv everywhere. What is it called?
Only the Gideons distribute the Gideons Bible.
I have it... If I recall correctly I got it from a friend after some representative from the Gideons gave a talk at his church.
If you still want one, maybe contact Gideons Int'l directly?
For the record tho, it is still missing _several_ TR / KJV readings. That's a fact. For a run down of dozens of the remaining discrepancies, search TH-cam for "E Grant Jones Gideons ESV"
I grew up on the KJV and to this day still prefer it. But I believe much of these critics of the "Modern Bibles" are either confused or disingenuous. Dr. Stringer tells a story here of a lesbian pastor who was unaware that the Bible condemns homosexuality because she uses a modern bible. How? 1 Cor. 6:9 is actually CLEARER in most modern bibles than the KJV! Even the NIV (which I do not endorse at all) lists among those who will not inherit the Kingdom of God: "Men who have sex with men." The KJV translates this as: "Abusers of themselves with mankind" How in the world would the King James be more readily understood here than a "modern version"?
The 1560 and 1599 Geneva Bible uses the word buggerers. Cannot get more clear than that.
Not every instance is unclear, true, but I tried to get into reading the Holy Bible with an NIV and then a NKJV, and I did read passages that obscured fornication, adultery, sodomy with simple sexual immorality. If you are an open homosexual, sexual immorality may be much different to your knowledge and understanding. It might mean not getting confirmed consent or not using dental dam or condemns and lubricant. A pedophile would also have a lowered standard under such a term too. Considering how few people read their modern translations, including both Old and New Testament passages and then compare and consider the two together, he ain't wrong.
No, at the end of the day, each new English translation has to justify it's need and it's presence in the world, and they all pretty much say to change with the changing times of the English language in modern use. And yet God changes not but is the same yesterday, today, and forevermore. One good translation in English was all that was needed, everyone that has come after has generally been to sell more books and make merchandise of you, which also prevents those investment dollars from funding a language still without the written word of God. Think about those things and many others which can show how these have worked as little foxes to spoil the common and uniform knowledge of the word of God in a lost and dying world from generation to generation. Satan, since the Garden of Eden, has ever continued to question and cast doubt on the word of God. Far from making it clear, these translations often have preachers literally saying, this is not a good reading, the such and such is better here, but in another place, they'll say the same thing and refer to another one, thereby eroding any confidence a person could have in the word of God, and if all people English speaking stuck with the King James Version and worked on sounding out the meaning, they'd never have to choose any other and bounce back and forth. It's not that the English needs to be plainer or more modernized, it just needs to be diligently read, studied, and thought on. It's the Bread of Life, you've got to chew on it like the cow with her cud, double the work for proper, good digestion.
I did the same comparison and the ESV and NASB were very clear to me that homosexuality is a sin because the word "homosexuality" is used in both where it is not used in the AKJV. It is used in the KJV. For my comparison I used 1 Corinthians 6:9.
@@toshamccarty5115 well said friend!
Effemiante is even more convicting, they do abuse themeslves with mankind.
I could hand a man an ESV Bible and he could read it, discover the gospel, place his trust in Christ for salvation, and begin to learn how to live as a Christian. Correct? Yes!
But why would you if you could just as well hand him a Kjv?
That’s not the question. An ESV Bible would suffice for all those things.
@@toddhawk9921 Say the same person gets saved and he starts believing every word of God you have just given a spiritually hungry man the equivalent of fast food garbage instead of a strong meal that will satisfy the hunger for truth.
Trying to justify the Esv as in "it can get someone saved" is no justification because YOU CAN ALREADY DO THAT AND MUCH BETTER WITH A KJV
A man doesn't even need a Bible to get saved. Rom 1:20
If I am going to feast on garbage. I would much rather it be garbage in English I can understand. Rather than the garbage of the archaic English in the KJV The hypocrites of the KJV only cult, are like the Pharisees. Putting heavy burdens on people with this KJV only deception. Meanwhile God is using the ESV to bring many to Christ. Yet this "mind is full of poison" deceiver calls it garbage. Just shows how blasphemous and idolatrous the KJV only cult that Satan has raised up is. God wants us to understand his word, that is why he has blessed us with more accurate modern translations. Satan does not want us to understand his word. So he has raised up the KJV only cult.
My aunt had a preacher who had a PhD and taught Greek but told her he could not understand the KJV.
If that is true, I would seriously wonder if he's ever been born again and has the Holy Spirit in him as his teacher. The Bible is not like all other books. It cannot be comprehended by the carnal mind. The carrot stick that Satan holds out to everyone is that if they get a new version in modern English THEN they will understand the Bible better! It simply is not true. I had NEVER read any Bible in my entire life when I got saved in 1977 at the age of 20. I immediately got an intense craving to read the word of God which fortunately was the KJV and God opened my understanding to many doctrines that I still believe to this day.
Dear@@randyd9805 , Hello !
I understand the point that you are making about the Holy Spirit, BUT. Be careful about the assumption that just because the text of the KJV may have some things that are hard to understand because of the use of the older Early Modern English words, that in no way means they are spiritual discerned.
Let say there is a man who could not read (illiterate) and therefore could not read and understand the any of what is printed in a Bible if it was set before him, BUT he was a genuine, dedicated Christian. Surely you would not say this man is not a Christian because he cannot understand the Bible.
I could give you a list of words from the KJV in which you would probably not know what many of them mean. And Some words that you may think you know the meaning of, but since they meant something different back in 1611 from what they mean today, you would probably misunderstand the actual meaning of the Word.
You lack of understanding of these words would not be cause for me to assume you are not a Christian, or that you are not listening to the Holy Spirit, or that you are spiritually discerned.
The KJV has some portions that are hard to understand because it is an old translation of God's Word. Old translations lose accuracy because words change through time. Not understanding an older translation is not to be used as an indicator of salvation or spirituality ! DZ
They need to stop going to the Greek, the Nestle text is already at its 28th, and we don't have the same understanding of Biblical Hebrew/Greek as those in the 1611s and earlier. Also, all these lexicons and nazis... correct the Greek and different meanings. They need to just study, the KJB as Gail says defines itself.
Dear@@GodisGracious1031Ministries
OF COURSE we need the Greek !!!! Where do you think the NT of the KJV came from !!!! DUHHH !
The reason KJV Only Supporters want people to stop looking at the Greek (the Textus Receptus) is because when one does compare the Greek text of the Textus Receptus against the text of the KJV, they can clearly see the Translation errors in the KJV. KJV Only Supporters want to hide this fact. !
Its a coverup ! They tell you anything to keep you from looking !
Nestle text is already at its 28th. Yes! Tell me why they keep updating it. I suspect you have no understanding of Why and you will just parrot some silly idea of why that they have told you.
You said we don't, "have the same understanding of Biblical Hebrew/Greek as those in the 1611s and earlier."
That is partially true. Today's conservative Christian NT scholars have a better understanding of Koine Greek that that ever imagined in 1611. The KJV translators had an excellent understanding of Classical Greek. However, much of the NT was not written in Classical Greek. Most of it was written in Koine Greek (the Common every day greek of the common man). Koine has some different vocabulary words, differences in grammar and nuances.
"Also, all these lexicons and nazis."
WHAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHO TOLD YOU THAT !!! AND HOW could anyone believe something so silly ?????????
Are you mentioning Gail Riplinger ??? Everyone Recognizes her for her very sloppy scholarship and misrepresentations. She has a terrible reputation. Even KJV Only supporters have called her out for her lying. We all remember the time when she tried to have a radio debate against a real Christian scholar (Dr. White). she was so embarrassed by Dr. White that she refuses to ever have a debate ever again. Dr. White said any time you want to have another debate, but she says, no !
Personally, I prefer real scholars you live a moral Christian life. To me moral ivies is important because a genuine followers of Christ should live lives honoring to God. Riplinger has a reputation of marriage and divorce without biblical reasons and lying about it to keep her book sales up. It is embarrassing that anyone would consider her very poor misrepresentations as worthy of any consideration.
Tell me why they keep updating Nestle text. I strongly suspect you have no idea why.
Be Well, DZ
@@GodisGracious1031Ministries
You should study the issue before you make statements that are not true !!
Question for you, do you accept the Greek Textus Receptus as the perfect Word of God's New Testament in the Greek Language ??
I look forward to hearing your response. DZ
Jeremiah 14:14
Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.
Proverbs 23:12
Apply thine heart unto instruction, and thine ears to the words of knowledge. Genesis 4:7
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
Joel 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Revelation 6:8
And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth. Luke 13:3
I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. John 8:32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. 2 Thessalonians 2:3
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Philippians 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: Ezekiel 33:22
Now the hand of the LORD was upon me in the evening, afore he that was escaped came; and had opened my mouth, until he came to me in the morning; and my mouth was opened, and I was no more dumb. Habakkuk 1:12
Art thou not from everlasting, O LORD my God, mine Holy One? we shall not die. O LORD, thou hast ordained them for judgment; and, O mighty God, thou hast established them for correction. 2 Peter 1:16
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. Acts 15:29
That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Good presentation man
I’ve been an ESV reader for quite a while. (Started out with KJV though) and I still read both. I’ve recently started to check out this manuscript debate. It’s very interesting. However, I will comment on one point that you made. It’s where you made the lesbian member/ preacher look innocent for not knowing that homosexuality was wrong. The ESV absolutely says it’s wrong. So let’s not make it look like it has a soft stance. :) that’s all
I can't say I've heard or read the ESV, but I've read the NIV, and not in all places but in enough, it took the words like fornication, adultery, sodomy, and made it rather: sexual immorality. Now, if you lean homosexually or heterosexually, you'll have a different take on what sexual immorality is to you. Now you can search out the meaning or you let your feeling or thoughts define it, and that's part of the issue with these other translations, when they don't literally change the meaning, they muddy the waters. With child be came pregnant which led to today's debates, is it human life and when. Who gets to say? If you don't know that God has already declared it by your translation's rendering, than you can think as you please.
And I bet if you sat down and read the two side by side, slowly and carefully like you was double checking your paper for inadvertent mistakes, you'd see they changed way more than you even realized. And you should ask yourself why? Why do we even need another English Translation? Because if for nothing else, they wise to make merchandise of you. You only need a new Bible if yours falls apart or is lost.
May all read a sincere TRANSLATION of the bible in English. 8 call faitful translations such as KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB. Im no scholar but i trust these people. God will not leave you in the dark id you are seeking you will find.
Sadly the ESV Gideons's still have 1 John 5:7 and a few others not readded. Can check Acts 8 v 37 on the Gideons's website under the scripture of the day, find the calendar, and go back to that date, and see.
Dear @GodisGracious1031Ministries
They do not put the 1 John 5:7-8, because in all probablility it was not originally in the text of God's Word. It was added at a later time upon the insistence of Roman Catholic Theologians. You should research the history of how it was added to God's Word !!! DZ
@@Silverheart1956 It was not added, and was quoted way back to the early 2nd century.
Dear @@GodisGracious1031Ministries , Hello !
There is no evidence the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7b) was considered to be Scripture in the early church, and no evidence it was quoted "as Scripture". It is not in the Greek Scriptures of the NT for about the first one thousand years, after the first century Church.
We can find some variations of the statement in quotations among the church fathers. It appears to be an early creed of the Christian Church and Christian theologians to express their belief in the trinity. It appears to have originated during the time the church was fighting the trinitarian heresys.
For example: in his work titled "Unity of the Church (1.6), the 3rd-century Church father Cyprian quoted John 10:30: and wrote "Again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one". He quoted the Comma Johanneum but apparently as providing a commentary of the text of John 10:30 which is related to the deity of Jesus (a point related to the trinity)
So, yes it was a quotation that was around in the early church (third century onward), but as a commentary and or a early creed of the trinity, but NOT as Scripture.
The Roman Catholic Church had added the Comma Johanneum to some of the Latin Vulgate manuscripts around the 5th century onward, but it is not found in the early Vulgate manuscripts, (see Codex Fuldensis and the Codex Amiatinus for examples)
It is totally absent in the Ethiopic, Aramaic, Syriac, Georgian, Arabic and from the early pre-12th century Armenian,. manuscripts.
It is apparent that the early church did not consider the Comma Johanneum to be a part of Scripture and that it was added to the text of Scripture at a later time.
At a later time, some scribe/copyist, who's coping the text of 1 John 5:7a, thought these verses were speaking about the trinity and wrote his early creed of the trinity (the text of 1 John 5:7b, the Comma Johanneum) in the margins or the text he was copying. Then at a later time, some other copyist was copying that text and copied what was in the margins into the actual text of the Scriptures. We see this progression in some of the later Greek manuscripts that do contain the Comma Johanneum (some in the margins and later some in the text)
The Roman Catholic priest, Erasmus, produced two editions of his Greek text ((1516 edition & 1519 edition). and neither of his Greek Texts contained the Comma Johanneum. The Roman Catholic theologians and leaders criticized Erasmus because his Greek text did not include the Comma Johanneum, but Erasmus explain that it was not in any of the Greek manuscripts he had and used to compile his Greek text.
It so happened, that in 1520, a new Greek manuscript was copied from a manuscript that did not contain the Comma Johanneum and this copyist (a Franciscan monk named Roy,) who made this new manuscript, added the Comma Johanneum to this new manuscript, and then this new manuscript (now containing the Comma Johanneum) was then given to Erasmus and Erasmus was persuaded to include the Comma Johanneum in his third edition of his Greek text (because now he had a Greek Manuscript that contained the Comma Johanneum).
Erasmus added the Comma Johanneum to his third edition of His Greek text, much to the satisfactions of the Roman Catholic leaders. However iErasmus expressed that he though the Comma Johanneum was not authentically a part of the canon of Scripture.
Of course, most od the reformation translations of the Bible used the Greek text (later editions) of Erasmus' Greek text, including the KJV of 1611 and that is how the Comma Johanneum was added to the KJV.
It is notable that Luther’s German New Testament of 1522 (one of the iconic reformation Translations of the Bible), does not contain the Comma Johanneum. Martin Luther stated in his “Lecture on the First Epistle of John” that the Comma Johanneum had been “clumsily inserted by the zeal of the old theologians against the Arians … I could easily make fun of the fact that there is no more unsuitable place of proof for the Trinity.” Like Erasmus, Luther was aware that the Comma Johanneum was not an actual authentic part of the Scriptures.
The evidence clearly supports the idea that the Comma Johanneum was not a part of the authentic Word of God. Basically the only reason you are trying to claim it is authentic is because it is in the KJV and you are supporting Roman Catholic and Anglican tradition instead of Biblical evidence for the authentic Word of God.
Be Well , and chose to follow the evidence instead of your traditions of men. DZ
Why do the Calvinists prefer to use the ESV instead of the KJV?
Prefer means or indicates a choice. Calvinists never choose. LOL
Because the ESV is biased towards Calvinism. The KJV is far more accurate on salvation.
@@gregorylatta8159 The KJV was translated by Calvinists for the Calvinist Church of England. Do your research. The KJV is very biased towards Calvinism. I know a lot of Calvinists that use the KJV.
King James despised Calvinism . The translators held different theological backgrounds.
@gregorylatta8159 do your research, and by that, i mean go and read what the translators believed and what the Church of England teaches (read the 39 articles). Don't go to heretics like Ruckman or Riplinger, who have absolutely no idea what the KJV translators believed or what the Church of England believed.
I write this long after the fact. I recently bought myself an ESV. Have the KJV all these years. Unbeknown that the Gideons did it before me, I wrote the missing verses from the KJV into my new ESV. English, however, is my second language. Also have two translations in my home language, Afrikaans. The 1953 translation from the Textus Receptus and the newer translation, think it is 1988, from the Alexandria texts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus). The KJV is my fallback position, however. Likewise, nobody explained to me it is difficult to understand.
Keep in mind that the KJV has added some words to the text.
Some on who mistakenly is using the KJV as the measuring standard would be mislead into thinking that words were taken out when in reality word were adder into the KJV.
You can never know which translation is adding or subtracting without comparing it with the God's Word as God originally wrote it in the Hebrew and Greek !!!!!
@@Silverheart1956 Matter of opinion
Dear @@koosvanzyl2605 , Hello !
So are you saying that the idea that some newer translations are missing verses is a matter of opinion ? And the idea the KJV has added verses is a matter of opinion ?
Some of these ideas are not just a matter of personal opinion ! There are some objective realities concerning these matters.
For example: we know the comma johanneum (1 John 5:7b) was added to the Greek Manuscripts at a later time, about a thousand years after John wrote the epistle.
There are no early Greek manuscripts of the NT that contain the comma johanneum.
That verse was added to the Greek text and then the KJV used that Greek text that included the addition, and that is why the comma johanneum is in the KJV. We are quite certain it was not originally in the epistle of 1 John when John wrote it.
This is a matter of evidence, not personal opinion !
But then again, there are people who disregard objective evidence preferring to create their own realities on the basis of their opinions. I would say they you would not want a heart surgeon that disregards the evidence of sound medicine and instead just exercises their opinion with no evidence.
Be Well, DZ
I BELIEVE THE KJV
@@koosvanzyl2605
WHY ???
Many Mormons say, I BELIEVE THE BOOK OF MORMON.
What makes your kind of belief any different from their kind of belief ?
Godly men of inspiration wrote the KJV. That hasn’t happened since. Ungodly men of satanic persuasion were given perverted texts and sold them to unsuspecting seekers.
Hello Phil
The minority text is this siniaticus vaticanus alexandrinus of Alexandra Egypt gnostic as used by westcott and hort !
Woow so that means you’ve now got a scrambled egg text .
That still must contravene Our Fathers statement add and I will add the plagues of life deduct and I will remove thy name from the book of life.
That must also mean by association of this corruption every person aware of all this scrambling of scripture will be held accountable as if they had personally removed and added words .
“But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.”
1 Peter 2:9 ESV
This is racist.
It was written in the first century AD.
Were they POLITICALLY correct then ?
@@robusc4940 modern versions of the Bible began in the 1800’s. The complete, inspired, English version was compiled in 1611. The King James was and has been THE Holy Bible. It has done more work for the Kingdom of God than any work in history. There was and is no reason or justification for changing it, and doing so is blasphemy. “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:”
1 Peter 2:9 KJV(not racist)
@@TheArtisticGardener777
I'm a KJV fan.
My response was to your "This is racist"
I should've pointed out that 1 Pet 2:9 etc was written by the Apostles in the 1st century AD
My question rephrased then is, was 1 Pet 2:9 politically correct in the 1 century AD when the Apostles wrote their epistles etc ?
Coverdale Bible 1535 was the first complete Modern English OT & NT Bible so predates the 1611 KJV.
There are also earlier English translations eg Tavener, Great, Bishops.
@@robusc4940 yeah, I’m not into being “politically correct”. I believe in being moral, as best as I can, but wokeism or anything like that, I could care less. I do not believe in racism and I do not believe the Bible or Jesus teaches racism. This nation has struggled with racism and when these modern versions were written, slavery and racism were rampant. We are not a chosen “race”. What race are the interpreters of the modern versions of the Bible referring to? Obviously the white race. This is the perpetuating of racism and it’s not Christ like. The King James is The Holy Bible. Yes, there were others leading up to it, but this Holy Scripture delivered to us by the working of the Holy Spirit is The Word of God. And believing The Word is everything. Attacking It or disparaging It or CHANGING It! Is blasphemy, as the Lord Himself warned us against. If you start compromising the Word of God, you are lost. That is not to say that I believe only people who read only the King James can be believers. You can be a believer and never even read the Bible. It is by the name of Jesus by which we are saved. And the modern versions can lead people to Jesus. But after you are saved, you should immerse yourself in God’s Word, and study to show yourself approved a workman worthy of salvation, and if you are studying corrupt versions of the Bible, you will err. This is the devil’s work. It is confusion. And God is not the author of confusion. His Word is so complex and living, and to do violence to It is a great offense to God. He can overcome it. He will save whom He will, but these corrupt, modern versions are a travesty. This is but one example of error, there are tens of thousands in the hundreds of English versions that, by law, have to differ from each other by at least 10%. This is pure evil, as is racism.
@@TheArtisticGardener777 AGREED.
For us to enter Heaven we must only place our faith/trust/belief in the death/burial/resurrection of Christ to forgive/save us.
That's what Christ through Paul taught that applies to us in this current age of grace.
The other Apostles had a different audience and there are MANY who reject/distort what Paul taught.
eg reduce Paul from THE in KJV (and earlier) Rom 11:13, Rom 15:16 to AN/A in most modern Bibles.
Why do that ?
Who has the highest authority ?
THE Boss of a company or a boss in a company ?
Amen
I'm guessing other TR versions aren't accepted?
So they've created the Majority ESV finally...Oh, how I love to feast on the Bible Smorgasbord!
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 “not 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?
For a Bible based on the majority text, read the World Englisj Bible. The TR is about 25% different from the Majority text. Plus, the WEB bible is much more accurate than the KJV, which of course KJV onlo cultists will never acknowledge. Also, the WEB has no copy right. It is public domane.
And doesn't italicize interpolated words like the KJV and NKJV do - a serious flaw of the WEB bible.
Funny how we're called cultists for believing God perfectly preserved his word. If, however, we went along with all the modern Bible proponents and claimed that God does not want us to have access to his complete inerrant word, at least to the present, then we'd fit right in.
What's your final authority for ALL matters of faith and practice? The Bible? Which Bible? Is it inerrant, infallible, complete? If not, then it cannot be your final authority.
Awesome. Amen Dr. Stringer
I was chuckling along good naturedly at some of your goofy but inconsequential claims and arguments till I got to the nonsense about the lesbian pastor.
Find me ONE real Bible translation (not a goofy paraphrase like TPT) that doesn’t reference homosexuality-ONE. There’s NOT one and certainly you must know it-you’re LYING. That, my friend, is a sin, and I’d think you’d know it, of all people. Repent or burn! Rev 21:8
Correction: American LAW does not recognize the Crown’s copyright; that doesn’t mean it doesn’t EXIST. It just means you are choosing not to honor it and knowing you won’t be prosecuted-you’re a lawbreaker and a thief.
Ungracious, patronizing, and not helpful. You have just trashed the faith of half the reformed believers who use the ESV.
He couldn't help it. God decreed him to do it before time started.
KJV is the most accurate on salvation. Why risk trusting modern Bibles?
ESV - Easy Satanic Version - Who knows the TRUTH? Is GOD...
As well as NKJV
APOCALYPSE 22 Final Attestation 18 and 19
18 " I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book. If anyone shall add to them. God will ad unto him the plagues of that are written in this book"
19 "And if anyone shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his portion of the tree of life, and from the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book."
I am not sure why so many stubborn KJV only believers prefer to reject the data derived from original manuscripts that were not yet found when TR was used for KJV translation. Any open minded scholarly Bible translator would include all of the current manuscript data available now that was unavailable when TR was written for the purpose of making a modern accurate Bible translation in my opinion. Including footnotes that help to explain the varied manuscripts only serves to make a more complete understanding of the Bible than simply insisting that KJV is the only true text. Last but not least, I would encourage reading multiple translations since few of us have the knowledge of ancient languages to read the Bible in those early languages. Any confusion allows people to engage in further discussion and study to resolve that problem with no loss in faith. As for modernists, that is a relative term. Erasmus was a modernist in his era as compared to earlier Bible transcribers, so using that argument is a logical fallacy. There are many critical text Bibles besides KJV Bibles that condemn homosexuality, so that is also a false criticism from this speaker. Read 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 or Romans 1:26-27 for yourself in ESV, NASB to confirm this. I guess this dogmatic speaker did not check his facts, before he came to the wrong conclusion on this. Even the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod which is probably the most conservative Lutheran Church has both the ESV and KJV Bibles in their churches.
Sam Gipp did say in a debate with James White and Dan Wallace, l think it was in Christian answers. He said, English is the inspired language for the KJV just as Hebrew and kone was in the past. Everything would have to be in English from the KJV into other languages for it to be the true word of God. He had an old and expired translinier as his greek authority. It was so tragic his poor scholarly foundation, it made the other guys look unknowing. And they where good Christian men. Dr. Phil has much more credibility in his approach to this arguments.
If it's.new it isn't true
Most of us aren’t smart enough to differentiate between Bible versions. Just read one for crying out loud.
Romans 11:13 THE or AN Apostle ?
Romans 15:16 The or A Minister ?
Which one is correct ?
Which one is unique AN/A or THE ?
...Christendom's Holy Hand Book...
I love the ad hominem arguments. I DON'T actually feel this way, but someone could say... "I would never read a Bible that has its text source compiled by a catholic, borrows from the Vulgate, revised by calvinist, then translated by Anglicans. The hasty generalization at the end was also wonderful. Yes, there are some trash versions out there, but the ESV, NASB, CSB all clearly spell out homesexualitly is a sin more clearly than the KJV because they actually use the word homesexual, which leaves no doubt. It's also interesting that those who use the eclectic text position are the ones that are publicly debating those who attack the word of God and they defend it well.
Get a grip already ...
@@Daniel-lz9ps Haha, I forgot about this post until the notification. I used to be King James Only--even went to a high profile ifb Bible college, so I know the textual arguments well. I always believed that if something is actually true then it should hold it's own when put under the light of public examination. Do you ever wonder why there aren't any kjv guys in high profile debates against guys like Bart Ehrman? I have seen kjv guys debate against non kjv people in high profile debates, which can be found easily on TH-cam, and they lose horribly. As a fun side note, most modern translations use an eclectic text approach, not W & H ( they use all of the available texts). Regarding lucifarian, I won't say I agree with their theology, but if you actually read their writings, you would see they were not satanists, and no, reading other people's books about their writing where things are taken out of context doesn't count( fake news has been around for a while). I also don't agree with the theology of Erasmus who was a moderate Roman Catholic, but I don't hold that against the kjv. I don't have a problem with people who are kjv only--i don't agree--but I do have a problem when a speaker misrepresents the other side. I think getting a grip should mean honest dialog and not using ad hominem attacks.
@@ihaufle123 God has only ever had one version of his word, not many. God is not the author of confusion. He did not allow the ancient Israelites to "update" the book of Isaiah or the Pentateuch, the Psalms, etc. because they didn't like all those archaic Hebrew words.
And welcome to 2022 where we now have men and women that believe they can be women/men or non binary, gender fluid, etc. How does the word, homosexual, accurately capture the world now which the new EVS translation made so much clearer than the KJV now? Weird how God proves over time how English can change with the times but his word can still be the same yesterday, and today, and forevermore for those that can be satisfied with reading and drinking from the waters from one whole cistern. Yeah, the logic drawn out further from these new modern English translation has slowly lead us here. If the words of the Bible should evolve over time, surely God's meaning has evolved with it too. With child became pregnant, and eventually the understood pregnant with a baby didn't mean an actual baby in the beginning or until birth. Just wait until they push it past birth, as former Governor Ralph Northam was saying around 2016, 17, or 18 on the radio, being a medical doctor. Yeah, give me the old 1611 English standard that sent missionary to the lost and dying around the world around them sharing the Gospel; I've seen and tasted the difference and I can see what anything but the KJV is doing in churches, in homes, and the world.
@@toshamccarty5115 Amen, God has defiantly used the KJV throughout history to see many saved and still is today. Lives can still be changed with it. No arguing that, but that by itself doesn't prove it is the only translation to use. I'm part of a church that uses the ESV where I have personally seen and heard of lives changed as well. People have been saved from drugs and immorality. I'm associated with with a ministry that has seen countless marriages saved without using a single verse from the KJV. There are missionaries outside of the IFB movement who have seen many, and I mean many who have turned from their idols to serve the true and living God using other versions. I say this next part not to be disrespectful or attacking, but your statement that you have seen what happens to churches who do not use the KJV is a harsh statement that you know you haven't really thought out. There are indeed some churches that do not use the KJV that should not even be called churches because of how watered down and immoral they have become but that doesn't mean the translation was the issue. I could easily say the same thing. I actually have seen churches that use the KJV where sexual abuse was prominent in the leadership, but I don't believe that is becaus the KJV caused it, and the same would have to be said about other conservative transactions. I have seen some great churches and bad churches using KJV and non KJV translations. Regarding, how does the use of homosexual make the newer version more clear than the KJV on homosexuality, that is easy to answer. The same reason that updating the word besom to broom is easier to understand for the modern reader. Regarding your association with all newer versions to the decline of sexual morality in our culture, that is kind of post hoc. There are definitely some liberal translations out there, but not all non KJV translations are liberal nor have they led to the continual decline of our society. For example, my pastor peaching from the ESV, strongly and clearly calling homosexuals to repent, and the many who have been saved have genuine changed lives reading from other conservative translations. The comments about language changing but his words not changing, also Amen!.... to a point. I believe all of the original words have been preserved all many of the Ancient Greek--and not only Greek--manuscripts. The problems with your assertion are translation and meaning. It is a fact that meanings of words change, again the KJV calls a broom a besom. Do you call the broom in your house a besom? The greek words in the manuscripts also carried certain meaning for the time they were written. The translators have to make choices to choose words that best convert the meaning of the words found in the manuscripts that are in other languages to English in a way that perseveres the accurate meaning of the words. I tough job to be sure. Also, keep in mind that there were other English translations before the KJV that didn't match word for word of what was found in the KJV. They had options such as the Tyndale, Biships, etc.. If an English translation published in 1611 is the perfect standard, then we have a problem with history because nothing perfectly matches the KJV for the first 1600 years, which would mean that God did not really preserve his Word; he failed and had to recompile it 1600 years later. Not to mention that fact there have been changes since 1611 in the KJV, and there were not just spelling and punctuation changes.