@@davidvanriper60if we think that we get saved thru a bible translation then we need to reexamine our salvation entirely. a bible translation doesn't save us. a single prayer doesn't either. what did Yeshua teach we must *do* to inherit eternal life? hint: keep the commandments (in the first 5 books of the Bible). these are His words, not mine. see matthew 19:17.
@@humilulo I do not speak, read or write Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew; only English. The Bible has been translated into over 700 languages, and the New Testament into over 1600. No, the translation doesn't save....the gospel recorded properly in those translations saves. Sorry, you make no sense. MATT. 19 has nothing to do with salvation, but Christ leading the young man to his own stumbling block....his self righteousness and his riches. NO ONE keeps the commandments.
Well the kjv wasnt a new translation. When the translators went to work on creating the kjv they started with the bishops bible and consulted the duey rheims and the vulgate through out the process. In fact the entire book of revelation was taken from the vulagte. So really the kjv was more of a hodgpodge of a translation. It was not a brand new from scratch translation. Im addition to your above gripes, they changed either word tyrant or the context of a verse to favor kings and those of one rule authority over 30x. These issues are well known and are by no means a secret. The kjv is a decent translation, and many many have come to find christ using the kjv. The late charles spurgeon who primarly taught from the kjv often taught from the greek text and consulted the revised version. or RV because he stated that there were several instances that the kjv translators got it wrong. I will also tell you that there are instances that i believe that newer transactions get somethings wrong as well. For example 1 kings 14:24. Esv and nasb calls them male cult prostitutes. The kjv calls them sodomites. We know what sodomites are. Those that practice homosexuality. And we know that. In the nrsvue in 1 cor 6:9 they completely remove homosexuality and insert male prostitutes, with a foot note saying meaning of greek uncertain, knowing damn well what that verse is talking about. I say all that to say this. There isnt one perfect translation. All of them have a flaw in one way or another i tell people who are truly serious about studying the bible to consult many translations not one, but to say that we should throw away all our kjvs is non sense. The kjv isnt perfect but neither is anything else.
This is the fork in the road. You know what the KJV is, you now the problems, and then you end with "but let's not change. Nothing is perfect." That's kind of the overall point of the vid. People like me learned the truth, made huge changes to our beliefs and lifestyles, and then ultimately ended up back where they started embracing and even teaching error. That's not for me. You're absolutely right there are a host of problems with KJV and its predicates. It's an answer to the Geneva bible and a total compromise document. It's the authorized version of the Church of England 1611 - the very bible of the country our forefathers cast off. You know they added verses out of whole cloth and that they were under orders from the government of England to produce a document that didn't upset settled CoE doctrine. So finish the job of the founders. We have come so far in the last 500 years to limit ourselves to a medieval, incomplete, and purposefully erroneous bible. My kids learned on the NASB95. They don't have to unlearn the Church of England errors. They have a better baseline. Lets pray their kids can do even better.
@firstcenturychristianity The point at the end of my comment was, there is not a perfect translation. Period. There are would be errors in every single translation including the nasb95. What you and I claim to be perfect other scholars would argue against. The net bible full notes edition is pretty good. I enjoy all the additinal translators notes. I am by no means making pro kjv argument I'm just saying I think it has a place. And I whole heartedly agree that children should not be raised on kjv only. Most importantly because they just don't have the comprehension for it. If you want to throw all your kjv bibles away then so be it, but to tell everyone else to I think is wrong. There are some things I think the kjv got right. And the kjv was not a reactionary translation to the Geneva, it was a reaction to the duey rheims, the catholic bible which was published in 1582.
Broadly I agree, but remember that the bible is holographic, in that the important principles are repeated with slightly different nuances in multiple places. This is a concept I got from Chuck Missler. The practical effect of this is that the bible is very resistant to small changes and mistranslations. God has for seen these problems and crafted a message that persists despite human incompetence.
Firstly, I agree that the translators wrongly translated Gen 18:3 when they translate the word "adonai" as "Yahweh". It creates a contradiction with Exodus 6:2-3 where it says that the name Yahweh is not known by Abraham and Jacob. But, how about the other verses i.e. Gen 15:7 and Gen 28:13 where in Hebrew text it says that God said to Abraham and Jacob that His name is Yahweh? Both verses contradict Exodus 6:2-3 that says His first name "Yahweh" is not known by Abraham and Jacob. So, the contradiction is still exist, even in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament.
You may be looking at the wrong word. Is the word "known" the same? You can know something in Hebrew with your head, and it's different than a Hebrew experiential knowing, as an example.
Three men approach Abraham. He doesn't know who they are. Logically he wouldn't address them using God's name. It was the recorder Moses who gave recognition to God's name by showing that those three angels were sent by God to speak God's words. Angels sent by God don't give their names. Because the message they carried was God's and not their own. Moses records these spokespersons as Jehovah himself speaking. As an example. (Exodus 20:1-26) Then God spoke all these words: 2 “I am Jehovah your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 3 You must not have any other gods besides me. Who actually spoke these words using the first person pronoun I and ME? Stephen helps. Speaking to the Jews, he says: Acts 7:53 you who received the Law as TRANSMITTED BY ANGELS (plural) but have not kept it.” (Paul at Galatians 3:19 too). Hebrews 1:1 tells us that God spoke to humans using various means. Never directly.
If you have problems understanding the KJV, then that's your problem. It is way more accurate than NIV and 99% of the others. That being said, there is a direct Hebrew to English translation available online to cross reference everything. When you do that, you will find the KJV is the most accurate translation. Never rely on the Greek when there is now a direct Hebrew to English translation available because what you will find is that the Greek got a lot wrong, and KJV is actually more accurate than the Greek.
The NT was written in Greek. The new bibles claiming Hebrew are fabrications. In order to get the book of John to Hebrew, someone would need to translate it from Greek to Hebrew. None of that matters, though, because it's crystal clear the KJV "translators" misrepresented the words of the Messiah from the texts they had at the time, which is the point of the video.
It can mean damnation. You have to read the Bible in context. Are they being resurrected to be given a 2nd chance or to have their evil deeds judged? Scripture points to the latter, so option b IS the more appropriate use. BTW your explanation of KJV being misleading is in fact misleading because you neglect to mention that the Strong's definition offers what you reference 'decision' as well as damnation. See below: judgment opinion or decision given concerning anything esp. concerning justice and injustice, right or wrong 1. a. sentence of condemnation, damnatory judgment, condemnation and punishment.
Thanks for the comment and for listening. The context shows Yeshua saying the same word repeatedly, not changing three times. When we look at Rev 20, we can see there are people at the second resurrection whose names are found in the book of life. They are not damned but judged and come away from that event with a positive outcome rather than a negative one. Hence, it is not a resurrection of damnation but one of judgment, just as the Messiah said. The Strongs was made in the late 1800s and uses the KJV as the source of truth. It works backwards from what we would think. It lists words in the KJV and how they were brought into English. One would think it's the other way around, but it wasn't intended to be a gold standard, just a tool to guide people using the KJV. Please look up the rules the KJV "translators" were under. The book is not what we think it is at all. Just do an internet search for "rules for translating the KJV" and see what there is to see. This video is just the tip of the iceberg.
Omitted verses from modern-day corrupted bibles. (As to think to have a works based gospel.) • Matthew 17:21 • Matthew 18:11 • Matthew 23:14 • Mark 7:16 • Mark 9:44 and 9:46 • Mark 11:26 • Mark 15:28 • Mark 16:9-20 • Luke 17:36 • John 5:3-4 • Acts 8:37 • Acts 15:44 • Acts 24:6-8 • Acts 28:29 • Romans 16:24 • 1 John 5:7-8 Partially, and other omitted verses • Matthew 20:16b • Mark 6:11b • Luke 4:8b • Luke 9:55-56 • Luke 23:17 (preserved in Matthew 27:15 and as Mark 15:6) • Acts 9:5-6 • Acts 13:42 • Acts 23:9b • Titus 2:13b
are you teaching that NASB is more accurate than the Scriptures translation? if i'm understanding this correctly then please reexamine that big miscalculation. granted, they mistranslate that one verse that you mention. but NASB mistranslates YHVH literally thousands of times and you pick on once when the Scriptures translation mistranslates it once. 😳
It was one example from that book. They used "find and replace" to put YHVH everywhere He's called LORD which is embarrassing. It's really silly because they didn't know He really is called Adonai sometimes. ISR should not be used for serious study.
@@firstcenturychristianity maybe NASB shud not be used for serious study, Sir. 🤔 You claim that they used 'find and replace' but do you really know that or do you assume that? they might be using a different Hebrew manuscript. do you know which Hebrew manuscript that ISR used?
@@firstcenturychristianity and you are incorrect that they used YHVH everywhere He's called LORD. you make a number of incorrect claims and/or assumptions.
Open your Bible to Matthew 17:21. If your Bible doesn’t have it, question. I don’t consider the translation of “condemnation” and “judgment” as misleading since context clues tells you exactly what it means. Read “ The unseen realm” if you want all the translations cleared up and explained. People misunderstand interpretations of the Bible like it’s been a big game of telephone, instead of the extraordinarily diligent and heavily scrutinized long process done by the most respected theologians on the face of the earth at the time. If you can trust Roman/greek/egyptian etc history (a set of lies agreed upon - Napoleon Bonaparte), then you can definitely trust the Bible since they were written at the same time and had much less reason to lie
Please verify that Yeshua said the same word three times in a row and the KJV "translators" represented it as three totally different words as contrasted to modern bibles that are true to the Word.
@@firstcenturychristianity because of how languages work. The same word can have multiple meanings and must be translated to reflect that or the text becomes misleading. Again, “unseen realm” explains all of this; The author speaking all of the languages of the bible, including the dead ones so not to be mislead by mistranslations. Take for example the word “hard”. English recognizes this word to mean a few things including “difficult”, which other languages do not and recognize “hard” as only the opposite to soft. Now if a book says “painting is hard on a surface that’s hardly hard” and is translated to another language as “painting is difficult on a surface that is difficultly difficult” would be a direct translation as you’re proposing should be done, but would at the least be misleading and not a correct translation (even though it’s “word for word”). Arabic, Greek, Latin, Hebrew etc all have these situations where a word for word translation would be misleading and represents a different word in another language, therefore necessitating different (for example:) English words to convey the same Hebrew words.
@@BillBrasky368 I've read Heiser's book extensively. He doesn't talk about this topic at all. I'm guessing you're taking his word studies on Psalm 82 and applying that to the whole bible? This is not that at all. In this case, they represented the same word in the same context three different ways when there were different words available to convey the concept they ultimately represented. There are words that mean condemnation in Greek and they were not used in the passages I cited. When John wrote his gospel, or if it was translated into Greek should the original have been written in Hebrew, there were words available to convey condemnation, which is close to damnation. They weren't used. Hebrew has a lot less words than Greek so we do see the same exact word meaning something a little different in two cases in close proximity. Greek is more like English in this regard with lots of technical words. So applying Heiser's teaching here (if that's what you're doing) isn't applicable. p.s. read his footnotes in that book, not just the main content. He often argues with himself in those footnotes. It's strange. p.p.s. Have you read his fiction books? They're great!
None of the original names are used in other languages. Jacob, Joshua, Jeremiah and such cannot be original names as there is no letter J in Hebrew. Same with the names Peter, Jesus and others which are anglicized pronunciations of the original names. Varies in other languages. Each language adopts a name to identify these individuals. God has no problem with this. Because His people are named Jehovah's Witnesses (Isaiah 43:10). Even though the original pronunciation is unknown. This name would vary in pronunciation based on the language spoken or used. Ezekiel 38:23 And I will certainly magnify myself and sanctify myself and make myself known before the eyes of many nations; and they will have to know that I AM JEHOVAH. This of course is just not knowing the name of God. But getting to know the person and power behind that name.
You have been lied to. Let's see if you are sincere before God. You said "eternal damnation doesn't exist", but it is written: 1) Mar 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation. ---I am Greek, the Greek word there κρισεως (kriseos) in that context, means guilty verdict/judgement passed, because it is eternal. There is no court judging us continuously eternally, which would be something illogical, actually ridiculous. Courts are not meant to work that way. 2) Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal ---The contradistinction made here is eternal/everlasting (Gr.αιώνιον/aionion) punishment (Gr.κόλασιν/kolasin) and eternal (Gr.αιώνιον/aonion) life (Gr.ζωήν / that is, with God). 3) 2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting(αιώνιον) destruction(Gr.όλεθρον) from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; ---The reason that it doesn't just say destruction, but eternal destruction, is because it's on going. Otherwise it's foolish talk, that is, once something is destroyed, it's done, finished forever. Saying eternal destruction is a clarification and an emphasis for an everlasting duration of destruction taking place and it lines up with everything said in the NT. Unless you say that eternal life, is not being alive with God forever either! PS. If God just destroyed a soul at an instant, that's actually no big deal. We can compare it a little to e.g. like shooting a person in the head; it kills him instantly and he has no more memory to remember it. So why all the fuss for such a punishment, why call it eternal?? 4) Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance (or judgement/verdict, Gr.δικην/dikin) of eternal (Gr.αιωνίου/aioniou) fire (Gr.πυρός/piros)). ---Again, we read of an eternal judgement of eternal fire. 5) Six verses later it is written: Jud 1:13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. ----Well, if they just vanish/get destroyed, what does the eternal blackness of darkness have to do with it?? They can't see it. Much more where that came from. Let's see if you fear God now.(Why would you, if at the end of the day you just cease to exist?)
I'm telling ya- that claim was wild, then left unexplained..."There is no such thing as eternal damnation." He stated all three words in John 5 were κρίσις, said they should all read "judgement," made his assertion, then never makes his case on what anything meant. Disappointing.
Gosh, and what about Heb 6:2- the 6 foundations of repentance from dead works, faith toward God, doctrine of baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead and ETERNAL JUDGEMENT (κρίματος αἰωνίου)?
You say Yeshua which is correct, the Jews agree. But you say Yahweh and the Jews say the sacred name is not this but Yehova (no I'm not a Jehovas witness). Y H V H - with a V - Yod Hey Vav Hey. The acronym key kept secret is Sheva Cholam Kamatz, which provides the e the o and the a. Y e H o V a H. Psalm 83:18 King James Version 18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth.
They got rid of Lord because it means Baal, but you are misrepresenting the reasons for changing and therefore it is slander, no mention of ineffable word doctrine, which would never tear the cloths at YAHWEH, and everyday just like you, and at John 8:58 he calls himself Yah do you deny this then why did they tear their clothes and try to kill him? Yahuahis correct your making this video shows your scared of being wrong, therefore hide the real response the words are changed,
Thanks for the listen and reply. They got rid of Adonai even when YHVH is called Adonai. It's absurd. The word adonai is only associated with Baal once in the Tanakh, but is used to address YHVH many, many times. This change should really shock people. John was written in Greek. Yeshua was not saying He was literally YHVH in John 8:58 and they didn't hear Him say that. He said He's older that Abraham, which is very true, but He is YHVH's Son, not YHVH Himself. If you'd like to learn in depth why Yeshua didn't call Himself YHVH in John 8:58 it's in this one firstcenturychristianity.net/arguments-against-the-trinity/
The two views of the Judgment that you present, are not the only views! I have studied the NASB and disagree with you 100%. There are humongous errors found in your preferred choice of bibles. I will give you one of the biggest errors that is worse than your example here. That is John 1:18 where it teaches two Gods. There is no way around this error, and it points to certain individuals following the teachings of the early church fathers.
I checked the Greek and it is faithful. And I'm surprised I hadn't seen that before since I'm sensitive to that doctrine. I tend to believe the second rendering of God there should be the Son, it literally is theos in the Greek. However, if we understand the second rendering of theos as the Hebrew Elohim and the first as YHVH, then it would make sense. Too bad we don't have a Hebrew version!
@@approvedofGod Well, the oldest one doesn't say that. The point of this video is that we need the bibles to translate what's actually written and originally intended. Here's the Greek so you can see for yourself. biblehub.com/interlinear/john/1-18.htm I browsed your channel so in case you haven't browsed this one, I'm not Trinitarian either. firstcenturychristianity.net/problems-with-the-trinity/
Also now this is the kicker pick up your Bible and open up to the front, and see what it tells you how they handled the tetragramaton, they will tell you they used a device, in literary terms that means something to decieve or disguise the meaning, and they Used Lord or God, now didn't they, God is not his name either, those are devices used to hide his name and Yahweh is not the proper pronunciation either, both As are ah no nicud marks in paleoHerbrew, again you misled your audience,
Yes, everybody needs to use the preface documents of their bibles. That's great advice. When the Rabbis translated the Bible into Greek about 150 years before Yeshua, they used the generic word for God, Theos, for Elohim. The first century believers carried this on when they wrote the New Testament. For everybody else reading this, understand, using the generic Greek word for God was just fine for the apostles, hence it's just fine for us, too. Yahweh is the Name of God and Yeshua is the Name of His Son and it's better to use the real Names, understand that it was not required by the first century believers thus not required of us today.
@firstcenturychristianity because you say so? but if you really look at the history, no your wrong I gave you evidence,you gave me con job, the Apostles kept Sabbath always,they were persecuted for the name the one Joocephes said was four vowels no w, what does the letter w mean? from Acts 18 on Paul was full on Hebrew roots, when your Savior rode the ass into Jerusalem the crowd yelled Baruch Haba Hashem Yahuah, not Yahweh, and the Rabbis lost it, with a Hebrew Matthew in the caves of Qumran, they were speaking in Aramaic Hebrew not Greek, history is not on your side. only the stolen history of the RCC, and the changing of times and seasons. 216 times Yahusha removed. that's OK he said he would forgive you. 6,823 times the Fathers name removed now that's anther matter,
@@azlittlebear You didn't provide any evidence at all. You're just repeating HRM myths, my friend. And apparently all of them. Gosh, you don't even know this channel is a Torah keeping ministry. Wow. Addin yah in front of huah, if it were a word, would mean something blasphemous. Please hit the reset button and learn one or two of these things for real instead of just repeating stuff. You've been given a concept by the false teachers that Hebrew concepts can't be transmitted in any other language. Do you even know what bible they used in the synagogues?
@@firstcenturychristianity look it up. I’m not playing. They removed YAHUAH/YAHUSHA…. They replaced it with CAPITALS OF LORD … over 6000 times…. I don’t claim to know it all. I just learned this… the J is also new. @JonTruth is the best at breaking all this down. It begs the question as to WHY DO OTHER PASTORS, ETC…. Not ask more questions!?! THE ENEMY INFILTRATED THE CHURCHES… THE SEMINARIES…. LONG AGO. Top down deception for over a century….
You are a liar, this is what Strong's says: G2920 κρίσις krisis kree'-sis (Subjectively or objectively, for or against); by extension a tribunal; by implication justice (specifically divine law): - accusation, condemnation, damnation, judgment. Total KJV occurrences: 48 In the Greek this word can mean accusation, condemnation, damnation, and judgment. It depends on the other words used in the sentance, this is not "English" it is Greek and it does not work like our English does. Next, you look at Gen 18:3 where we find "My Lord", Stongs's says: H136 אֲדֹנָי 'ădônây ad-o-noy' An emphatic form of H113; the Lord (used as a proper name of God only): - (my) Lord. Total KJV occurrences: 438 Again you lie, for this has nothing to do with the "Bible names" and "the Hebrew", that you talk so much about Then you say he was never called "Jesus", again you lie, saying the word Christ should be messiah. Strong's gives: G5547 Χριστός Christos khris-tos' From G5548; anointed, that is, the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus: - Christ. Total KJV occurrences: 569 H4899 מָשִׁיחַ mâshı̂yach maw-shee'-akh From H4886; anointed; usually a consecrated person (as a king, priest, or saint); specifically the Messiah: - anointed, Messiah. Total KJV occurrences: 39 Christ is a Greek word that is from Chrio, to anoint, another Greek word and Messiah is a Hebrew word from mashach, to anoint, and this is another Hebrew word. Greek and Hebrew are not the same. Jesus comes from the Greek word Iesous, that is said to be a from of the Hebrew word for Joshua, and not the Hebrew word for Jehovah as you said. Strong's says this for Jesus: G2424 Ἰησοῦς Iēsous ee-ay-sooce' Of Hebrew origin [H3091]; Jesus (that is, Jehoshua), the name of our Lord and two (three) other Israelites: - Jesus. Total KJV occurrences: 975 You are one of these nuts that think the "J" should not be used and that say Jehovah is not the Old Testament name for God and that Jesus is not the name where by we must be saved, when that Bible says: Act 4:11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Act 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. Act 4:18 And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. Act 4:19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. Act 4:20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. Act 5:40 And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. Act 5:41 And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. Act 5:42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ. Php 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: Php 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; Php 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Jesus is the only way, the only truth, the only life, and the only way to God the Father.
Thanks for the comment. I'm well aware that words mean different things in different contexts in all languages. It's crystal clear the context is the same, the words are the same, and the KJV "translators" misrepresented the words of the Messiah. If you kept watching, I was critical of the so-called sacred Name Bibles for also misrepresenting what the text says so I don't know the purpose of the rest of your comment. Shalom.
I found JESUS in the KJV Bible. Sorry my man, if KJV is too hard or doesn't make sense, ask God for Discernment 🙏
simple, and to the point.....thank you.
I as well was saved through the KJV. 39 years and counting. I need no modern translation....
God bless
the Messiah is simply not Jesus. different god entirely.
@@davidvanriper60if we think that we get saved thru a bible translation then we need to reexamine our salvation entirely. a bible translation doesn't save us. a single prayer doesn't either. what did Yeshua teach we must *do* to inherit eternal life? hint: keep the commandments (in the first 5 books of the Bible). these are His words, not mine. see matthew 19:17.
@@humilulo I do not speak, read or write Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew; only English. The Bible has been translated into over 700 languages, and the New Testament
into over 1600. No, the translation doesn't save....the gospel recorded properly in those translations saves.
Sorry, you make no sense. MATT. 19 has nothing to do with salvation, but Christ leading the young man to his own stumbling block....his self righteousness
and his riches. NO ONE keeps the commandments.
Well the kjv wasnt a new translation. When the translators went to work on creating the kjv they started with the bishops bible and consulted the duey rheims and the vulgate through out the process. In fact the entire book of revelation was taken from the vulagte. So really the kjv was more of a hodgpodge of a translation. It was not a brand new from scratch translation. Im addition to your above gripes, they changed either word tyrant or the context of a verse to favor kings and those of one rule authority over 30x. These issues are well known and are by no means a secret. The kjv is a decent translation, and many many have come to find christ using the kjv. The late charles spurgeon who primarly taught from the kjv often taught from the greek text and consulted the revised version. or RV because he stated that there were several instances that the kjv translators got it wrong. I will also tell you that there are instances that i believe that newer transactions get somethings wrong as well. For example 1 kings 14:24. Esv and nasb calls them male cult prostitutes. The kjv calls them sodomites. We know what sodomites are. Those that practice homosexuality. And we know that. In the nrsvue in 1 cor 6:9 they completely remove homosexuality and insert male prostitutes, with a foot note saying meaning of greek uncertain, knowing damn well what that verse is talking about. I say all that to say this. There isnt one perfect translation. All of them have a flaw in one way or another i tell people who are truly serious about studying the bible to consult many translations not one, but to say that we should throw away all our kjvs is non sense. The kjv isnt perfect but neither is anything else.
This is the fork in the road. You know what the KJV is, you now the problems, and then you end with "but let's not change. Nothing is perfect." That's kind of the overall point of the vid. People like me learned the truth, made huge changes to our beliefs and lifestyles, and then ultimately ended up back where they started embracing and even teaching error. That's not for me.
You're absolutely right there are a host of problems with KJV and its predicates. It's an answer to the Geneva bible and a total compromise document. It's the authorized version of the Church of England 1611 - the very bible of the country our forefathers cast off. You know they added verses out of whole cloth and that they were under orders from the government of England to produce a document that didn't upset settled CoE doctrine. So finish the job of the founders. We have come so far in the last 500 years to limit ourselves to a medieval, incomplete, and purposefully erroneous bible.
My kids learned on the NASB95. They don't have to unlearn the Church of England errors. They have a better baseline. Lets pray their kids can do even better.
@firstcenturychristianity The point at the end of my comment was, there is not a perfect translation. Period. There are would be errors in every single translation including the nasb95. What you and I claim to be perfect other scholars would argue against. The net bible full notes edition is pretty good. I enjoy all the additinal translators notes. I am by no means making pro kjv argument I'm just saying I think it has a place. And I whole heartedly agree that children should not be raised on kjv only. Most importantly because they just don't have the comprehension for it. If you want to throw all your kjv bibles away then so be it, but to tell everyone else to I think is wrong. There are some things I think the kjv got right. And the kjv was not a reactionary translation to the Geneva, it was a reaction to the duey rheims, the catholic bible which was published in 1582.
The KJV is amazing.
Broadly I agree, but remember that the bible is holographic, in that the important principles are repeated with slightly different nuances in multiple places. This is a concept I got from Chuck Missler.
The practical effect of this is that the bible is very resistant to small changes and mistranslations. God has for seen these problems and crafted a message that persists despite human incompetence.
The Holy Spirit can and does lead us to all truth. But we should make it easier!
Firstly, I agree that the translators wrongly translated Gen 18:3 when they translate the word "adonai" as "Yahweh". It creates a contradiction with Exodus 6:2-3 where it says that the name Yahweh is not known by Abraham and Jacob.
But, how about the other verses i.e. Gen 15:7 and Gen 28:13 where in Hebrew text it says that God said to Abraham and Jacob that His name is Yahweh?
Both verses contradict Exodus 6:2-3 that says His first name "Yahweh" is not known by Abraham and Jacob. So, the contradiction is still exist, even in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament.
You may be looking at the wrong word.
Is the word "known" the same? You can know something in Hebrew with your head, and it's different than a Hebrew experiential knowing, as an example.
I agree that one is a mystery.
Three men approach Abraham. He doesn't know who they are. Logically he wouldn't address them using God's name.
It was the recorder Moses who gave recognition to God's name by showing that those three angels were sent by God to speak God's words.
Angels sent by God don't give their names. Because the message they carried was God's and not their own. Moses records these spokespersons as Jehovah himself speaking.
As an example.
(Exodus 20:1-26) Then God spoke all these words: 2 “I am Jehovah your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 3 You must not have any other gods besides me.
Who actually spoke these words using the first person pronoun I and ME?
Stephen helps. Speaking to the Jews, he says:
Acts 7:53 you who received the Law as TRANSMITTED BY ANGELS (plural) but have not kept it.” (Paul at Galatians 3:19 too).
Hebrews 1:1 tells us that God spoke to humans using various means. Never directly.
I have done my own rendering of Genesis and can confirm what you said about 18:3. I used Lord there. Well done video.
If you have problems understanding the KJV, then that's your problem. It is way more accurate than NIV and 99% of the others. That being said, there is a direct Hebrew to English translation available online to cross reference everything. When you do that, you will find the KJV is the most accurate translation. Never rely on the Greek when there is now a direct Hebrew to English translation available because what you will find is that the Greek got a lot wrong, and KJV is actually more accurate than the Greek.
The NT was written in Greek. The new bibles claiming Hebrew are fabrications. In order to get the book of John to Hebrew, someone would need to translate it from Greek to Hebrew. None of that matters, though, because it's crystal clear the KJV "translators" misrepresented the words of the Messiah from the texts they had at the time, which is the point of the video.
The Greek manuscrpts of OT are actually older than most Hebrew versions. So sometimes the Greek may be closer to the original.
It can mean damnation. You have to read the Bible in context. Are they being resurrected to be given a 2nd chance or to have their evil deeds judged? Scripture points to the latter, so option b IS the more appropriate use. BTW your explanation of KJV being misleading is in fact misleading because you neglect to mention that the Strong's definition offers what you reference 'decision' as well as damnation. See below:
judgment
opinion or decision given concerning anything
esp. concerning justice and injustice, right or wrong 1. a.
sentence of condemnation, damnatory judgment, condemnation and punishment.
Thanks for the comment and for listening. The context shows Yeshua saying the same word repeatedly, not changing three times. When we look at Rev 20, we can see there are people at the second resurrection whose names are found in the book of life. They are not damned but judged and come away from that event with a positive outcome rather than a negative one. Hence, it is not a resurrection of damnation but one of judgment, just as the Messiah said.
The Strongs was made in the late 1800s and uses the KJV as the source of truth. It works backwards from what we would think. It lists words in the KJV and how they were brought into English. One would think it's the other way around, but it wasn't intended to be a gold standard, just a tool to guide people using the KJV.
Please look up the rules the KJV "translators" were under. The book is not what we think it is at all. Just do an internet search for "rules for translating the KJV" and see what there is to see. This video is just the tip of the iceberg.
Omitted verses from modern-day corrupted bibles.
(As to think to have a works based gospel.)
• Matthew 17:21
• Matthew 18:11
• Matthew 23:14
• Mark 7:16
• Mark 9:44 and 9:46
• Mark 11:26
• Mark 15:28
• Mark 16:9-20
• Luke 17:36
• John 5:3-4
• Acts 8:37
• Acts 15:44
• Acts 24:6-8
• Acts 28:29
• Romans 16:24
• 1 John 5:7-8
Partially, and other omitted verses
• Matthew 20:16b
• Mark 6:11b
• Luke 4:8b
• Luke 9:55-56
• Luke 23:17 (preserved in Matthew 27:15 and as Mark 15:6)
• Acts 9:5-6
• Acts 13:42
• Acts 23:9b
• Titus 2:13b
are you teaching that NASB is more accurate than the Scriptures translation? if i'm understanding this correctly then please reexamine that big miscalculation. granted, they mistranslate that one verse that you mention. but NASB mistranslates YHVH literally thousands of times and you pick on once when the Scriptures translation mistranslates it once. 😳
It was one example from that book. They used "find and replace" to put YHVH everywhere He's called LORD which is embarrassing. It's really silly because they didn't know He really is called Adonai sometimes. ISR should not be used for serious study.
@@firstcenturychristianity maybe NASB shud not be used for serious study, Sir. 🤔 You claim that they used 'find and replace' but do you really know that or do you assume that? they might be using a different Hebrew manuscript. do you know which Hebrew manuscript that ISR used?
@@firstcenturychristianity and you are incorrect that they used YHVH everywhere He's called LORD. you make a number of incorrect claims and/or assumptions.
@@humilulo Well, that's what they did. Not hard to figure out. firstcenturychristianity.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Lord-TS2009.png
Open your Bible to Matthew 17:21. If your Bible doesn’t have it, question.
I don’t consider the translation of “condemnation” and “judgment” as misleading since context clues tells you exactly what it means.
Read “ The unseen realm” if you want all the translations cleared up and explained. People misunderstand interpretations of the Bible like it’s been a big game of telephone, instead of the extraordinarily diligent and heavily scrutinized long process done by the most respected theologians on the face of the earth at the time. If you can trust Roman/greek/egyptian etc history (a set of lies agreed upon - Napoleon Bonaparte), then you can definitely trust the Bible since they were written at the same time and had much less reason to lie
Please verify that Yeshua said the same word three times in a row and the KJV "translators" represented it as three totally different words as contrasted to modern bibles that are true to the Word.
@@firstcenturychristianity because of how languages work. The same word can have multiple meanings and must be translated to reflect that or the text becomes misleading. Again, “unseen realm” explains all of this; The author speaking all of the languages of the bible, including the dead ones so not to be mislead by mistranslations. Take for example the word “hard”. English recognizes this word to mean a few things including “difficult”, which other languages do not and recognize “hard” as only the opposite to soft. Now if a book says “painting is hard on a surface that’s hardly hard” and is translated to another language as “painting is difficult on a surface that is difficultly difficult” would be a direct translation as you’re proposing should be done, but would at the least be misleading and not a correct translation (even though it’s “word for word”).
Arabic, Greek, Latin, Hebrew etc all have these situations where a word for word translation would be misleading and represents a different word in another language, therefore necessitating different (for example:) English words to convey the same Hebrew words.
@@BillBrasky368 I've read Heiser's book extensively. He doesn't talk about this topic at all. I'm guessing you're taking his word studies on Psalm 82 and applying that to the whole bible? This is not that at all. In this case, they represented the same word in the same context three different ways when there were different words available to convey the concept they ultimately represented. There are words that mean condemnation in Greek and they were not used in the passages I cited. When John wrote his gospel, or if it was translated into Greek should the original have been written in Hebrew, there were words available to convey condemnation, which is close to damnation. They weren't used. Hebrew has a lot less words than Greek so we do see the same exact word meaning something a little different in two cases in close proximity. Greek is more like English in this regard with lots of technical words. So applying Heiser's teaching here (if that's what you're doing) isn't applicable.
p.s. read his footnotes in that book, not just the main content. He often argues with himself in those footnotes. It's strange.
p.p.s. Have you read his fiction books? They're great!
@@firstcenturychristianity alright I’ll check it out more, thanks.
None of the original names are used in other languages. Jacob, Joshua, Jeremiah and such cannot be original names as there is no letter J in Hebrew.
Same with the names Peter, Jesus and others which are anglicized pronunciations of the original names. Varies in other languages.
Each language adopts a name to identify these individuals.
God has no problem with this. Because His people are named Jehovah's Witnesses (Isaiah 43:10). Even though the original pronunciation is unknown.
This name would vary in pronunciation based on the language spoken or used.
Ezekiel 38:23 And I will certainly magnify myself and sanctify myself and make myself known before the eyes of many nations; and they will have to know that I AM JEHOVAH.
This of course is just not knowing the name of God. But getting to know the person and power behind that name.
how about how πορνεία is translated.....or how Jn 3.16 is translated....in Spanish...
Wrong. Scrutinize the KJV, avoid everything else.
You have been lied to.
Let's see if you are sincere before God.
You said "eternal damnation doesn't exist", but it is written:
1) Mar 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.
---I am Greek, the Greek word there κρισεως (kriseos) in that context, means guilty verdict/judgement passed, because it is eternal. There is no court judging us continuously eternally, which would be something illogical, actually ridiculous. Courts are not meant to work that way.
2) Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal
---The contradistinction made here is eternal/everlasting (Gr.αιώνιον/aionion) punishment (Gr.κόλασιν/kolasin) and eternal (Gr.αιώνιον/aonion) life (Gr.ζωήν / that is, with God).
3) 2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting(αιώνιον) destruction(Gr.όλεθρον) from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
---The reason that it doesn't just say destruction, but eternal destruction, is because it's on going. Otherwise it's foolish talk, that is, once something is destroyed, it's done, finished forever. Saying eternal destruction is a clarification and an emphasis for an everlasting duration of destruction taking place and it lines up with everything said in the NT. Unless you say that eternal life, is not being alive with God forever either!
PS. If God just destroyed a soul at an instant, that's actually no big deal. We can compare it a little to e.g. like shooting a person in the head; it kills him instantly and he has no more memory to remember it. So why all the fuss for such a punishment, why call it eternal??
4) Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance (or judgement/verdict, Gr.δικην/dikin) of eternal (Gr.αιωνίου/aioniou) fire (Gr.πυρός/piros)).
---Again, we read of an eternal judgement of eternal fire.
5) Six verses later it is written:
Jud 1:13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
----Well, if they just vanish/get destroyed, what does the eternal blackness of darkness have to do with it?? They can't see it.
Much more where that came from. Let's see if you fear God now.(Why would you, if at the end of the day you just cease to exist?)
I'm telling ya- that claim was wild, then left unexplained..."There is no such thing as eternal damnation." He stated all three words in John 5 were κρίσις, said they should all read "judgement," made his assertion, then never makes his case on what anything meant. Disappointing.
Gosh, and what about Heb 6:2- the 6 foundations of repentance from dead works, faith toward God, doctrine of baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead and ETERNAL JUDGEMENT (κρίματος αἰωνίου)?
@@matthewmctamney5267 To say the least.
@@matthewmctamney5267 Yep.
@@combatforlife.31 @matthewmctamney5267 Please verify with your Greek knowledge that the KJV is purposely wrong in those three verses.
You say Yeshua which is correct, the Jews agree. But you say Yahweh and the Jews say the sacred name is not this but Yehova (no I'm not a Jehovas witness). Y H V H - with a V - Yod Hey Vav Hey.
The acronym key kept secret is Sheva Cholam Kamatz, which provides the e the o and the a. Y e H o V a H.
Psalm 83:18
King James Version
18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth.
They got rid of Lord because it means Baal, but you are misrepresenting the reasons for changing and therefore it is slander, no mention of ineffable word doctrine, which would never tear the cloths at YAHWEH, and everyday just like you, and at John 8:58 he calls himself Yah do you deny this then why did they tear their clothes and try to kill him? Yahuahis correct your making this video shows your scared of being wrong, therefore hide the real response the words are changed,
Thanks for the listen and reply.
They got rid of Adonai even when YHVH is called Adonai. It's absurd. The word adonai is only associated with Baal once in the Tanakh, but is used to address YHVH many, many times. This change should really shock people.
John was written in Greek. Yeshua was not saying He was literally YHVH in John 8:58 and they didn't hear Him say that. He said He's older that Abraham, which is very true, but He is YHVH's Son, not YHVH Himself. If you'd like to learn in depth why Yeshua didn't call Himself YHVH in John 8:58 it's in this one firstcenturychristianity.net/arguments-against-the-trinity/
The two views of the Judgment that you present, are not the only views! I have studied the NASB and disagree with you 100%. There are humongous errors found in your preferred choice of bibles. I will give you one of the biggest errors that is worse than your example here. That is John 1:18 where it teaches two Gods. There is no way around this error, and it points to certain individuals following the teachings of the early church fathers.
I checked the Greek and it is faithful. And I'm surprised I hadn't seen that before since I'm sensitive to that doctrine. I tend to believe the second rendering of God there should be the Son, it literally is theos in the Greek. However, if we understand the second rendering of theos as the Hebrew Elohim and the first as YHVH, then it would make sense. Too bad we don't have a Hebrew version!
@@firstcenturychristianity
The "only begotten son" is in all the bibles, previous to the 1900's and the New Bible versions.
@@approvedofGod Well, the oldest one doesn't say that. The point of this video is that we need the bibles to translate what's actually written and originally intended. Here's the Greek so you can see for yourself. biblehub.com/interlinear/john/1-18.htm
I browsed your channel so in case you haven't browsed this one, I'm not Trinitarian either. firstcenturychristianity.net/problems-with-the-trinity/
@@firstcenturychristianity
That is good.
Also now this is the kicker pick up your Bible and open up to the front, and see what it tells you how they handled the tetragramaton, they will tell you they used a device, in literary terms that means something to decieve or disguise the meaning, and they Used Lord or God, now didn't they, God is not his name either, those are devices used to hide his name and Yahweh is not the proper pronunciation either, both As are ah no nicud marks in paleoHerbrew, again you misled your audience,
Yes, everybody needs to use the preface documents of their bibles. That's great advice.
When the Rabbis translated the Bible into Greek about 150 years before Yeshua, they used the generic word for God, Theos, for Elohim. The first century believers carried this on when they wrote the New Testament. For everybody else reading this, understand, using the generic Greek word for God was just fine for the apostles, hence it's just fine for us, too. Yahweh is the Name of God and Yeshua is the Name of His Son and it's better to use the real Names, understand that it was not required by the first century believers thus not required of us today.
@firstcenturychristianity because you say so? but if you really look at the history, no your wrong I gave you evidence,you gave me con job, the Apostles kept Sabbath always,they were persecuted for the name the one Joocephes said was four vowels no w, what does the letter w mean? from Acts 18 on Paul was full on Hebrew roots, when your Savior rode the ass into Jerusalem the crowd yelled Baruch Haba Hashem Yahuah, not Yahweh, and the Rabbis lost it, with a Hebrew Matthew in the caves of Qumran, they were speaking in Aramaic Hebrew not Greek, history is not on your side. only the stolen history of the RCC, and the changing of times and seasons. 216 times Yahusha removed. that's OK he said he would forgive you. 6,823 times the Fathers name removed now that's anther matter,
@@azlittlebear You didn't provide any evidence at all. You're just repeating HRM myths, my friend. And apparently all of them. Gosh, you don't even know this channel is a Torah keeping ministry. Wow. Addin yah in front of huah, if it were a word, would mean something blasphemous. Please hit the reset button and learn one or two of these things for real instead of just repeating stuff. You've been given a concept by the false teachers that Hebrew concepts can't be transmitted in any other language. Do you even know what bible they used in the synagogues?
LORD = BAAL😡
This video is deceptive.
Who told you that?
@@firstcenturychristianity look it up. I’m not playing. They removed YAHUAH/YAHUSHA…. They replaced it with CAPITALS OF LORD … over 6000 times….
I don’t claim to know it all. I just learned this… the J is also new.
@JonTruth is the best at breaking all this down.
It begs the question as to WHY DO OTHER PASTORS, ETC…. Not ask more questions!?!
THE ENEMY INFILTRATED THE CHURCHES… THE SEMINARIES…. LONG AGO. Top down deception for over a century….
You are a liar, this is what Strong's says:
G2920
κρίσις
krisis
kree'-sis
(Subjectively or objectively, for or against); by extension a tribunal; by implication justice (specifically divine law): - accusation, condemnation, damnation, judgment.
Total KJV occurrences: 48
In the Greek this word can mean accusation, condemnation, damnation, and judgment. It depends on the other words used in the sentance, this is not "English" it is Greek and it does not work like our English does.
Next, you look at Gen 18:3 where we find "My Lord", Stongs's says:
H136
אֲדֹנָי
'ădônây
ad-o-noy'
An emphatic form of H113; the Lord (used as a proper name of God only): - (my) Lord.
Total KJV occurrences: 438
Again you lie, for this has nothing to do with the "Bible names" and "the Hebrew", that you talk so much about
Then you say he was never called "Jesus", again you lie, saying the word Christ should be messiah. Strong's gives:
G5547
Χριστός
Christos
khris-tos'
From G5548; anointed, that is, the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus: - Christ.
Total KJV occurrences: 569
H4899
מָשִׁיחַ
mâshı̂yach
maw-shee'-akh
From H4886; anointed; usually a consecrated person (as a king, priest, or saint); specifically the Messiah: - anointed, Messiah.
Total KJV occurrences: 39
Christ is a Greek word that is from Chrio, to anoint, another Greek word and Messiah is a Hebrew word from mashach, to anoint, and this is another Hebrew word. Greek and Hebrew are not the same. Jesus comes from the Greek word Iesous, that is said to be a from of the Hebrew word for Joshua, and not the Hebrew word for Jehovah as you said. Strong's says this for Jesus:
G2424
Ἰησοῦς
Iēsous
ee-ay-sooce'
Of Hebrew origin [H3091]; Jesus (that is, Jehoshua), the name of our Lord and two (three) other Israelites: - Jesus.
Total KJV occurrences: 975
You are one of these nuts that think the "J" should not be used and that say Jehovah is not the Old Testament name for God and that Jesus is not the name where by we must be saved, when that Bible says:
Act 4:11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Act 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.
Act 4:18 And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.
Act 4:19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
Act 4:20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.
Act 5:40 And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.
Act 5:41 And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.
Act 5:42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.
Php 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
Php 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
Php 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Jesus is the only way, the only truth, the only life, and the only way to God the Father.
Thanks for the comment. I'm well aware that words mean different things in different contexts in all languages. It's crystal clear the context is the same, the words are the same, and the KJV "translators" misrepresented the words of the Messiah. If you kept watching, I was critical of the so-called sacred Name Bibles for also misrepresenting what the text says so I don't know the purpose of the rest of your comment. Shalom.