Thank you for introduction of Mark Ward. My first time to get know him a bit. I just look up in his youtube. What a rich information that he shared with us. An excellence!!!! Good to know about this. Great and praise God for this! 🤟
I enjoyed the interview immensely. I’m always in awe of Mark’s disposition on his channel, being able to have a kind response through hateful, blind, wrath thrown his way. Love you both!
Fantastic interview and very informative. I struggled with King James onlyism up until about a year ago. I was saved in 2014,the KJV was preached from the day I got saved and I stuck with it. To be honest, it’s kind of kept me back as a Christian only sticking to the KJV. I now use the ESV or NKJV as my main translations and my understanding of scripture has increased greatly. I will always love the KJV and still read from it,but I’d say the ESV is the translation that The Lord speaks to me through.
James White had Nathan Cravatt on his show to talk about the debate Cravatt did with Mitch Cannup. That led me to Nathan's podcast called the Recovering Fundamentalist podcast, which led me to Mark Ward's channel, which led me here. I'm glad to find another good teacher. God bless.
Great interview pastor Mat! Watched this on both channels . Had to . Have been subscribed the booth channels for some time . Both are excellent. Thanks brother. Blessings
I obtained a MEV with no commentary and no footnotes. I enjoy reading large chunks of scripture uninterrupted by footnotes. It is my readers bible. For study I follow up with the Reformed Study Bible or the ESV Study Bible supplemented by the NASB 95 Study Bible. Thanks for sharing your perspective.
I have been in a KJV only church all my life. No one ever really talked about it, that was just what everyone used. It was like an un written rule. But it was all I ever knew. However, all my life I read this bible that I felt disconnected from because I didn't understand it. I was never against a different translation but I didn't really know they existed untill I was 18 or 19. Then for the first time I went to a church that used a different translation and it felt so foriegn to me. It actually hurt my heart that someone would "change" the bible. But here I am years later and I have struggled through trying to read the KJV bible and felt like it was my fault that the bible never made sense to me, there had to be something wrong with me. I finally was at the book store and it was like a answered prayer that there was an easy read bible sitting there on the shelf next to the book I was looking for. I bought it on a whim and I have been immersed in bible study ever since. I now have 4 different version of the bible and I read them side by side and I have more understanding of the teaching of Christ then I ever thought possible. I would encourage anyone that feels incapable of understanding the bible to look at some different bible translations and keep an open heart.
Amen, Rachel. The "plow boy" (and the plow girl!) ought to feel and use the freedom God has given us to ask for a Bible translation into our English, not someone else's.
Only using the KJV i felt i was holding myself back, always reaching for a dictionary. I mostly use the NASB these days and i've gotten closer to God, i still use the KJV on occasion along with the CSB and the NKJV
Great book so far just need to finish it! Dr. Everhard quit downing yourself and your channel. Long time fan! Keep up the hard work and God bless you all!
FYI, the YLT has been updated as the Literal Standard Version. I have a copy, I like it, not for a daily reader but for study and perspective. Could it be used to teach in church? Yes, for the right congregation. I'm a fan of the NKJV, the ESV(love the study bible) and the KJV.
Very good, informative video. I naturally have and use the KJV , but it's not my primary translation. For me it's the NASB and NLT. My first bible was a KJV as a teenager (I have a neat story how I got that bible). I still have that bible but usually just for reading. When I preached I used the NASB. I often use and compare other translations. I do have a NT Legacy Standard Bible and am reading it now.
I always poke my Baptist friends about the kjv only stuff. Personally I use the nkjv the most but I also really enjoy the nasb and the esv I very rarely reference the kjv, though I enjoy reading the psalms from there.
At 70 years old, living in the South, I was raised up on the KJV. 30 years ago I purchased a NKJV and loved it. Now I'm leaning to the translations that preceded the KJV. My GENEVA BIBLE has become my favorite bible. I guess by now I have become a classic and like the Old English.
Really appreciate the digging you've done on this topic over the last couple of years. Saw your original take on the KJV/TR topic, then "coming out" with the ESV, this one and now August's review of the book on TR (rightly pointed out that it's a KJV apology more than a rooted TR discussion). Question: why would we turn away Mark Ward's KJV False Friends only to embrace two other very prominent Critical Text False Friends? The CT movement seems rooted in the work of two individuals whose names I'm loathe to mention given the typical eye roll one gets when their names are uttered. I admit a lot of this reaction in modern scholars is due to the KJVO brothers having really beat up the topic in ways that are maybe less than helpful to the cause of "getting to the bottom of things" regarding textual basis for a Biblical tradition. Eye rolls aside, have you found any authoritative, objective analyses of these two individuals and their rules which became foundational for CT over the last nearly 150 years? Everything I've read either glosses over criticism of these two individuals as "the science" of Criticism (et. al. Aland's comments in mid-20th century that made their methodology rather unassailable) or they're completely written off (e.g. not just False Friends but name-calling along the lines of apostate satanic minion-spawn). I recently listened to Mark's presentation on Ambrose vs. Scrivener (cute) but he also skipped over Scrivener's strong criticism of these CT False Friends' methodology in the mid-1880s. Maybe by labeling them CT FF I'm already slipping away from objectivity on the matter? Would appreciate any bibliography you've found relevant in this regard.
1.) Nowhere within the KJV does it say God would use the KJV to preserve His word. 2.) The KJV is hardly the first authorized English Bible. 3.) It is certainly not the first English Bible from an English king. 4.) The authorized KJV in 1611 authorized the Apocrypha to be within it. 5.) The KJV authorized the Apocrypha to be placed within it because they didn't want people to read it! /sarcasm. 6.) Thankfully, the KJV does in places quote from the Septuagint. 7.) King James didn't like the Geneva Bible, the Bible favored by the English people, the Puritans left England with their Geneva Bibles, fleeing the Church of England and persecution, and came to America.
I must say you didn't really address why some are KJVO besides not wanting to create confusion amongst some churches. I'm not KJVO but I trust the KJV and NKJV the most because they don't lessen Jesus's diety (IMO). The ESV also removes "god hates divorce" in Mal 2:16. Why? It's in the other texts that the modern translations use. That to me, screams of bias and social leanings. I may be wrong and I probably am. But why exclude that? What else have the translators decided didn't fit their narrative? Again, I repeat I'm not KJVO as my church uses ESV and I use NKJV, KJV, AMP and NLT but there are well founded reasons people trust the KJV. Plus it's just a beautiful translation. I will also like to add the ESV in no way carries on the tradition of the KJV, at least not in terms of flow or wordings. The NKJV carries on the tradition 100x better. The ESV reads way too easy and doesn't have the elegance of the KJV or NKJV. Just my opinion. At the end of the day read the translation that brings you closer to God and read the Bible that you want to pick up.
I think for most KJV people it’s more about Textus Receptus vs Critical Text. I think if there is a need for a new translation it’s for a Contemporary English translation based on TR, similar to what Crossway did for the Gideons.
The American Standard Version came from the KJV (largely). The Revised Standard Version came from the American Standard Version, and the English Standard Version came from the RSV. The ESV is a “great grandchild” of the KJV. Compare this to the NIV or CSB, which are completely original translations, and did not draw on previous translation.
@@garythomas3150 The RV was a major departure from the KJV. That departure continued with the other translations that followed the RV. The KJV was the last in the line of the old Renaissance era English Bible translations (Tyndale, Matthews, Bishops, Douay, etc) and the RV was the beginning of a new, modern critical text and translation era, which has continued down to today.
22:25 - The ESV "does stick with the King James tradition." - I challenge. That is a propaganda-claim straight from the ESV's preface. In the real world, the ESV is a revision of the Revised Standard Version. The base-text of the KJV in Matthew-Jude is essentially Byzantine. The base-text of the ESV is essentially Alexandrian. That's one reason why the ESV's text does not contain very many words, phrases, and entire verses (such as Matthew 12:47) that the KJV contains. That doesn't necessarily mean the ESV is worse. But its New Testament base-text certainly does not "stick with" the KJV's New Testament base-text. And you know this, Mark Ward.
Not sure where it is being addressed that in order to get a Copyright on a Bible in the USA, you have to apply with the US Copyright office and state you have new authorship and your Bible is not the same. Forget the CT/TR issues.... the Copyright law application states your Bible are different in meaning, not in readability.
Jack A. Moorman's book titled Missing in Modern Bibles: The Old Heresy Revived is an excellent resource for anyone studying the topic of modern versions. Do not be fooled by its relatively small size of 118 pages; it is jam-packed with information that equips believers to thoughtfully weigh this most-important issue. Readers will appreciate the tone of this writer over those who may speak about this subject in a less-than-desirable way.
from what i've seen it mostly is pushing the same ole kjv only issues and leaves a bit to be desired. However, it is prudent that all people educate themselves on both sides of the argument and know each sides best arguments. the overall better argumentation and less vitriolic/conspiratorial tone is what all kjv only people should be striving for.
If someone is really reformed I would think they would have some issues working for Logos Bible Software/Faithlife when they are making custom bible software catered to Roman Catholics, SDA heretics, and Eastern Orthodox heretics.
[11] Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord Amos 8:11 The question "Yea hath God said?" is the pivotal point, indeed, the issue is near and dear to my heart. Isn't it interesting that BOTH Beza's and Erasmus's writings were put on the Index of books forbidden to be read by Roman Catholics by Pope Paul IV? Also interesting: one of the five men responsible for "maintaining the 'modern'" Greek text was Cardinal Carlo Martini (he passed away in 2012), considered at one time to be next in line to be pope: an actively practicing Roman Catholic! This is the text being used to translate *PROTESTANT* "bibles!!" His name is just inside the front cover of the 27th edition of the Novum Testamentum Graece in my hands. Leaven (Matt. 16:6, 11-12; Mark 8:15; Luke 12:1, 13:21; 1 Cor. 5:6-8; Gal. 5:9. Matt. 13:33 is NOT describing the "gospel"). The true manuscript history of the Holy Bible is not often fully explained to those outside of seminary. I would recommend balanced reading on which manuscripts are trustworthy. First and foremost, the "earliest manuscripts" always spoken about, which are the basis for all modern New Testament translations since 1881, originated in Alexandria, Egypt in the 4th century AD, despite the false claims otherwise. Vaticanus (known as B, the basis for Jerome's Latin Vulgate), Sinaiticus (known as Aleph, found in a monastery trash can in the 16th century), the other uncials A, C, D, the Chester Beatty Papyri and the Bodmer Papyri were corrupt manuscripts rejected by the early Christian Church in Antioch, which became the base of operations for the Holy Spirit. The *ORIGINAL* Latin Vulgate was translated as early as 150 AD along with the Syrian Peshitto (of which 350 copies are still extant), among numerous other language versions, in addition to thousands of copies, versions, uncials, cursives, lexicals, all of which offer tremendous support to the majority text, that of the Textus Receptus, literally the Received Text, so-called, because the majority of real Christians accepted it, and is still hated to this day by Rome. Interestingly enough, the modern Catholic "bibles" mostly agree with the Alexandrian manuscripts, the basis for our "modern versions", because that is where they originated. Likewise, the Masoretic Text has the same "received text" status for the Old Testament. The question then becomes, if God took the time to overcome man's sinful natures and inspire His Word, why wouldn't He preserve it? Does He not have the power? Is He sitting in a Divine wheelchair in the geriatric section of Heaven? The whole argument from the scholars is that the original autographs were inspired, *but NONE of the originals exist* , so we must rely on unsaved, egotistical men, OR saved egotistical men being the final authorities as to what constitutes the *WORDS* of God. So all the times Christ quoted from the Scriptures was He lying about what the word of God is specifically? Was he reading from the originally God-breathed scroll of Isaiah in the synagogue? Did the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts break into that synagogue and steal the original scroll that Jesus read from? What about the other 51 instances of graphe in the New Testament? That would make Paul, all the Pharisees, Saducees, synagogue leaders, the Apostles, disciples, Christ, God the Father, the Holy Spirit and everyone else in the New Testament heretical LIARS. Why do they leave us with an impotent liar of a god who CANNOT preserve His word exactly like He promised? If God didn't mean anything He said, why didn't He just say what He meant? Which version sprang from the reformation? Which version brought millions to Christ and awakened the whole world? What have the modern versions brought us? The falling away and Apostasy! So some arrogant stuffed shirts can CORRECT what God said? Isn't that how the world was plunged into the Dark Ages for 1000 years? Because the "priests" controlled who had access to the Scriptures? Not only that, but the COMMON people are the ones who received Christ's Words GLADLY. [35] Heaven and earth shall pass away, *BUT MY WORDS SHALL NOT PASS AWAY* . Matthew 24:35 They continuously twist and misrepresent the evidence to *MATCH* their presuppositions. Not a single one of these "superior, good, godly, learned, blah, blah, blah, critical scholars" have ever *SEEN* , *HELD* or *READ* the " *VERBALLY INSPIRED* , *PLENARY* , *ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS* ." None of the "scholars" *EVER* question the manuscripts of Plato, other Greek philosophers, or the history of Alexander the Great, which was written *hundreds of years after he died* . No, there is *ZERO* disinterested objectivity when they turn their "criticisms" on the Bible. Nearly every argument the scholars make about the veracity of the scriptures is based squarely upon an Argument from Incredulity: a fallacy. Simply because they can't or *refuse* to believe in the supernatural *does not refute it* : www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argument-from-Incredulity Additionally, while they accuse all other translators of inconsistencies in renderings, they commit an absolute abundance of egregious inconsistencies and obliterate the texts. If it were not simply an insanely aggressive, selfish and intellectually dishonest pursuit of profit and career longevity, why have 220+ "bible" versions been produced since 1880, from a foundation of an extremely *underwhelming* number of manuscripts, papyri, copies, versions, uncials, cursives, et al., in addition to 500,000+ books arguing, "exegeting" or "expounding" these texts? In fact, these texts are *2000 YEARS OLD* , why would they need to be continuously edited and *UPDATED* ? Does some magical "new" grammar or "manuscript" get dug up in Greece and the Middle East every year that are "game changers?" For an "under the hood" look at Dr. Westcott's and Dr. Hort's true beliefs, please refer to: 1) Westcott, Arthur, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, (New York, 1903) multiple volumes 2) Hort, Arthur Fenton, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, (New York, 1896) multiple volumes Both written by their respective sons. For conclusive evidence for the refutation of Dr. Hort's theory, please see: 1) Hills, Edward F., Believing Bible Study, (The Christian Research Press, 1967) Chapter 8. 2) Hills, Edward F., The King James Bible Defended, (The Christian Research Press, 1956), Chapter 4. On the flip side, for moving biographies of the King James translators, who quite frankly, were some of the most godly and qualified men ever (again, God's sovereign hand directly handling His *words* ), please see: 1) McClure, Alexander, Translators Revived, (Maranatha Publications, Worthington) 2) Paine, Gustavus, The Men Behind the KJV, (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1959) The real reasons for all the changes in all these modern versions boils down to two things: 1. Spiritual Attack. Satan has directly influenced these people because he *HATES GOD'S WORDS* . His words are *CREATIVE* : *God SPOKE the universe into existance* , *then His words save our souls and change us into new creatures* . 2. Copyright law. A derivative work must be substantially different to be "copyrightable." They can't profit from Christians if they can't sell their books, and quite unsurprisingly, the King James Bible is the best selling book of all time: *WITHOUT A COPYRIGHT* . All the doctrine in the "modern versions" is so watered down, even pagans quote them. The scholars, under Satan's subtle influence are conducting a war on Authority and they are extremely successful at subverting the Authority of the scriptures and establishing *THEMSELVES as the Final Authority* . It also completely ignores the facts: the *LEXICONS THEMSELVES HAVE BEEN ALSO CORRUPTED* . "Did God say...? Let me show you from the *NON-EXISTENT ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT* what God ACTUALLY said..." - Modern Scholars Which text? *There's NOT just ONE Greek text* . *The scholars KNOW this and LIE to everyone about it* . For further study, please see: 1) Gipp, Samuel C. Th.D., Gipp's Understandable History of the Bible, (DayStar, 2004) 2) Fuller, David, True or False?, (Grand Rapids International Publications, 1973) 3) Fuller, David, Which Bible?, (Grand Rapids International Publications, 1970) 4) Burgon, John, The Revision Revised, (Conservative Classics, Paradise, 1883) 5) Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, (London, 1894) multiple volumes 6) Smythe, Paterson, How We Got Our Bible, (James and Pott Co., New York) 7) Wilkenson, Benjamin, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, (Takoma Park, 1930) 8) Riplinger, G. A. New Age Bible Versions, (A V Publications, 1993) 9) Riplinger, G. A., In Awe of Thy Word, ( A V Publications, 2004)
The apostasy of modern times is *DIRECTLY* due to "godly men" destroying people's faith in the words of God and substituting "junkfood:" [17] They say still unto them that despise me, The Lord hath said, Ye shall have peace; and they say unto every one that walketh after the imagination of his own heart, No evil shall come upon you...[22] But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings. Jeremiah 23:17,22 [6] 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. Hosea 4:6 The Decree of the Persian king Artaxerxes (which means "the silence of light," or "fervent to spoil") allowing the Jews to return to their homeland in Nehemiah 2 lines up with the Balfour Declaration made by England in 1917, making Persia a type of England (the "griffin" in Dan. 7:4). "The silence of light" fully describes a people who reject the AV1611 and subsequently walk in darkness and certainly is applicable to England (along with America and the rest of the world). The rebuilding and establishment of Jerusalem with fierce opposition, also in Nehemiah, lines up with the Jews establishing statehood in 1948 and the subsequent Six Day War, where God straight-up delivered Israel from utter destruction (Gen. 12:3). The rebuilding of the temple in Ezra is right on the horizon. Persia appears again in Esther. All the modern "bible" corruptions and their subsequent translations into other tongues were sent out from England. It was prophesied in a place no one expected: [12] Then were the king's scribes called on the thirteenth day [number of rebellion!] of the first month, and there was written according to all that Haman [type of the Antichrist] had commanded... *and to every people after their language* ; *in the name of king Ahasuerus was it written* , *and sealed with the king's ring* Esther 3:12 Grace is becoming a four-letter word: [4] For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, *ungodly men* , *turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness* , *and denying the only Lord God* , *and our Lord Jesus Christ* . Jude 4 [The glaring examples being Brandan Robertson, et al. and the prosperity people] [19] *For there MUST be also heresies among you* , *that they which are approved may be made manifest among you* . 1 Corinthians 11:19 The direct result of discarding God's words: [24] Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; [25] But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: [26] I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; [27] When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. [28] Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: [29] For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord : [30] They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof. [31] Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices. Proverbs 1:24-31 Notice the destruction of the cross reference: [27] (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;) [28] *That the land SPUE* not you out also, *when ye defile it* , *as it spued out the nations that were before you* . Leviticus 18:27-28 [notice that 18 consists of three sixes: the sins listed in this chapter will be reinstated as part of the Antichrist religious worship] and [15] I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. [16] So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will *SPUE* thee out of my mouth. [17] Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: Revelation 3:15-17 The day of reckoning with the Laodicean church is upon us! *Two days* marks the Church age: [40] So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days. John 4:40 [43] Now after two days he departed thence, and went into Galilee. John 4:43 Lazarus is a type of Israel being resurrected: [6] When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he abode two days still in the same place where he was. John 11:6 [2] After two days will he revive us: in the third day [Millennium] he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight. Hosea 6:2 [8] But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 2 Peter 3:8
KJV Onlyism is the belief that the word of God, the Holy Bible is perfect. THE KJV is the authoritative Holy Bible for the Protestant who believes in the 5 solas,...scripture alone. The cult of neo-evangelical hates the KJV because according to their scholars, the scribes of today's world, perfect bible is not possible; it doesn't exist. The bible, according to them is the word of god, but there is a catch, it's not perfect. This is their gospel truth about their "holy" book, the fake modern bibles. What verse to support their weird doctrine about the Holy Bible, NONE! Except the words of their "scholars" the modern day scribes.
KJVonlyism means that we did not have a perfect bible before 1611 and we must follow the traditions of men/what the KJV translators decided. KJV translators rejected KJV onlyism.
@@innovationhq8230 You're absolutely correct NO perfect Bible before 1611. It's Biblical to hold unto tradition 2 Thess 2. The words of the Super Geniuses scholars of the KJV are words of mortal men, not inspired, and not God's word. The KJV is the perfect Bible, while modern bibles are all corrupt, imperfect, and thus fake bibles. If it is the word of God, then it is perfect.
@@timkhan3238 The idea that the Christian church did not have God's word until 1611 is delusional. If you are a full blown Ruckmanite then being that deluded whatever facts presented will just be ignored because they don't matter in that system or similar KJVO delusions.
@@innovationhq8230 God's word is present at all time, never been lost that it needed to be discovered. It was present during the time of Adam and Eve, but of course the book of Exodus wasn't there yet, it was present at the time of King David, but with the book Acts nowhere to be found. 1611 was the perfect time for the completion of the whole library of the words of God for man to feed and live upon. Nothing to be added nor subtracted. KJV is the perfect word of God and the modern bibles are all fake that never stop evolving.
If you take that stance, you have to assume two things: 1. Everyone before 1611 went to hell. 2. Everyone since 1611 has gone to hell unless they could comprehend English. Not only did the KJV not exist before 1611, but the underlying Greek text of the KJV didn't exist. The KJV didn't follow the exact readings of any one manuscript or printed edition in existence at the time. It departed from some of the textual readings found in its immediate predecessors, the Geneva and Bishops' Bibles. (See, for instance, Revelation 16.5, which to this day has no real manuscript support to back up the KJV's reading.) So if any differences from the KJV are worthy of hellfire, even William Tyndale and Miles Coverdale, whose work on the earlier English versions is mostly retained in the KJV, are doomed. In terms of its text, the KJV embraced some of the changes introduced by Theodore Beza in his edition of the Textus Receptus (including the aforementioned verse in Revelation) while staying with the choices of Robert Estienne's older edition in other cases. (In other words, the translators didn't update the Bishops' Bible in every place they could've.) And its Protestant contemporaries in other tongues didn't agree with the KJV 100% of the time, either. For instance, Martin Luther's translation didn't contain 1 John 5.7, as he used the earliest Erasmus editions of the TR. So did salvation never reach Germany? So much of the KJVO movement traces back to the work of a 20th century Seventh Day Adventist author, and no wonder: the idea that some arbitrary distinction (such as meeting on a different day of the week or using only one particular Bible translation) has dire eternal consequences is far more in line with an SDA philosophy than a Baptist one. Baptists have historically emphasized soul liberty, and the KJVO mindset is anti-liberty. The only reasonable conclusion is that IFBs are actually BINOs (Baptists in name only) if they are KJVO. And if they're teaching that a Bible version is necessary for salvation, then they're preaching a different gospel, and we know what Paul has to say about that (Galatians 1.9).
@@spencershaw2407 The KJV doesn't say exactly what the originals say. Again, see Revelation 16.5, which follows one Calvinist scholar's guess as to what the text might have said (Beza's TR) instead of what all the manuscripts say. Compare the Geneva Bible, which used the Stephanus TR, in that verse. Then notice how nearly every modern version (with the obvious exceptions of the NKJV and MEV) agrees with the Geneva Bible (and thus with all the evidence from the centuries). GB 1560: Lord, thou art iust, Which art, and Which wast: and Holy AV 1611: Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be RV 1881: Righteous art thou, which art and which wast, thou Holy One The correct reading in this verse--the one found in all places all throughout Christian history--is "Holy," not "shalt be." The KJV is flawed, as is its Greek text. That doesn't make it evil, but it does make many KJVO claims into lies.
Thank you for introduction of Mark Ward. My first time to get know him a bit. I just look up in his youtube. What a rich information that he shared with us. An excellence!!!! Good to know about this. Great and praise God for this! 🤟
I enjoyed the interview immensely. I’m always in awe of Mark’s disposition on his channel, being able to have a kind response through hateful, blind, wrath thrown his way. Love you both!
Fantastic interview and very informative. I struggled with King James onlyism up until about a year ago. I was saved in 2014,the KJV was preached from the day I got saved and I stuck with it.
To be honest, it’s kind of kept me back as a Christian only sticking to the KJV. I now use the ESV or NKJV as my main translations and my understanding of scripture has increased greatly.
I will always love the KJV and still read from it,but I’d say the ESV is the translation that The Lord speaks to me through.
I just discovered Mark’s channel a few weeks ago! Absolutely eye opening content. Great interview.
James White had Nathan Cravatt on his show to talk about the debate Cravatt did with Mitch Cannup. That led me to Nathan's podcast called the Recovering Fundamentalist podcast, which led me to Mark Ward's channel, which led me here. I'm glad to find another good teacher. God bless.
Thoroughly enjoyed this interview with two of my favorite UA-camrs.
Ward’s answer about a new translation was interesting (around 27 minutes). Excellent video guys!
I got a lot of this conversation. Thank you guys for your faithful ministry!
their both lost
Great interview pastor Mat! Watched this on both channels . Had to . Have been subscribed the booth channels for some time .
Both are excellent. Thanks brother.
Blessings
just watched this on Marks Channel! Great chat guys!
I obtained a MEV with no commentary and no footnotes. I enjoy reading large chunks of scripture uninterrupted by footnotes. It is my readers bible. For study I follow up with the Reformed Study Bible or the ESV Study Bible supplemented by the NASB 95 Study Bible. Thanks for sharing your perspective.
I have Mark's book. Excellent! Also I subscribe to Bible Study Mag. It's great.
I have been in a KJV only church all my life. No one ever really talked about it, that was just what everyone used. It was like an un written rule. But it was all I ever knew. However, all my life I read this bible that I felt disconnected from because I didn't understand it. I was never against a different translation but I didn't really know they existed untill I was 18 or 19. Then for the first time I went to a church that used a different translation and it felt so foriegn to me. It actually hurt my heart that someone would "change" the bible. But here I am years later and I have struggled through trying to read the KJV bible and felt like it was my fault that the bible never made sense to me, there had to be something wrong with me. I finally was at the book store and it was like a answered prayer that there was an easy read bible sitting there on the shelf next to the book I was looking for. I bought it on a whim and I have been immersed in bible study ever since. I now have 4 different version of the bible and I read them side by side and I have more understanding of the teaching of Christ then I ever thought possible.
I would encourage anyone that feels incapable of understanding the bible to look at some different bible translations and keep an open heart.
Amen, Rachel. The "plow boy" (and the plow girl!) ought to feel and use the freedom God has given us to ask for a Bible translation into our English, not someone else's.
Only using the KJV i felt i was holding myself back, always reaching for a dictionary. I mostly use the NASB these days and i've gotten closer to God, i still use the KJV on occasion along with the CSB and the NKJV
I enjoy both of your channels.
Great book so far just need to finish it!
Dr. Everhard quit downing yourself and your channel. Long time fan! Keep up the hard work and God bless you all!
FYI, the YLT has been updated as the Literal Standard Version. I have a copy, I like it, not for a daily reader but for study and perspective. Could it be used to teach in church? Yes, for the right congregation. I'm a fan of the NKJV, the ESV(love the study bible) and the KJV.
Interesting interview. I love the KJV but enjoy all the other translations.
Very good, informative video. I naturally have and use the KJV , but it's not my primary translation. For me it's the NASB and NLT. My first bible was a KJV as a teenager (I have a neat story how I got that bible). I still have that bible but usually just for reading. When I preached I used the NASB. I often use and compare other translations. I do have a NT Legacy Standard Bible and am reading it now.
I always poke my Baptist friends about the kjv only stuff. Personally I use the nkjv the most but I also really enjoy the nasb and the esv I very rarely reference the kjv, though I enjoy reading the psalms from there.
I love the NKJV and HCSB
At 70 years old, living in the South, I was raised up on the KJV. 30 years ago I purchased a NKJV and loved it. Now I'm leaning to the translations that preceded the KJV. My GENEVA BIBLE has become my favorite bible. I guess by now I have become a classic and like the Old English.
Order his book thanks
Really appreciate the digging you've done on this topic over the last couple of years. Saw your original take on the KJV/TR topic, then "coming out" with the ESV, this one and now August's review of the book on TR (rightly pointed out that it's a KJV apology more than a rooted TR discussion).
Question: why would we turn away Mark Ward's KJV False Friends only to embrace two other very prominent Critical Text False Friends? The CT movement seems rooted in the work of two individuals whose names I'm loathe to mention given the typical eye roll one gets when their names are uttered. I admit a lot of this reaction in modern scholars is due to the KJVO brothers having really beat up the topic in ways that are maybe less than helpful to the cause of "getting to the bottom of things" regarding textual basis for a Biblical tradition.
Eye rolls aside, have you found any authoritative, objective analyses of these two individuals and their rules which became foundational for CT over the last nearly 150 years? Everything I've read either glosses over criticism of these two individuals as "the science" of Criticism (et. al. Aland's comments in mid-20th century that made their methodology rather unassailable) or they're completely written off (e.g. not just False Friends but name-calling along the lines of apostate satanic minion-spawn). I recently listened to Mark's presentation on Ambrose vs. Scrivener (cute) but he also skipped over Scrivener's strong criticism of these CT False Friends' methodology in the mid-1880s. Maybe by labeling them CT FF I'm already slipping away from objectivity on the matter?
Would appreciate any bibliography you've found relevant in this regard.
1.) Nowhere within the KJV does it say God would use the KJV to preserve His word.
2.) The KJV is hardly the first authorized English Bible.
3.) It is certainly not the first English Bible from an English king.
4.) The authorized KJV in 1611 authorized the Apocrypha to be within it.
5.) The KJV authorized the Apocrypha to be placed within it because they didn't want people to read it! /sarcasm.
6.) Thankfully, the KJV does in places quote from the Septuagint.
7.) King James didn't like the Geneva Bible, the Bible favored by the English people, the Puritans left England with their Geneva Bibles, fleeing the Church of England and persecution, and came to America.
I must say you didn't really address why some are KJVO besides not wanting to create confusion amongst some churches.
I'm not KJVO but I trust the KJV and NKJV the most because they don't lessen Jesus's diety (IMO).
The ESV also removes "god hates divorce" in Mal 2:16. Why? It's in the other texts that the modern translations use. That to me, screams of bias and social leanings. I may be wrong and I probably am. But why exclude that? What else have the translators decided didn't fit their narrative?
Again, I repeat I'm not KJVO as my church uses ESV and I use NKJV, KJV, AMP and NLT but there are well founded reasons people trust the KJV.
Plus it's just a beautiful translation.
I will also like to add the ESV in no way carries on the tradition of the KJV, at least not in terms of flow or wordings. The NKJV carries on the tradition 100x better. The ESV reads way too easy and doesn't have the elegance of the KJV or NKJV. Just my opinion. At the end of the day read the translation that brings you closer to God and read the Bible that you want to pick up.
12:20 ish for the start of the discussion on the book/topic.
I think for most KJV people it’s more about Textus Receptus vs Critical Text. I think if there is a need for a new translation it’s for a Contemporary English translation based on TR, similar to what Crossway did for the Gideons.
The NKJV is a translation of the TR
Why do both of you think the ESV is "in the tradition" of the KJV?
The American Standard Version came from the KJV (largely). The Revised Standard Version came from the American Standard Version, and the English Standard Version came from the RSV. The ESV is a “great grandchild” of the KJV. Compare this to the NIV or CSB, which are completely original translations, and did not draw on previous translation.
@@garythomas3150 The RV was a major departure from the KJV. That departure continued with the other translations that followed the RV. The KJV was the last in the line of the old Renaissance era English Bible translations (Tyndale, Matthews, Bishops, Douay, etc) and the RV was the beginning of a new, modern critical text and translation era, which has continued down to today.
22:25 - The ESV "does stick with the King James tradition." - I challenge. That is a propaganda-claim straight from the ESV's preface. In the real world, the ESV is a revision of the Revised Standard Version. The base-text of the KJV in Matthew-Jude is essentially Byzantine. The base-text of the ESV is essentially Alexandrian. That's one reason why the ESV's text does not contain very many words, phrases, and entire verses (such as Matthew 12:47) that the KJV contains. That doesn't necessarily mean the ESV is worse. But its New Testament base-text certainly does not "stick with" the KJV's New Testament base-text. And you know this, Mark Ward.
Not sure where it is being addressed that in order to get a Copyright on a Bible in the USA, you have to apply with the US Copyright office and state you have new authorship and your Bible is not the same. Forget the CT/TR issues.... the Copyright law application states your Bible are different in meaning, not in readability.
Jack A. Moorman's book titled Missing in Modern Bibles: The Old Heresy Revived is an excellent resource for anyone studying the topic of modern versions. Do not be fooled by its relatively small size of 118 pages; it is jam-packed with information that equips believers to thoughtfully weigh this most-important issue. Readers will appreciate the tone of this writer over those who may speak about this subject in a less-than-desirable way.
from what i've seen it mostly is pushing the same ole kjv only issues and leaves a bit to be desired. However, it is prudent that all people educate themselves on both sides of the argument and know each sides best arguments. the overall better argumentation and less vitriolic/conspiratorial tone is what all kjv only people should be striving for.
All the glory for who???
If someone is really reformed I would think they would have some issues working for Logos Bible Software/Faithlife when they are making custom bible software catered to Roman Catholics, SDA heretics, and Eastern Orthodox heretics.
Need to learn Greek, but KJV English is to hard.
[11] Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord
Amos 8:11
The question "Yea hath God said?" is the pivotal point, indeed, the issue is near and dear to my heart.
Isn't it interesting that BOTH Beza's and Erasmus's writings were put on the Index of books forbidden to be read by Roman Catholics by Pope Paul IV? Also interesting: one of the five men responsible for "maintaining the 'modern'" Greek text was Cardinal Carlo Martini (he passed away in 2012), considered at one time to be next in line to be pope: an actively practicing Roman Catholic! This is the text being used to translate *PROTESTANT* "bibles!!" His name is just inside the front cover of the 27th edition of the Novum Testamentum Graece in my hands. Leaven (Matt. 16:6, 11-12; Mark 8:15; Luke 12:1, 13:21; 1 Cor. 5:6-8; Gal. 5:9. Matt. 13:33 is NOT describing the "gospel").
The true manuscript history of the Holy Bible is not often fully explained to those outside of seminary. I would recommend balanced reading on which manuscripts are trustworthy. First and foremost, the "earliest manuscripts" always spoken about, which are the basis for all modern New Testament translations since 1881, originated in Alexandria, Egypt in the 4th century AD, despite the false claims otherwise. Vaticanus (known as B, the basis for Jerome's Latin Vulgate), Sinaiticus (known as Aleph, found in a monastery trash can in the 16th century), the other uncials A, C, D, the Chester Beatty Papyri and the Bodmer Papyri were corrupt manuscripts rejected by the early Christian Church in Antioch, which became the base of operations for the Holy Spirit. The *ORIGINAL* Latin Vulgate was translated as early as 150 AD along with the Syrian Peshitto (of which 350 copies are still extant), among numerous other language versions, in addition to thousands of copies, versions, uncials, cursives, lexicals, all of which offer tremendous support to the majority text, that of the Textus Receptus, literally the Received Text, so-called, because the majority of real Christians accepted it, and is still hated to this day by Rome. Interestingly enough, the modern Catholic "bibles" mostly agree with the Alexandrian manuscripts, the basis for our "modern versions", because that is where they originated. Likewise, the Masoretic Text has the same "received text" status for the Old Testament.
The question then becomes, if God took the time to overcome man's sinful natures and inspire His Word, why wouldn't He preserve it? Does He not have the power? Is He sitting in a Divine wheelchair in the geriatric section of Heaven? The whole argument from the scholars is that the original autographs were inspired, *but NONE of the originals exist* , so we must rely on unsaved, egotistical men, OR saved egotistical men being the final authorities as to what constitutes the *WORDS* of God.
So all the times Christ quoted from the Scriptures was He lying about what the word of God is specifically? Was he reading from the originally God-breathed scroll of Isaiah in the synagogue? Did the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts break into that synagogue and steal the original scroll that Jesus read from? What about the other 51 instances of graphe in the New Testament? That would make Paul, all the Pharisees, Saducees, synagogue leaders, the Apostles, disciples, Christ, God the Father, the Holy Spirit and everyone else in the New Testament heretical LIARS.
Why do they leave us with an impotent liar of a god who CANNOT preserve His word exactly like He promised? If God didn't mean anything He said, why didn't He just say what He meant? Which version sprang from the reformation? Which version brought millions to Christ and awakened the whole world? What have the modern versions brought us? The falling away and Apostasy! So some arrogant stuffed shirts can CORRECT what God said? Isn't that how the world was plunged into the Dark Ages for 1000 years? Because the "priests" controlled who had access to the Scriptures? Not only that, but the COMMON people are the ones who received Christ's Words GLADLY.
[35] Heaven and earth shall pass away, *BUT MY WORDS SHALL NOT PASS AWAY* .
Matthew 24:35
They continuously twist and misrepresent the evidence to *MATCH* their presuppositions. Not a single one of these "superior, good, godly, learned, blah, blah, blah, critical scholars" have ever *SEEN* , *HELD* or *READ* the " *VERBALLY INSPIRED* , *PLENARY* , *ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS* ." None of the "scholars" *EVER* question the manuscripts of Plato, other Greek philosophers, or the history of Alexander the Great, which was written *hundreds of years after he died* . No, there is *ZERO* disinterested objectivity when they turn their "criticisms" on the Bible.
Nearly every argument the scholars make about the veracity of the scriptures is based squarely upon an Argument from Incredulity: a fallacy. Simply because they can't or *refuse* to believe in the supernatural *does not refute it* :
www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argument-from-Incredulity
Additionally, while they accuse all other translators of inconsistencies in renderings, they commit an absolute abundance of egregious inconsistencies and obliterate the texts. If it were not simply an insanely aggressive, selfish and intellectually dishonest pursuit of profit and career longevity, why have 220+ "bible" versions been produced since 1880, from a foundation of an extremely *underwhelming* number of manuscripts, papyri, copies, versions, uncials, cursives, et al., in addition to 500,000+ books arguing, "exegeting" or "expounding" these texts?
In fact, these texts are *2000 YEARS OLD* , why would they need to be continuously edited and *UPDATED* ? Does some magical "new" grammar or "manuscript" get dug up in Greece and the Middle East every year that are "game changers?"
For an "under the hood" look at Dr. Westcott's and Dr. Hort's true beliefs, please refer to:
1) Westcott, Arthur, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, (New York, 1903) multiple volumes
2) Hort, Arthur Fenton, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, (New York, 1896) multiple volumes
Both written by their respective sons.
For conclusive evidence for the refutation of Dr. Hort's theory, please see:
1) Hills, Edward F., Believing Bible Study, (The Christian Research Press, 1967) Chapter 8.
2) Hills, Edward F., The King James Bible Defended, (The Christian Research Press, 1956), Chapter 4.
On the flip side, for moving biographies of the King James translators, who quite frankly, were some of the most godly and qualified men ever (again, God's sovereign hand directly handling His *words* ), please see:
1) McClure, Alexander, Translators Revived, (Maranatha Publications, Worthington)
2) Paine, Gustavus, The Men Behind the KJV, (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1959)
The real reasons for all the changes in all these modern versions boils down to two things:
1. Spiritual Attack. Satan has directly influenced these people because he *HATES GOD'S WORDS* . His words are *CREATIVE* : *God SPOKE the universe into existance* , *then His words save our souls and change us into new creatures* .
2. Copyright law. A derivative work must be substantially different to be "copyrightable." They can't profit from Christians if they can't sell their books, and quite unsurprisingly, the King James Bible is the best selling book of all time: *WITHOUT A COPYRIGHT* . All the doctrine in the "modern versions" is so watered down, even pagans quote them. The scholars, under Satan's subtle influence are conducting a war on Authority and they are extremely successful at subverting the Authority of the scriptures and establishing *THEMSELVES as the Final Authority* . It also completely ignores the facts: the *LEXICONS THEMSELVES HAVE BEEN ALSO CORRUPTED* .
"Did God say...? Let me show you from the *NON-EXISTENT ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT* what God ACTUALLY said..." - Modern Scholars
Which text? *There's NOT just ONE Greek text* . *The scholars KNOW this and LIE to everyone about it* .
For further study, please see:
1) Gipp, Samuel C. Th.D., Gipp's Understandable History of the Bible, (DayStar, 2004)
2) Fuller, David, True or False?, (Grand Rapids International Publications, 1973)
3) Fuller, David, Which Bible?, (Grand Rapids International Publications, 1970)
4) Burgon, John, The Revision Revised, (Conservative Classics, Paradise, 1883)
5) Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, (London, 1894) multiple volumes
6) Smythe, Paterson, How We Got Our Bible, (James and Pott Co., New York)
7) Wilkenson, Benjamin, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, (Takoma Park, 1930)
8) Riplinger, G. A. New Age Bible Versions, (A V Publications, 1993)
9) Riplinger, G. A., In Awe of Thy Word, ( A V Publications, 2004)
The apostasy of modern times is *DIRECTLY* due to "godly men" destroying people's faith in the words of God and substituting "junkfood:"
[17] They say still unto them that despise me, The Lord hath said, Ye shall have peace; and they say unto every one that walketh after the imagination of his own heart, No evil shall come upon you...[22] But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings.
Jeremiah 23:17,22
[6] 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.
Hosea 4:6
The Decree of the Persian king Artaxerxes (which means "the silence of light," or "fervent to spoil") allowing the Jews to return to their homeland in Nehemiah 2 lines up with the Balfour Declaration made by England in 1917, making Persia a type of England (the "griffin" in Dan. 7:4). "The silence of light" fully describes a people who reject the AV1611 and subsequently walk in darkness and certainly is applicable to England (along with America and the rest of the world). The rebuilding and establishment of Jerusalem with fierce opposition, also in Nehemiah, lines up with the Jews establishing statehood in 1948 and the subsequent Six Day War, where God straight-up delivered Israel from utter destruction (Gen. 12:3). The rebuilding of the temple in Ezra is right on the horizon. Persia appears again in Esther. All the modern "bible" corruptions and their subsequent translations into other tongues were sent out from England. It was prophesied in a place no one expected:
[12] Then were the king's scribes called on the thirteenth day [number of rebellion!] of the first month, and there was written according to all that Haman [type of the Antichrist] had commanded... *and to every people after their language* ; *in the name of king Ahasuerus was it written* , *and sealed with the king's ring*
Esther 3:12
Grace is becoming a four-letter word:
[4] For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, *ungodly men* , *turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness* , *and denying the only Lord God* , *and our Lord Jesus Christ* .
Jude 4 [The glaring examples being Brandan Robertson, et al. and the prosperity people]
[19] *For there MUST be also heresies among you* , *that they which are approved may be made manifest among you* .
1 Corinthians 11:19
The direct result of discarding God's words:
[24] Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; [25] But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: [26] I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; [27] When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. [28] Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: [29] For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord : [30] They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof. [31] Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.
Proverbs 1:24-31
Notice the destruction of the cross reference:
[27] (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;) [28] *That the land SPUE* not you out also, *when ye defile it* , *as it spued out the nations that were before you* .
Leviticus 18:27-28 [notice that 18 consists of three sixes: the sins listed in this chapter will be reinstated as part of the Antichrist religious worship]
and
[15] I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. [16] So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will *SPUE* thee out of my mouth. [17] Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
Revelation 3:15-17
The day of reckoning with the Laodicean church is upon us!
*Two days* marks the Church age:
[40] So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days.
John 4:40
[43] Now after two days he departed thence, and went into Galilee.
John 4:43
Lazarus is a type of Israel being resurrected:
[6] When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he abode two days still in the same place where he was.
John 11:6
[2] After two days will he revive us: in the third day [Millennium] he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.
Hosea 6:2
[8] But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
2 Peter 3:8
@Romans Nine That's hilarious. Is the 42 minute video too long for you too? 😂
@Romans Nine [16] The sluggard is wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason.
Proverbs 26:16
@Romans Nine No, I'm calling you a sluggard for being lazy
@Romans Nine Apparently typing out four words is too long for you. It's a serious shame that this generation has the attention span of goldfish.
Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.
KJV Onlyism is the belief that the word of God, the Holy Bible is perfect.
THE KJV is the authoritative Holy Bible for the Protestant who believes in the 5 solas,...scripture alone.
The cult of neo-evangelical hates the KJV because according to their scholars, the scribes of today's world, perfect bible is not possible; it doesn't exist. The bible, according to them is the word of god, but there is a catch, it's not perfect.
This is their gospel truth about their "holy" book, the fake modern bibles.
What verse to support their weird doctrine about the Holy Bible, NONE! Except the words of their "scholars" the modern day scribes.
KJVonlyism means that we did not have a perfect bible before 1611 and we must follow the traditions of men/what the KJV translators decided. KJV translators rejected KJV onlyism.
@@innovationhq8230 You're absolutely correct NO perfect Bible before 1611.
It's Biblical to hold unto tradition 2 Thess 2.
The words of the Super Geniuses scholars of the KJV are words of mortal men, not inspired, and not God's word.
The KJV is the perfect Bible, while modern bibles are all corrupt, imperfect, and thus fake bibles.
If it is the word of God, then it is perfect.
@@timkhan3238 The idea that the Christian church did not have God's word until 1611 is delusional. If you are a full blown Ruckmanite then being that deluded whatever facts presented will just be ignored because they don't matter in that system or similar KJVO delusions.
@@innovationhq8230 God's word is present at all time, never been lost that it needed to be discovered. It was present during the time of Adam and Eve, but of course the book of Exodus wasn't there yet, it was present at the time of King David, but with the book Acts nowhere to be found.
1611 was the perfect time for the completion of the whole library of the words of God for man to feed and live upon. Nothing to be added nor subtracted.
KJV is the perfect word of God and the modern bibles are all fake that never stop evolving.
@@timkhan3238 Is the 1611 KJV perfect?
aint it true though if you aint KJVO you are going to hell
If you take that stance, you have to assume two things:
1. Everyone before 1611 went to hell.
2. Everyone since 1611 has gone to hell unless they could comprehend English.
Not only did the KJV not exist before 1611, but the underlying Greek text of the KJV didn't exist. The KJV didn't follow the exact readings of any one manuscript or printed edition in existence at the time. It departed from some of the textual readings found in its immediate predecessors, the Geneva and Bishops' Bibles. (See, for instance, Revelation 16.5, which to this day has no real manuscript support to back up the KJV's reading.) So if any differences from the KJV are worthy of hellfire, even William Tyndale and Miles Coverdale, whose work on the earlier English versions is mostly retained in the KJV, are doomed.
In terms of its text, the KJV embraced some of the changes introduced by Theodore Beza in his edition of the Textus Receptus (including the aforementioned verse in Revelation) while staying with the choices of Robert Estienne's older edition in other cases. (In other words, the translators didn't update the Bishops' Bible in every place they could've.) And its Protestant contemporaries in other tongues didn't agree with the KJV 100% of the time, either. For instance, Martin Luther's translation didn't contain 1 John 5.7, as he used the earliest Erasmus editions of the TR. So did salvation never reach Germany?
So much of the KJVO movement traces back to the work of a 20th century Seventh Day Adventist author, and no wonder: the idea that some arbitrary distinction (such as meeting on a different day of the week or using only one particular Bible translation) has dire eternal consequences is far more in line with an SDA philosophy than a Baptist one. Baptists have historically emphasized soul liberty, and the KJVO mindset is anti-liberty. The only reasonable conclusion is that IFBs are actually BINOs (Baptists in name only) if they are KJVO. And if they're teaching that a Bible version is necessary for salvation, then they're preaching a different gospel, and we know what Paul has to say about that (Galatians 1.9).
@@MAMoreno here's the thing the King James says exactly what the original say. The new versions do not say what God Said so those are words of Satan
@@spencershaw2407 The KJV doesn't say exactly what the originals say. Again, see Revelation 16.5, which follows one Calvinist scholar's guess as to what the text might have said (Beza's TR) instead of what all the manuscripts say.
Compare the Geneva Bible, which used the Stephanus TR, in that verse. Then notice how nearly every modern version (with the obvious exceptions of the NKJV and MEV) agrees with the Geneva Bible (and thus with all the evidence from the centuries).
GB 1560: Lord, thou art iust, Which art, and Which wast: and Holy
AV 1611: Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be
RV 1881: Righteous art thou, which art and which wast, thou Holy One
The correct reading in this verse--the one found in all places all throughout Christian history--is "Holy," not "shalt be."
The KJV is flawed, as is its Greek text. That doesn't make it evil, but it does make many KJVO claims into lies.
@@MAMoreno you are just repeating james white on that. the TR says exactly what the KJV says
@@spencershaw2407 The KJV don't say exacly what the original say, this don't even use the oldest manuscripts