Thanks Gene for watching! Dr Plummer would love to have you in his class as well! Come visit us if you get a chance. Our next official "Preview Day" will be April 17, 2020 ( www.sbts.edu/preview ), but you can plan a personal visit any time ( www.sbts.edu/visit ) We also have a variety of ways for you to get started even if you can't relocate. Read more at www.sbts.edu/globalcampus/ Our admissions team would love to connect with you. Email admissions@sbts.edu to speak with an admissions counselor.
Ever online version that I have found, and I’ve looked at a lot, has the Song of Solomon 2:7 with the he vs the she. Any idea where I can find a pure copy?
@@truthseekerKJV Your comment on the surface is not done in love and would seem to be mean or spiteful and saddens me as a brother in Christ. As Christians we are to correct in love, if correction is truly your intent. Before we correct an erring brother we should pray for both the erring brother and for our own hearts to insure that we have the right attitude which is to "turn" an erring brother from sin. This is a humble action by the corrector. There can be no pride. This is a Biblical form of correction, which you would know since you read your Bible, God's Holy Word. We are to use God's word to teach so I would expect an intelligent response from a brother or sister in Christ and not just being put down for my comment. I would expect to be shown in love why I am Biblically wrong, not just some brother's feelings about a subject. I also assume you are a Christian who reads their Bible daily since you are responding to this video and my comment about the video. I would also expect, since you are commenting, that you have done an extensive amount of your own intelligent research about word-for-word translations and are probably comfortable in both Greek and Hebrew since these are the original languages of the Bible, not English. You should also have a familiarity with Latin since the Bible was also translated into Latin long before it was translated into English and we get most of our English from Latin and Greek. I would also hope that you understand that there were 17 revisions to the KJV and the one that is now used is not even in the original "old-English" it was first published in. It's true. You could say the KJV in use today is an English translation of an "Old English" translation. I would expect a brother in Christ to have an explanation for all the other non-English translations (like Chinese or German) and why those translations are not adequate since they aren't KJV translations. (?) Do the KJV-only people expect the world to learn King James English before they learn modern English? Would the Gospel message have to be given in King James English to be effective? Fact is; I have never heard a sermon in King James English, only English. Yes, during prayers, I hear the "thee's and thou's" but none of the truly King James English. Study to show yourself an approved workman who can rightly divide God's Word comes to mind. Please don't forget that without love we are just a sounding gong. You don't want to be just making noise which frankly is what your comment is, just some really sad noise against another brother in Christ.
@@theoldpilgrimway9129 he does The Bible has been horribly translated by clerks of a certain denomination who had no clue about God's intend, just like Muhammed. Still the red line is clearly visible. The original text is crystal clear: 1: God created us after His own image and likeness. 2: Man fell. That is what you see in this world: lust, greed, selfishness, strange philosophies, sicknesses, corruption, terrorism, death, etc, etc. 3: God, the spirit of life, manifests fully in Christ, pays the debt for mankinds fall so we can be indwelled again by His Spirit and be transformed back to origin. Pure grace, love, power of God for His creation. Hence the divine healing miracles and casting out of demons His first friend, i and many others experience up to this day! When Jesus said: "It is finished", He did a perfect job. Nothing to be changed by people comming after Him. Some examples of these idiotic translation errors. Saved, from the Greek Sozo means made complete, brought back to origin. Eternal life from the Greek Zoë means life of God, divine life. Wrath from the Greek Orge means PASSION. Wrath from the Greek Thumos also means PASSION. Etc, etc, etc, look it up in the Kittel Theological Dictionary or in any Greek/Hebrew Strong's app. It's there. So now we have ignorant preachers parotting the lie that we have to be saved from God's wrath by Jesus (who is God....) and "have to repent or go to hell". In stead it is: God restores us through Christ by His own atoning blood sacrifice and indwelling Holy Spirit, from mankind's fall, to His own image and likeness (Christlikeness) because of... passion. For God so loved the world.... God cannot be tempted to do evil.... There is no turning or shifting with Him.... If you don't love you don't know God, for God is love.... The goal of all instruction is... love The Father Himself loves you.... Jesus healing all..... love Jesus raising the dead..... love Jesus casting out demons.... love Jesus controlling nature..... love Etc, etc ,etc ,etc.
@@jesusdeity2010 why can't both of the things be true. John was the one who prepare the way for Jesus and he preached repentance. And Jesus taught love and redemption but said we had to make a choice. What you said pastors teach and your rebuttal is summed up in John 3:16-21.
I agree with almost everything that was said, but I think one thing was left out: that it is possible to have a "bad" modern translation. For example, a translation made by a single translator, or one made for a specific denomination to conform to their biases, these could be bad translations, or at least worthy of suspicion.
I just watched a video about the Mirror Bible the other day. It's literally a New Age Bible written specifically to confirm the beliefs of a cultish New Age religion... Crazy. Some might say the same about Passion, I don't know too much about it, but I hear it uses a lot of colourful words that weren't in the original manuscripts just to make it sound "nice". I could be wrong, but that's what i heard...
Agreed. Common sense with dictate that if you have two English versions that are not the same, then we ought to reasonably conclude that either one of them is wrong or both of them are. They cannot both be good versions of they have different texts (or lack thereof), we have to be able to determine through God's wisdom which one is right.
I started reading KJV when I was 10 and I have chosen to stick to it - although I reference some other translations from time to time. I rely on the Holy Spirit to teach me. I agree that English language has changed in 400 years and no translation is perfect. However, my observation and concern is that some so called modern day translations have in a sense, appear to water down the gospel, perhaps in order to accommodate "modern day culture". Example is Isaiah 7;14 where one version says "a young woman shall conceive" rather than a young virgin.
@@christopherbrewer4421 I have compared the text of the KJV to the original Greek and Hebrew using an Interlinear Bible.. which shows the foreign language and below each word.. is the translation of each word into English.. and I have found.. the KJV to be the most accurate to what the Hebrew or Greek word used originally.. was.. so I have to disagree with you on that argument...and on the argument of which manuscripts are best.. read Lee Stroebels "A case for Christ".. in this book he interacts with professors who have studied these manuscripts professionally and teach on them...and most professors proficient in the original writrings.. agree that the older manuscripts however flawed they may be are more accurate than ones written hundreds of years after Christ....... Newer does Not always mean better.. it means there is more of a chance for errors..and another tidbit... I read that Tishendorff.. who is acclaimed to have found manuscripts in a monastery around 1840.. which came to be used for most Anglican (Catholic).. translations of the bible..found these manuscripts. in a trash heap.. discarded by the monks.. since even the Monks did Not believe them to be true...my belief is that Westcott and Hort perhaps had the same mindset..perhaps it was more about becoming famous for these men.. instead of doing the Right thing?...
@@christopherbrewer4421 let's take a look at some of the deviate ideas in the hearts of men today that were unheard of 400 years ago.... gender neutality.... who would have ever thought THIS would be an issue? replacing the word Hell with Sheol or Hades calling a young virgin a young woman .. which she is .......but lets just call a spade a spade for cryin out loud.. don't soften it... Ass.. meant ...donkey.. so what?. Gay.. meant ..happy..so WHAT?. God called Adam and Eve both ADAM...this was changed to MAN.. in some translations... John 2:4 from "What have I to do with thee?".. to "what does that have to do with us?"
@@jeffcarlson3269 Whatever interlinear you are using is still a translation. It is still a compilation of texts with english words chosen as 'translations'. if your methodology was sound, godly seminaries (if such a thing can be said) would simply issue interlinear Bibles instead of teaching Greek and Hebrew in ancient context. Perhaps I'm missing the point you're trying to make. but i want to urge you to look into whether 'an interlinear Bible' is actually 'original Greek and Hebrew', and if it is 'original', then what manuscript is it using and what english choices are being made and why. The fact is we have more manuscripts now than when the KJV was created. that means we can compare more manuscripts throughout a wider time range and figure out what things were original, what was added, where errors were made, and get an idea of what is reliable. AND, we have a better understanding of ancient language meaning we can more accurately translate meaning, knowing for example when poetic or artistic phrases or figures of speech are used that lose meaning between ancient cultures and 'ours'. i encourage you to search for and watch: "Dr. James White: Which Bible translation is the most reliable? Episode 1326" on wretched's yt channel. then verify the claims. Bottom line, it is not a question of whether the words chosen in the KJV to translate the texts they used in the translation were best according to our understanding today. that's not the point and assumes the sources they used were reliable. the question and the point is whether the text source they used were accurate/reliable to begin with. the answer to that seems to be no. this is why there are extra verses and different meanings found in the KJV (especially before it has been revised) compared to the more reliable translations.
Spanish (Latin root) is my first language , English second. When I became a Christian I started to read the KJB and loved the majestic vocabulary of that era .I find that as culture becomes corrupt so does the language, truth becomes blurred and we lose the way to communicate with each other.
though you could argue that culture today is less corrupt than in 1611. One word from the King back then and you were dead meat. I don't think King Charles has that kind of power today.
yes, He will. He will protect His Word from having words added to it.
4 роки тому+5
Guilherme Coelho : what about words taken from it by man and Satan? Would He not restore those words before He comes back, so we don’t stumble, so our judgement is just?
God gave his word to man. For man to keep. Man has done a piss-poor job of it! Starting with allowing Constantine to dictate exactly what the church was going to look like, and deifying him as much as possible. So much so that the Catholics eventually ignored a lot of parts of the Bible because certain churches wouldn't comply with Constantine's order.
@ it goes a lot deeper. Churches, primarily the Catholic church, but others were involved, use Biblical scripture as reason to destroy knowledge that set us back thousands of years. Not only knowledge of God. But knowledge of astrophysics, engineering, etc etc etc.
My issues come from little things sometimes. Let's take a look at two very simple, rather subtle alterations between the King James Version and the New King James Version. (KJV) “Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder. Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things.” - Proverbs 23:31-33 (NKJV) “Do not look on the wine when it is red, When it sparkles in the cup, When it swirls around smoothly; At the last it bites like a serpent, And stings like a viper. Your eyes will see strange things, And your heart will utter perverse things.” - Proverbs 23:31-33 Now there were minor, and rather insignificant changes made here like KJV's "adder" changed to the NKJV's "viper". KJV's "gives it's colour" changes to NKJV's "sparkles in the cup". Not really terrible changes and not really damaging, I'll agree. However... There is one change that, in my opinion, changes things quite a bit. In the KJV, the verse says that when you drink alcohol, "Your eyes shall behold strange women" while the NKJV says "Your eyes will see strange things". WHOA... These two things are VERY different. The words "women" and "things" are clearly very different. This one change almost seems to alter the entire context or meaning of the verse. "Women" is very specific and a deliberate word choice while "things" is incredibly broad and could mean a wide variety of things. I believe the KJV is warning about ADULTERY or at least, fornication. A "strange woman" is NOT your wife. But the NKJV says "things" which is non-descriptive and could be used to represent a whole slew of things. This is one problem I ran into with the NKJV. There seem to be small changes that are not only unnecessary, but might actually take away from the intended context of the verse. Another I found was in Romans. (KJV) “But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.” - Romans 6:17-18 (NKJV) “But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.” - Romans 6:17-18 Here, the word "servant" found in the KJV has been changed to "slave" in the NKJV. Now this doesn't seem like that big of a deal, and maybe it's not to most people. But, call me a perfectionist because it bothers me. A slave and a servant are not the same thing. It seems yet another change that really is unnecessary. Allow me to provide you the definitions for these two words. SERV'ANT - A person, male or female, that attends another for the pupose of performing menial offices for him, or who is employed by another for such offices or for other labor, and is subject to his command. The word is correlative to master. Servant differs from slave, as the servant's subjection to a master is voluntary, the slave's is not. Every slave is a servant but every servant is not a slave. - A person who voluntarily serves another or acts as his minister; - One who yields obedience to another. SLAVE, (noun) - A person who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who has no will of his own, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another. In the early state of the world, and to this day among some barbarous nations, prisoners of war are considered and treated as slaves. The slaves of modern times are more generally purchased, like horses and oxen. A servant does his duty and his or her service of their own free will. We serve God and Christ because we WANT to, not because we HAVE to. A slave has no such choice. They do what they do and perform their service and duty because someone is forcing it onto them. These two things are very different. Now I know that most of you just "get it", right? But some people don't. There are people who use these kind of things in arguments AGAINST the faith. How many atheists will say that Christians are "slaves"? And when our own Bibles are actually calling us slaves to God, that only supports their argument. This is why I have issues with modern translations really. Things like modern sentence structure and what not are... Eh. But not really criminal. It's the changing of words like THESE examples that bother me. "Women" to "things" and "Servants" to "Slaves". I have a problem with that because it changes things and it can change the intended purpose of the verses being read. That's the way I see it. (I do own a NKJV Bible and I do use it. In my opinion, it is the best "alternative" translation to the KJV. I suppose that is because for the most part, it IS the KJV. Only there are little changes to wording. There are many verses left perfectly in tact. I will say this: I will always prefer the KJV. HOWEVER... I won't forbid someone to read the NKJV as it IS useful. For the most part, it is compatible with the KJV in most every way. And, I will admit that numbers of the word changes are not "criminal". I will ALWAYS have my issues with other modern translations. Of that I am sure. There seem to be too many problems with some of them. So, I suppose to put it clearly, I am not exactly a KJV Only Man. BUT, I am a KJV/NKJV guy. I don't like to go anywhere but those two places. I purchased an NKJV Bible for my younger brother because the KJV's wording is archaic and old-world (one of several reasons I love it). I chose the NKJV because it is the closest to the KJV you'll get. It is not an awful translation brothers and sisters. It really isn't. I will say that I am glad that I knew the KJV first though. When I read the verses I listed above in the NKJV, I recognized the changes immediately because I had already read them in the KJV. Had I not done that, I would not have noticed. I would not give my brother a translation of the Bible I thought would be bad for him. I can assure you of that. One reason I even purchased my NKJV Bible is because I wanted to check it out for myself and "proof read it". And, while I found things I was kind of bothered by, I was delighted to find that much of the KJV was preserved. Again, I would not have gotten a copy for my brother if I thought it wasn't worth it.)
Sebastian concerning the second one, look into the original word used, and I might be willing to bet it was Slave. New Bible translations are know for translating the original word which means slave, as servant or bond servant.
Well said .. i would like to know more.. Have you thought of intent.. i mean why change it .. if it fits a narrative or destroys one.. why ? Who does this change hurt or benifit ...? Honest question.. Or else why do it..? unnecessary u say.. but i think its more malevolent...
@@jesseayotte6925 the original word doesn't exist. Do you have it? The minority text is not the original or even accurate. They don't agree among themselves. The majority text does. The majority text is from the original
The Proverbs text should read strange woman. The same Hebrew (zarowt) word in Proverbs 22:14 is translated strange woman. In Romans the the Greek word is doulos it should be translated slaves. Servants are not in bondage slaves are in bondage. The proper Greek word for servant would be diakonon or deacon.
King James was a flaming homosexual. Sir Walter Raleigh, a prominent member of the royal court, once quipped that “We have had King Elizabeth; now we have Queen James."
@@lewyndenley6381 A panel of scholars was picked by King James I of England to reach a consensus as to a different translation of the text of the Bible. In other words, the translation was voted on. There were other translations that were favored by the scholars that simply didn’t make the cut. They were all inspired to make their own individual conclusions. This is how you arrive at a CONSENSUS of opinion.
There are over 900 English translations of the Bible. The guy talks about the 6,000 manuscripts as witnesses. But if the 6,000 witnesses all have opposing testimonies, you're back to square one. Which ones are we to believe? The King James Bible has been confirmed by the Lord in the hearts of millions of believers for almost 400 years. I have read various translations but was always led back to the KJV, that's my Bible. Ecclesiastes 12:12 says, "...of making many books there is no end".
As an Hispanic, I choose to read KJV. My primary language is Spanish. I decided to read in English and I started off with NLT in which I thought it was a very good translation. But when I read the KJV, they’re is something special in that translation that made/makes an impact in my life, versus reading newer translations that amplify a little too much and takes away the purity of what God spoke. (I am not a KJV onlyist)
Don't be afraid of labels, we all are One God, One Holy Spirit and One faith believers, we just believe there is One Holy Bible that God keeps pure Ps 12:6. PS- keep out the stuff they get in the other translations like 2Sam21:19(someone other than David kills Goliath) , Mark 9:29 has a incorrect method of exorcism, John 5:4 is missing ... and that's just a few!
So sad to see how narrow minded people like you really believe that God himself wrote the KJV of the Bible himself. Do your research. Learn the truth of how flawed the KJV Bible is.
@@dantombs5697out of curiosity- which kjv do you read? If I understand it correctly the current kjv is the 1789 revision? I know of at least one pastor who uses 1611 only. I prefer the nkjv. I feel most secure reading anything textus receptus based
Dan K : The KJV is an early 17th century Anglican translation with many errors. Here's 10 errors in the KJV: 1. KJV: "robbers of churches." Acts 19:37 Greek: HIEROSULOUS, "robbers of temples" 2. KJV: "Lucifer" Is 14:12 Hebrew: "O Day Star" (Lucifer is a human origin nickname for the Devil in the 1600's refers not to the devil but the king of Babylon) 3. KJV: "Easter" Acts 12:4 Greek: "Passover" 4. KJV: "Tithes of all I possess" Lk 18:12 Greek: "all I acquire" 5. KJV: "Schoolmaster" Gal 3:24 Greek: "attendant" 6. KJV: "God save the King": 1Sam 10:24, 2Sam 16:16, 1Kings 1:25 Hebrew: "May the king live" ( reflects the British culture of the 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.) 7. KJV: "God Forbid." Ro. 3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; 11:1,11; 1 Co. 6:15; Ga. 2:17; 3:21; 6:14 Greek: "may it not be" or "let it not be." (KJV adds the word God where it is absent in the TR because it was a common expression in 1600's.) 8. KJV: "sweet savour" Lev. 6:21; 8:28; 17:6; 23:18 Hebrew: "soothing aroma" 9. KJV: "ashes upon his face" 1 Kings 20:38 Hebrew: "bandage over his eyes" (KJV varies from TR by using ashes) 10. Mark 7:19b. The KJV has the Lord Jesus making a statement about excretion ("purging all meats"). Greek: the actual translation should be something like "Thus he declared all foods clean" (ESV).
Covenant Caswell It has no errors whatsoever. You do realise everything you just quoted is still translated correctly. God forbid, oh it’s an error because let it not be so. That is the same thing. For someone to think Gods perfect word is corrupt and has errors cannot stand on his word.
I currently have the NKJV and all I can say is that I received a call from my family that my uncle was dying. He had cancer and a collapsed lung. Also coughed up blood. At first the hospital was only admitting 2 visitors at a time and eventually approved 3. Soon after we were all called in because he was about to pass. 6 breathes per minute and eyes rolled back. My cousin said, “this is what god wants.” My cousins are not believers. I’m the only Christian in the family. While holding my NKJV I said, “Father, please forgive us of our sins.” After that I read 2 Samuel 7:28 and Romans 16:20 and said Amen. Not long after my uncle started recovering and no longer required intensive care. The lords word does not return to him void. This power is in Exodus 19:5. Believe and you shall receive!!!!!!
@Nick-wn1xw I believe you brother Nick but I am not bothered if they say it was Satan. The Bible says that those that deny the father and the son is the Antichrist. I am all for Jesus!!!!
I come from India, I’ve delighted in the King James Bible since childhood, it is authenticity, majestic in English literature. Many rise to diminish it, but it shall remain as the crown of all English translation. “It fainteth not, nor fadeth even in the passing age and time.
I am from England, the country of origin for the KJV. The KJV does fail. There are older manuscripts than the Masoretic Hebew text which is about 900AD. Parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls are 200BC, a difference of 1100 years. I prefer the modern translations like the NASB or ESV. My ESV has footnotes every time the Septuagint is used because the Hebrew is unclear. Now where is the KJV footnotes? They don't exist. I would not use the KJV.
@@stephenhowe4107 The first sentiment of Englishman ought to be King James Bible, it’s birth was in the midst of persecution and martyrdom of saints and particularly during the era of Englands Church history. The King James Bible holds the very prominent piece of the history and the heart of men and for its noble and kingly literature. I shan’t forsake. Perhaps there are scores of references and expository study materials to learn. The new translations are merely for the convenience of the lay man, since the modern man is poor in literature.
@@TheAnish01 : _The first sentiment of Englishman ought to be King James Bible_ No. My first allegiance is the set of oldest Greek and Hebrew documents, they constitute the Bible, not a particular translation. Left out this talk was the work of William Tyndale, who more than anyone, brought the Bible in English to common people. And the English Establishment persecuted this man to his death. He was a martyr. the KJV, in some senses would not exist if it wasn't for Tyndale. But I would not use the KJV in case I am doctrinally influenced the wrong way. _The new translations are merely for the convenience of the lay man, since the modern man is poor in literature_ No. The new translations are closer to the Bible in terms of Greek & Hebrew and therefore superior. Translation and understanding has got better since the KJV. I was reading the updated translation notes for the NIV 2011 edition since the NIV 1970 and I was pleasantly surprised at the detail and sharpening of the language. For example the translators now understood that Joesph's coat was an *ornate coat* and that was in keeping with Mesopotamian culture of the time. Where is the equivalent sharpening of the KJV language? Nowhere. As a work of literature of the time, yes maybe it can be appreciated. But I would not use the KJV to infer biblical doctrine. It is now, no longer good enough. And the chances are 100 years from now, we will even newer superior translations, because Biblical manuscripts are being discovered every year. The majority are newer documents, but there is always a chance for an older document to be discovered that is older than what we have. A small percentage of the Old Testament is written in Aramaic. The chances are Jesus understood 4 languages: Hebrew and Aramaic but also Greek and Latin
@@stephenhowe4107 Inspite of the improvements in the modern translations, I’m keen in the literary style of the very literature. It is satisfactory to soul as the King James presents. Every argument to defeat King James has prevailed not but in futility. For it is the largest selling translation in the world till today. Perhaps satan himself envy’s its outreach, he must have employed some within the Christian circle to render void of its value.
The Driver I am a native English speaker and I don’t. You must read it all the time. That’s the only way to know it that well. People who don’t read it all the time have a naturally hard time understanding it. As you probably would reading seventeenth century Spanish.
@@jordandthornburg What a joke. You do know The Lord WANTS us to read the bible all the time, right? "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15 "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." Romans 12:2 You know how many phrases in the KJV are commonly used today? Like "I'm at my wit's end," "It's beyond me," "Rise and shine," "See eye to eye" or simple words like the word "mart?" Where do we see mart today? Walmart? Kmart? Steinmart? Yet they have to "update" the word "mart" in new versions to other words/phrases that don't even make sense. And simple words in the KJV like "white of an egg" get updated to "slime of the purslane" or "juice of the mallow" in Job 6:6. "Weight" gets updated to "encumbrance." "Crown" gets updated to "diadem." The list goes on. But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and casteth my words behind thee. Psalm 50:16-17 Stop making excuses and get to reading. It's easy to read when you put in the effort to study it (again, 2 Timothy 2:15). If you don't understand a word you can get a dictionary. Webster's 1828 dictionary online is a useful tool.
Hey brother funny how they only attacked the King James Bible all the new age perversion s are okay with those guys happy to see you here I'm glad I'm not the only one that stands up for the old black book
1.) What about hell? Why is there a tendency for modern translations to remove the word "hell" and replace it with ambiguous words such as "grave." This was done more than 60 plus different occasions on new and old testaments. 2.) Why was the name Lucifer removed in modern translations and replaced with "The morning star" in Isaiah 14:12 furthermore The title "The morning star" belongs to none other than our Lord Jesus Christ. That sounds like a big error in the modern translations wouldn't you concur? 3) Aside from the 16 missing verses in the modern translations which are still intact in the (KJV). Why are there missing sub verses and/or key words omitted? i.e. Matthew 9:13 (KJV) "But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Matthew 9:13 (NIV) "But go and learn what this means: I desire mercy, not sacrifice. For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” The words omitted here are but to repentance. Now the Word of the God has been diminished. I can keep going on and on with more facts and questions: bottom line is King James is a more complete bible.
Well Isaiah 14 is actually Israel's taunt to Babylon. Babylon is being prophesied against, and the LORD said it was going to fall. "son of the morning" was referring to the emperor of Babylon who was often worshiped as a god figure. Babylon is often described as building large cities that "reach the heavens" and the Lord taunts them as He reduces them to rubble. That verse is not even talking about Satan.
James Snapp Jr. taking on 2 KJVO’s at once Saturday night live, 8pm, April 20th, debating I John 5:7. Donny at Standing for Truth hosting. Should be a good debate!
You don't have to look up every 5th old English word! You should be looking up every Greek or Hebrew word and seeing how it is used in multiple other verses. C'mon guys!!
I dont disagree with you in the main, but first, not old english at all. Its early modern english. Second, while i would never advise or confine the "average" english reading christian to the kjv, if you have grown up with the text you dont have issues like a lot of unexposed people do. And the wierder places are pretty rare and easily overcome. Yes over against ofr opposite, or prevent for before is confusing but once you understand the original meaning it isnt like you have to keep looking up words. But i do follow the complaint. My wife is totally befuddled by the kjvs language because she never grew up with it.
@@provokingthought9964 Has nothing to do with growing up with KJV or not. One factor is getting used to it which comes easily with interest. Another factor is if we have experienced spiritual transformation then we know the subject matter so well that it becomes easy for that reason also. For 300 years, until the early 1900s, the KJV was the one most widely used English document which stabilized the English language so that whatever the Scripture intends a word to mean became the standard definition of the word; we are much better off holding onto an awareness of English which is defined by Scripture rather than letting Scripture get dragged into the shifting sands of secular post modern English. When studying the ancient Greek vocab, and applying it to KJV English, we can continue that process of defining the English based on Scripture. There is one big problem that the KJV uses various words in translation in ways that are confusing, but modern and post modern translations have not improved on this so it's a moot point in this comparison. When reading Scripture was a chore for me, it was difficult to tackle the KJV language style, but when it became a joy it became easy. We see this with pop-culture entertainment, people simply enjoy it and they easily memorize the deep detailed lore of whatever series they enjoy. The lore of Scripture is Spiritual Truth, not doctrinal conformity, and what is likely getting in people's way is when they are trying to conform to the doctrines of their denomination instead of enjoying the culture of Messiah's Spirituality.
Most Hebrew and Greek has been corrupted, it takes time to study to find out which one's are tainted and which one's aren't, G.A. Riplinger has a few books on which one's are good, and which aren't, and why.......Plus, if God wanted us to read Hebrew or Greek, he would have had us born back then, imho, we should be reading, and led by the Holy Spirit first, and if we don't understand something, then look into that.
@@drtruthseeker8400 I don't believe most is corrupted. God is relevant in all times and all languages. To have to study Greek etc is an opportunity to BE led by the Holy Spirit. The struggle makes you look closer.
If you remove a verse that should instantly disqualify your translation, right? Also God is a numbers guy how do the different versions break down according to the numbers? As in does it have the ability to get the most accurate instances of blank is there 777 times, 490 times, etc etc. Just wondering, 2nd Timothy 2 15 says were supposed to study and i am new at this.
To your first question: no, not really. We have found so many new manuscripts in the past 400 years. Many much older and more reliable than the ones that were available in the early 1600's. So oftentimes it happens that in more reliable manuscripts a particular reading is missing or is different. So the translators are bound by their conscience to reflect that in their translation.
If you found the oldest dollar bill in the house of a famous counterfeiter from the time its dated, it brings into question if the bill was authentic when it was made. Older manuscripts don't constitute better if the place they are found is controversial.
Andrew I Yeah but, we’re not talking about One single Bill in a potential counterfeiter’s house. We’re talking about nearly 6k bills of widely varying background and timeframes. Nowadays it would be more feasible to cast doubt, but the closer you get to the happenings of the actual events in ancient times the better. The lack of internet in that time is a huge benefit to us in terms of authenticity preserved. One of the major faults of us in the modern day is to think that we know things better than the people that preceded us, when in actuality, the people closer to the original events definitely knew it better. I’m not talking about grasping the greater picture of events, in which case our hindsight often serves us better in looking back.
@@toferyo7473 when you do a little research you'll find that the Alexandrian text type comprises 3 to 5 percent of the extant texts (depending on who you read) and the Byzantine text type around 93 percent. The Alexandrian varies much more and more widely within itself than the Byzantine. KJV advocates say that the Alexandrian texts were "corrected" by people (most notably the Gnostics). If true, then these texts are corrupt and should not be used for translation purposes despite that fact that they are older.
@@toferyo7473 Older doesn't mean better. The oldest manuscripts were found nowhere close to Greece or Israel. They were found in territories where the surrounding cultures could have easily influenced change in the text. By saying age is a more significant factor than location ignores the fact that cults have always existed. They didn't just start popping up at the 10th century. Paul himself was fighting against people trying to corrupt his teachings in the first century. Every manuscript found in st Catherines monastery cannot be verified because its region is way too questionable.
@@toferyo7473 Not to mention that the newer manuscripts that agree more thoroughly with each other number by the thousands and were found all around that side of the world. There is no possible way they all link back to the oldest ones found outside of the new testament territory. The oldest manuscripts even disagree with eachother more than the manuscripts in the majority text.
This is one of the most helpful videos I’ve ever watched. Thanks for creating this content. For all my Bible classes in college, we were required to use a minimum of 3 translations for every assignment. Found it helpful.
Dr Plummer - I was born and brought up in a family that practices Sorcery and Witchcraft. Gratefully, my parents were encountered by GOD that both of them decided to follow Christ Jesus through the waters of baptism. My first copy of the Bible is KJV. I love the cadence of the King's English, but I have difficulty comprehending it. Because of my voracious apetite to learn the Word, I acquired different versions, i.e., NIV, NASB, RSV, and the Paraphrased translation, gift from Logos. I completed reading the entire Scriptures, the four versions, in three months. My conversion experience was not induced because someone shared John 3:16. The Book of Romans "spoke" to me. I saw the tongues of fire in Hell. But, what brought me to drop prostrate is the passage that where sin abounds, God's grace abound the more. I was overwhelmed. You are endowed with the ministry gift of teaching. GOD be praised!
As brethrens in Christ, brother, I must warn you that Satan would love to trick you and my brother, I refuse to let him hurt you or deceive you. Remember there are false gospels he has perverted and deceived many, I plead with you please beware he doesnt trick you from GOD. Read below, beloved of the LORD. 1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) 2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: 3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, 4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: 5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. 6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. 10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. 11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:1 - 12 1611 King James Version (KJV)
In the KJV... “the father” is mentioned 218 times “the word” is mentioned 469 times “holy ghost” is mentioned 90 times I’ll let you do the rest of the math. 1 John 5:7 KJV [7] For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. Have a blessed day. Isaiah 34:16
@@TruthisChrist Which would all add up to 798 in total following your logic of adding numbers together. What's your point? What on earth is your consistent logical basis for this? Also, almost none of these numbers are true for the actual original KJV - because the original KJV had the Apocrypha. Holy Spirit appears 10 times, for example. So to get these numbers, you had to remove things from the original KJV.
@@Mic1904 The first time LORD (all caps, referring to Jehovah) appears in the NT is the 777th word of its chapter. First mention of LORD in OT: Gen 2:4 First mention of LORD in NT: Mat 22:44 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD and read
@@TruthisChrist "First mention of LORD in OT: Gen 2:4 First mention of LORD in NT: Mat 22:44" These are verse divisions added by humans in the 1400s and 1500s. The number of words has no reflection on the original Hebrew and Greek in which God authored His Word. You are worshipping the work of men, not God.
Would I hand someone a dictionary and expect them to look up every 5th word? A professor telling someone not to do research! May it never be! Too many translations (notice I said too many; they can be helpful) is a cause for confusion. Don't understand something? Research it and let the Holy Spirit bring clarity, John 16:12-15.
~1:10 'We cannot criticize modern translations'. No reason was given. Just told we cannot say other translations are bad or misleading. = False ~258. 'There are certain scribal tendencies that are in the KJV.' Nothing said about other translations' scribal tendencies. = False ~6:02. KJV people attack the character of translators. If one is part of a cult and has a different foundation for their root beliefs character is relevant. We are Not talking a moral failure. He is. Very simplistic. False ~7:00. Reliable texts. Only questions KJV texts. Not modern. No discussion on Majority vs Minority and what that means. Talks about more manuscripts post KJV. But not their quality. Origin. If they were ever used? Or discarded as garbage. Or if Dead Sea Scrolls verify KJV. = False ~10:45 Old English too hard to understand. If you are not taught the Gospel. If you do not understand the Gospel. YOu will not be able to understand the Bible in any version. Period. = False Throughout. Talks about different translations. Says they are all good. One can get the feeling that anyone can translate and it is good because he does not have a concern with any of them. This is a concern! There is so much more to why KJV is the best and some translations are bad and worse. To pretend that things always get better with time is a fallacy. Again. If you do not understand the Gospel. Another translation is not going to be 'easier'.
King James had absolutely nothing to do with the translation of the 1611 version! Check your sources brother. As for the comma Johanneum, if you take it out of the text in the Greek, it falls apart on a grammatical scale. Your basis of understanding is a manuscript that was found in a Catholic monastery, protected by Islam for centuries. Why is it that you cannot see the corruption in that? The reason why I trust the KJV is because it is not only based on the majority text, but it has miraculously changed my life. Changing some words into modern English is not a problem for me, but taking out whole texts and claiming they don't belong in the Bible, based on one manuscript that supposedly dates back to the 3rd or 4th century is ridiculously blasphemous. I am not a KJV onlyist, but I know by faith that it is the most trustworthy text we have (in English). I know that the ESV, NASB, NIV and CSB have been revised so many times that to say they are trustworthy is simply ignorant. My lead pastor uses the ESV Bible. I respect his choice because he is a bright young man that loves the Lord, and he is a doctrinally sound individual. I recently purchased new ESV pew Bibles for the church, to keep the congregation on the same page with him on Sunday. I am not against a modern English translation, but I would never use them in my preaching or teaching. I have studied Hebrew, Greek and apologetics/textual criticism for more than 20 years. I have sought for an answer to the confusion that the Codex Sinaiaticus has brought to our faith, and the only logical answer was right before me in my library. I returned to my KJV Bible and I am determined to stick with it until I leave this life. I came out of KJVOism and I will never go back to that condemning mentality ever again, but to trust the KJV as the most reliable text is absolutely evident in light of all the revisions we see before our eyes. Even the NKJV is about to go through a revision. The word is clear that confusion is not from God (1Cor. 13:33). Which edition of the ever changing modern translations do you trust? As for me and my house, we will trust in the one translation will always remain unchanged...the Authorized KJV Bible.
There may be some condemning people in the KJVO'ers but the KJV is thee preserved word of God for us today, if it is not defended and upheld as such the compromise, little bit of leaven will leaven the whole in the end. There is no comparing KJV and the ESV in a Bible study; you just can't go back to the language the ESV was translated form like you can the KJV, and on top of this the ESV is not from the RT but corrupted Eclectic/Alexandrian textual line. I challenge you to think this out.
I'm personally very fond of the Geneva Bible as a Reformed Baptist because it was the translation my English and Northern Irish ancestors used during the Protestant Reformation and related events thereafter, such as the English Civil Wars and their settlement of New England and Appalachia, respectively. Their breakaway from Roman Catholicism via their reading the scriptures and establishing their own churches accordingly inspired solely by scripture have given it a very special place in my heart knowing that the same blood present in those acts of faith runs through my body.
2 Timothy 3:16 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”
Even the New World Translation (the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible)? Of course, all original Greek and Hebrew scripture is good. But what about a the 4th complete English translation of that scripture? Is that perfect? Is that as good as the original Greek/Hebrew? Of course it isn't. You're going to have to use the brain God gave you. You're going to have to study.
@WakeU.S. fromSlumberCensored, so what happens when we discover what words actually mean? For instance, every Bible translates Τετέλεσται as "it is finished". When this was translated, there was only one example of this word in all of Greek, and this was it. No one knew for sure what it meant. But now, we have many, many examples of this word. We now know without a doubt that this word means "paid in full". Shouldn't a new translation be made that more clearly expresses Jesus' last word before His death? This is only one example. There are many examples. God's word is preserved..., in the Hebrew and the Greek. Even the translators of the KJV admitted that a perfect translation is impossible. They admitted the the KJV was not perfect. They said that newer translations would most likely be more accurate. Why do you think you are right, when they said you are wrong?
@WakeU.S. fromSlumberCensored , Why don't they ever keep reading? You were in the correct section of the preface, but you didn't get to the the good part. They talk about the Kings speech is still the Kings speech if you translate it I to French or bunch of other long winded languages. Then they long windedly say No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? Weird how they say it might be imperfect and have blemishes, but you say that's impossible.
@WakeU.S. fromSlumberCensored, Am I the one that doesn't understand? Did you get the entire point of that section? They explain that translations can never be perfect, because they are translations. Is it the Word of God? Yes. And I agree with them on that. Can it be improved on? Of course. 1611 English is a dead language. Can the meaning be even more clear to a modern reader? Absolutely! Such as the example I gave (with your half hearted refutation that still came to the odd conclusion that I was right). You are modern day Judaizers. You've placed an unnecessary roadblock in front of baby Christians. You've place a roadblock in front of those we wish to convert. Many souls will lost because of this movement. I have no issue with you studying the KJV. My issue is when you lie about it being the only valid translation. That's demonic. If anything was a demonic Jesuit plot, it would be that.
@WakeU.S. fromSlumberCensored, I'm sorry you spent all that time writing all that. I have no intention of reading it. You can't take an honest rebuke. Even Paul, the humble person you keep talking about, rebuked Peter when he sided with the Judaizers. You remember them? The ancient equivalent if the KJV only crowd. Nothing about that is ad hominem. Will you use a tactic that isn't information dump.
For some strange reason some KJV only people claim that modern versions water down the Gospel. That beggars belief! The Gospel is the same in all good English versions, no teaching or doctrine is added, or removed. I read the Greek and English New Testaments 7 days a week, the Critical Greek New Testament and compare variants with Scrivener's, which doesn't agree with any of the printed Greek New Testaments, exactly, that the KJV translators used, including any actual manuscripts they might have used or compared with. Most KJV only claims contradict the KJV translators themselves, especially their letter to the reader. Most KJV only people know little, or nothing about either the Greek they used, or the letter to the reader. Why isn't the letter still included in the modern KJV s? They just believe what they're told.
I'm going to read the entire NIV. After wards, I will start with the KJV. God willing. Please pray God gives me enough time in earth to read the entire Bible. Thank you.
Praying for you on this quest. You might enjoy David Pawson’s “Unlocking the Bible” series on UA-cam in which he teaches a lesson on each book specifically. He went home to be with the Lord in May 2020 at the age of 92.
Don't read that NIV or any new versions. They come from Alexandria Egypt and the new versions are really Catholic versions that use the Nestles text. It us corrupt. The NIV and other new versions have many, many bible verses missing and many changed verses. Read the King James bible. Also watch the video by Gail Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions. She exposes the errors in the new versions. Stick with the King James version, otherwise you will just get confused.
I used to read to the niv and I liked it until I found out how they misinterpret GOD's WORD and even took out HIS WORD which I clearly remembered HE warned to those never alter GOD's Word! But now I only read the King James Bible.
@@berean65 can you say the King James version is 100% correct? It's modern compared to the original. Could be many missing and changed verses in it also.
I have heard pastors who favour the NIV complain quite bitterly about its inaccuracies in translation and wish that it had been more literal. Quite a few have abandoned the NIV for the ESV or the NKJV.
Its weird how people keep on saying verses were removed in the newer versions, but nobody bothered to ask whether they were even present in the oldest versions
Because the Word of God was passed down through generations and now they are digging up old trash and claiming it to be the word of God but why would the word of God be hidden underground for centuries? Don't you think it would have been passed down?
Which is the true Bible and translation? Did the text begin when the author first made a mark on papyrus or stone? Or did it start when it was edited and added to new scriptural material? Perhaps it began when the books were canonized. If so, which canonization-was it the Masoretic Text or the Septuagint of the Old Testament, or Marcion's first collection of scriptures, which was the earliest collection of New Testament writings? Or was it when the Old Testament and New Testament were combined? Or when the Apocryphal books were removed? Was it the first translation corrected by translators, or possibly even by "God"? Can anyone pinpoint the exact moment when the collection of books, written by 40 different authors over more than 3,000 years, was truly completed? Was the true text created with the first inspirational translation, or when modern translators discovered and edited interpolations? I would be interested in your answers.
At the 10:01 mark, the speaker mentioned 6,000 witnesses vs. 1 witness. That's kind of misleading. The vast majority of manuscripts line up with the King James not the new modern versions.
@@USMCKoontz Nope. You got that wrong. Early church fathers (in the first several centuries) did not quote the verse in Greek. Latin quotes do not count because Latin manuscripts are translations from Greek ones.
@@USMCKoontz There is much evidence that 1 John 5:7 was not in the original text. 1. Of the nine Greek manuscripts that contain the verse, 4 or 5 had the verse written in the margin, not as part of the text. 2. Of the remaining mss that has the verse as part of the text, the oldest one was in the 14th century. That is 1,300 years after John supposedly wrote the letter. This verse did not appear in any earlier Greek mss that scholars have found. 3. The earliest Latin mss with the verse was dated to the 3rd or 4th century, but Latin mss are translations and therefore not reliable. 4. The early church fathers never quoted this verse even though they could have used it as a strong argument in the debates with those who did not believe in the trinity, which shows that they never heard of the verse. 5. Erasmus, who composed the NT text in the 16th century, did not include this verse in his 1st and 2nd edition. He did so in the 3rd edition under the pressure of the Catholic Church, but left it out again in the 4th edition. The KJV mostly used his 3rd edition to translate. These facts show that 1 John 5:7 was likely an added verse of the Catholic Church to prove that the trinity is a true doctrine. I believe in the trinity but because of other verses in the Bible, not this one. I don't think anyone can add anything to the Bible, even though it shows a correct doctrine.
Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
I have multiples of the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV, MEB, and Geneva 1599. I even have a New Oxford Annotated Bible, which was a textbook from college. I spend time in pretty much all of them. While the ESV and NASB are my favorites, I still find myself going back to the KJV during virtually all of my Bible studies. Not only as an important reference, but for the beauty of the text.
When you read the ESV, NASB, NIV, etc., you are readying from the CRITICAL TEXT from Egypt, not the scriptures that flow from Antioch, FYI. You cannot say you have THE Bible when it disagrees with the KJV. Just compare KJV 1 Cor 1:18 with any modern version. You will see the HUGE difference.
@@hanraddas9308 What makes the KJV right? Also why are you parroting the Antioch v Alexandrian nonsense? You do know that it was in Antioch where the deity of Christ was challenged, with the Arian heresy that Jesus was a created being. It was in Alexandria that the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity was defended. All we get from the KJV only cult, is the usual circular reasoning, and double standards
@@samlawrence2695 Here’s the problem- everyone is talking about what they like, or prefer. But nobody’s going to God, and asking him anything. So why are people so gullible? They are listening to someone who clearly the kjv existed before they were born, and stood strong then, and will exist when the worms are eating his rotter corpse. The fact that they do more than remove verses (which more than enough to stay away). They call Lucifer Jesus. Along with other damnable heresies. The nkjv also has a witchcraft symbol on it. I could type 30 paragraphs on these new perversions- but the people who can’t think for themselves, and are scared of a thou, and thus. It’s not waste my time. Idc anyway. It’s not my place to keep someone from reading a perverted version. But it’s also not theirs to steer me away from reading my real one. The one God approved, and that’s worked for 48 years of my life.
I’ve never been a “my way is more right than yours” type of person when it comes to Christianity. What you honestly feel in your heart in relationship to Christ is all that matters to me.
I would have to disagree about your conclusion of other versions not being misleading. I've had this argument for years. It's to bad that you are on the fence, "lukewarm" on this subject. Your also working from a lot of speculation. Bad deal my friend
There's no speculation about it. The KJV is not the most accurate translation we have, translation and manuscript-wise. It just takes a little digging to find out.
Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. That's KJV. Some versions say forgive us our debts... This is a subtle yet very distinct difference. One asserts wrong doing or "trespasses." The other frames sin in terms of debt or "Mammon." Like paying a priest for forgiveness. Purchasing forgiveness. Clemency for money.
my apolgies. i read trespasses in the bible i once had and it stuck in my mind as such. i thought it was kjv...it must have been one of those revisions
Robert White You’re good. I honestly thought he said trespasses in Luke’s account of the prayer, but he actually speaks of trespasses after the prayer in Matthew 6: 14-15.
It's not complicated at all to see in English the KJV is God's preserved word. Just compare verses and it becomes clear in minutes. John 6:47 KJV "He that believeth *ON ME* hath everlasting life." NIV "He who believes has everlasting life." NASB "He who believes has eternal life." NWT "He that believes has everlasting life." NLT "anyone who believes has eternal life." ESV "whoever believes has eternal life." So which one do you think is God's preserved Word? A Bible that says that a person believing on Christ has everlasting life, or a person believing (on who knows what) has everlasting life? Do you really think God's Word would have "on me" missing? Of course not. And speaking of how critical God's Word is, even God points out we need to live by EVERY WORD of God. But of course the corrupted Greek/Hebrew texts will remove things like this as well, since they are in effect an attack on God and His Word. Lk 4:4 KJV "Man shall not live by bread alone, *BUT BY EVERY WORD OF GOD* " NIV "Man does not live on bread alone." NASB "Man shall not live on bread alone." NWT "Man must not live by bread alone." ESV ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’” So I humbly ask Christians to consider looking only at God's preserved Word. This in turn would mean in English the best by far for many centuries: King James Bible. There are thousands of other such examples and even verses outright removed. And they con you into reading them instead with "it's easier to read" or "God didn't really preserve His Word". Please think again. May God bless!
I love the KJV for the poetical structure. Modern English: Woman. Why are you crying? KJV: Woman, why weepest thou? So pretty. But the best English translation is the one you'll read. 😊
You are not shouty and forceful thank you. I had lots of those people in my life when I was younger, so I left Christianity searching for the True God. Looking at some of the comments, I wouldn't dare to say more. I will try to look you up at the Seminary and you can answer my questions there, or not. Thank you. Gwen
Searching for true God??what the heck?? No body can search and find God...God has to reveal himself in the first place and it's God initiating and people receiving..may be God was after all speaking to you through those shouty and forceful people and you chose to ignore his leading looking at peoples behavior rather than the message.. nobody is perfect not even you ..so please stop your "God search " and just read the Bible and let God speak to you..and believe HIS words that IS the only thing that can give anybody eternal life...good luck...
I think you can ABSOLUTELY say KJV is the best and other versions are misleading. The basis for comparison are the thousands of manuscripts the KJV is translated from..the other versions are based on outliers that had gross and obvious errors. Stop messing around with this stuff.
Great video! No other issue could possibly compete with this one when it comes to getting people to completely abandon their reason and common sense. The proof is in the comment section. Translation worship is very unbecoming...
Larry Anderson it would seem you didn't actually read the comment section but just assumed what people would be saying. I don't see a bunch of translation worship. your remark makes no sense.
Question for my KJVO brothers and sisters that I just thought of while watching this video: Why do KJVO folks say “KJV is the only accurate version because God will preserve His Word”? Hasn’t the KJV only been around 500 years? Why are we fighting over a translation that came 1200+ years after the resurrection and earliest manuscripts? Why wouldn’t we be arguing over what the earliest texts said? The original documents weren’t saved so why are we now deciding to use the “God will preserve His Word” argument for a version that came almost 1500 years later? Thanks for any help!
I dont use that argument. I just accept the KJV as the most trustworthy. It is what my father reads, his father, and so on. I can say a the least that I stuck to what I personally can know is true. All power on earth is given by God. God gave king Henry the power to translate the bible in to the language of the country he ruled. And since then the only changes are the updates in language. Also. Even the KJV has had a language update. But minimal changes have been made, one can assume it's to do as little damage to the message as possible. My question is, why is there such a movement to debase the church from the KJV?
5 років тому+1
@@dashawncorder5151 Its ONLY as good as the manuscripts that it used. Can you really reduce Biblical accuracy down to your emotions?
@ "Because unless more accurate versions are FOUND it can be assumed that earlier versions would have less deviation. The Bible wasnt FOUND. It was compiled by humans." Did you just use the word "found", admit assumption, and then correct your own use of the word "found"? I think this is arguing semantics based on a word I didnt actually use. But thank you for responding.
Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto this things, God shall add unto him the plaques that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. 20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. 21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. KJV
So the true word of God was buried until the newer discoveries of modern archeology that "found" the Bible afresh... ? Hasn't God promised to preserve His word? Every word? The fact that these manuscripts weren't preserved to the public eye until they were (supposedly) found immediately disqualifies them all. Especially when you look at certain verses like 1 Timothy 3:16 which identifies Jesus is God... in the modern bibles that verse has been watered down. And there are many such examples. These "bibles" are constantly attacking key doctrines and that's another clear reason we cannot trust them.
I love how careful and considerate his answer is to this question. Thank you Dr. Plummer for taking the time to address this question, though I'm sure it is a thankless endeavor.
Obvious he wants to be loved by the world. “If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” John 15:19 KJV 450 version that are “so called” bibles How many versions of the US constitution are there?! I bet if there were half the amount of constitutional docs as there are bibles. This country would implode rapidly, just like the Christian church is today. Think about it. We need Gods word Luke 4.4 And basically if you study this issue and accept the other versions as this fool does and teaches. the final conclusion is that you accept “inspiration” WITH OUT preservation. Psalms 12:6,7
@@RedSp4de - Friend, you will not find any agreement with me on this issue here. I believe strongly in "preservation", which is why I believe that God continues to protect the work of translation today. Go ahead and write me off as a flaming heretic if you want; I do not care what you think because I'm no respecter of men.
@@RedSp4de sigh. The "them" he shall preserve is masculine. The "words" are femine. Hebrew grammar demands gender of noun matches pronoun. The "them" refers to Gods people/the poor and needy. Preservation is a true doctrine. That passage doesnt teach it. especially as it says he shall preserve them from THIS generation forevermore. That means he wasnt preserving what came before that psalm was written by that logic. Which is flawed. And why the kjv? Why not the Geneva or some prior english translation?
I don’t truly understand word thought of the KJV, so I read NIV and NLT…but I always refer NKJV to ensure accuracy for complete understanding. To each their own as long as God gets the glory. 🙏🏽
The NIV says Jesus fell from heaven . The NIV is the worse version it’s basically the Bible for Catholics and as a I repented Catholic I beseech you to do your research on NIV the ESV is decent while it’s not the KJV it as easy to read as the NIV even easier in my opinion but NIV is not good
@@amandainchrist2908 I did do my research, which is why I gave my opinion on the varying transitions. Each person has their own path to God. Again, as long as El Elyon gets the glory. 🙏🏽
@@amandainchrist2908 In Christ don’t turn ppl away from reading scripture. The Bible was written in a completely different language, so do know many words in ALL translations can and are misunderstood. Just be careful because if I hadn’t had my own experience with God’s miracles I would have been deterred from further exploring because you told me a particular translation isn’t correct. As long as I’m following Christ I’m on the path God made for me. Sometimes believers are quick to correct others instead of just observing. You don’t have to correct everyone. Just pray 🙏🏽
When ever I read the Bible, I often ask God what He meant when He wrote this or that. Helps a lots. It makes the Bible come alive. My dad reads the KJV. I used to read the NIV. It was interesting to see how the translations differed on certain passages. I ended moving to the NKJV which is a more literal translation than NIV, but still very readable.
The difference between NIV and NKJV, aside from being "thought for thought" and "word for word" is that the NIV is eclectic while the NKJV used the Textus Receptus.
@@jeffcarlson3269 *Textual criticism* is a method used to determine what the original manuscripts of the Bible said. The original manuscripts of the Bible are either lost, hidden, or no longer in existence. What we do have is tens of thousands of copies of the original manuscripts dating from the 1st to the 15th centuries A.D. There are three primary methods to textual criticism. The first is the *Textus Receptus.* The Textus Receptus was a manuscript of the Bible that was compiled by a man named Erasmus in the 1500s A.D. He took the limited number of manuscripts he had access to and compiled them into what eventually became known as the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus is the textual basis behind the King James Version and New King James Version. A second method is known as the *Majority Text.* The Majority Text takes all of the manuscripts that are available today, compares the differences, and chooses the most likely correct reading based on which reading occurs the most. For example, if 748 manuscripts read "he said" and 1,429 manuscripts read "they said" the Majority Text will go with "they said" as the most likely original reading. There are no major Bible translations that are based on the Majority Text. The third method is known as the *critical or eclectic method.* The eclectic method involves considering external and internal evidences for determining the most likely original text. External evidence makes us ask these questions: in how many manuscripts does the reading occur? what are the dates for these manuscripts? in what region of the world were these manuscripts found? Internal evidence prompts these questions: what could have caused these varying readings? which reading can possibly explain the origin of the other readings? The New International Version, New American Standard, New Living Translation, and most other Bible translations use the Eclectic Text.
@@JesseMgala Thanks, that was really helpful. It appears you are in favour of the eclectic text. I believe new American standard is more word for word, whereas NIV is more thought for thought. Even though they are bases on the same method. My iPad Bible (olive tree) has multiple versions. I’ll keep an eye on the NASV. I favour the literal translations because I like to work out the meaning of what the author meant on my own. The NKJV has a built in strongs reference which helps.
@@sharpsbattle I've read the 1984 NIV 5 or 6 times If I remember correctly, before that the KJV 2 times. I just started reading NKJV in Genesis, while I'm in Romans of the NASB. For Bible study word for word is better.
You realize you can put the KJV into that group also, don't you? For instance, it came after the Geneva Bible and it added verses that were not in the Geneva Bible and it removed verses that were in the Geneva Bible. It also translates differently than the Geneva in places. Therefore, the KJV is guilty of doing the same thing you are "accusing" the newer versions of doing. Please, I'm not being argumentative here. I'm simply stating a point that you may not have considered. May the peace and love of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you and yours.
@@jimwilliams3517 Yes, I realize that. My question was open and all-inclusive. Im merely searching for Biblical accuracy. Although I do rely most upon the KJV personally, I am not here to endorse it. That is why I framed my question in very open way. This seems to me an unjust and inaccurate representation of my words. I havent attested to finding any translation "guilty" of anything; rather Im seeking to learn more concerning the potential discrepancies between them from my family in Christ. How is it that you think I am making any accusation?("Therefore, the KJV is guilty of doing the same thing... you are "accusing" the newer versions of doing."....) Are you not precisely accusing me yourself based on a faulty conclusion that I am? Regardless, thank you for your response and well-wishes brother. May the discretion and discernment of God be with you and yours led in love and by the Grace of our Savior as well. I understand the natural defensive reaction to this topic from every person who holds a true reverence and conviction for The Word of God because I too feel this, but thats why I am asking questions. Because God says that iron sharpens iron and we should reproof each other in love;) Im sorry if I caused you any offense and thank you again, but maybe be more careful when interpreting other people's posts. Btw, your writing style seems familiar! Have we had discussions before?
Doc, in as much as I'm tempted to believe all your explanations, there's no single scripture you've used to support your argument. Well, you did ask "did Paul, et al write these?"... Gen 3:1-3. I'll advice you prove your points with scripture, and not just the words of men. Let God be true, but every man a liar.
In 1120, the Waldenses quoted 1 John 5:7 in their doctrinal creed. Wvcliffe included 1 John 5:7 in his 1380 Bible, so did Tyndale of 1535, the Matthew's Bible of 1537, the Taverner Bible of 1539, the Great Bible of 1539, the Geneva New Testament of 1557, the Bishop's Bible of 1568 and the King James Bible of 1611. -Dr Stringer I wish the textual critics would go into detail for the audiences sake on how many manuscripts are commonly used in the modern Bible versions. There are nearly 6000 manuscripts but the Nestle-Aland greek new testament is still based on two Jesuit corrupted abominations Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Stick with the King James Bible and trust that it's God's preserved Word.
While Tyndale's translation thru the great and Taverner's bible did technically have 1 John 5 : 7, the verse was in parenthesis. Stringer doesn't mention that Erasmus did not have the verse in the first two editions of his novum instrumentum.
Amen brother Dont forget: *Cyprian writes around A.D. 250, ‘The Lord says “I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one”.’* [The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Church Fathers Down to A.D. 325
@@jbcfamily4802 the following article makes the claim that cyprian was either quoting the Latin or that was his interpretation of the verse : bible.org/article/comma-johanneum-and-cyprian I have found that the way 1 john 5 : 7 reads in the kjv matches a way you could translate 1 john 5 : 7 of the Latin vulgate, so that may be where it comes from. The parenthesis of the bibles from the 1530s can indicate that as well for they do that with "lucifer" in Isaiah 14 : 12, and the way that verse reads in the Latin vulgate also pretty much matches the way the kjv reads.
Our problem is that we don't have the original autographs so in short what we are left with is this question. How can imperfect men determine which bible translation is perfect. I say that God said He would preserve His Word and has in many languages The Gospel preacher is considered a fool by the world I am a fool for Christ whose fool are you?
"They are going to have a hard time understanding it", that's is a poor argument. The Holy Spirit will open up the Word of God to any one sincerely seeking. Will God use anything other than a KJV to reach someone, I believe so and my example of coming to a saving faith in Jesus Christ attests to that, but what I use now is a KJV.
There are some truly evil cults that force their members to use only KJV so they don’t have to figure out how to twist multiple versions to fit their doctrine and go so far as to claim all of the Middle East spoke English rather than hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Totally bananas, but goes to show just how dangerous it can be to stick to a version that doesn’t use familiar words.
If we follow that logic to its conclusion, we could say that we do not need an English translation, at all. Why not just read the Greek? You do know that the KJV was hailed and criticized in its time, as a modern translation, right? It was written in the slang of the people in 1600's, so that the common man could read and understand it. Before that, most English speaking people, IF they had a Bible at all, or had access to one, it was in Latin. Guess how many commoners spoke and read Latin? it was not that many, to be sure.
@Gabriel Gonzalez-Rivera That's what I was saying. Nobody reads a book with missing chapters and gets an A on their book report. The apocrypha fills in gaps and missing time periods. It answers a lot questions one has after reading the protestant version.
Almah of Isaiah 7 means young woman. Parthenos of Matthew 1 means virgin. LXX (greek translation of old testament) translated Almah as Parthenos. Matthew followed the LXX. The NRSV and other follows this more literal rendering, having young woman in isaiah and virgin in matthew. But ESV and others make it virgin in both places. Good reasons for the LXX translating it as virgin. Makes good sense fir us to maintain that. But nothing weird or conspiratorial or misleading about the textual divergence. LXX often departed from the hebrew. Note Hebrews 10.5 "a body thou hast prepared me". Try to find that old testament quote in the old testament. Youll be searching a while.
No it’s not! It all depends how u read it. We don’t care if she’s a virgin or not. They didn’t want to add virgin because it may mislead ppl thinking she was a virgin as a holly virgin and not virgin with no man if u understand what I’m saying. Bottom line is that virgin or not virgin meaning never had a man it doesn’t matter . We are here to know only about God n what he wants us to do in earth .
Well, there’s more verses in the Bible that tells us Mary was a virgin though, wasn’t there? I don’t need anyone to tell me she was a virgin, when they speak of immaculate conception, you know she’s a virgin.
@@NaomiCastro-Neo Whether Jesus was born of a virgin makes all the difference in the world. Doing good on Earth will do nothing to save you. Only the perfect sinless blood of Jesus can reconcile us to God.
When you go to Genesis 2:7 in any of these other translations where does the "soul"that man now has which God has given him come from? See kjv. In these modern translations .man doesn't have one I guess.
Four Zulu Riplinger's book is excellent for people who does not have to read, or think, or spend a lot of time. She says those last words in a video with Kent Hovind. Watch it if you want. KJO movement is moronic because believers basically attacks their own foundations of faith by despising ancient bible manuscripts. Believers attacks those bible manuscripts even more than skeptics. That's amazingly idiotic
Repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ I know... isn't weird that "the most attacked version" is not called a "demonic version"? Don't you think that calling a bible version a demonic version, like Ripplinger does, is a serious attack? Come on, the new bible versions are way more attacked, even by believers, than the KJV
As to the oft heard claim that since much of the newly discovered material was older than that used by Erasmus and subsequently the Reformers, they were more reliable, the reader is reminded that the mighty Apostle Paul testified to the corruption of the Word in his day. Hence, "oldest" is not necessarily the best. This point will be more thoroughly dealt with later in our expos̩. Virtually all modern Bibles published since the late 1800's are translated from Alexandrian texts. Bibles translated since 1898 use the Nestle's Greek New Testament, collation of Alexandrian texts. This includes the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the Living Bible, the New Revised Standard Version, the New World Translation, the New Century Version, etc. Up until the late 1800's, the Alexandrian texts were utterly rejected by orthodox Christians. The words of God have been mutilated in the Alexandrian texts by many different Egyptian, Greek philosophy, and Humanistic "scholars". Perhaps one of the worst of these was Origen. Among other things, Origen said that Christ was a "created" God. (5) Origen also said, "The scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written." (6) Two men, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, are probably the most responsible for introducing Alexandrian texts into modern Christianity. Their text of 1881 laid the foundation for modern "Christian" textual scholarship, and also was collated into Nestle's Greek New Testament. Since modern Bible versions, Greek New Testaments, and textual scholarship is founded upon the teachings and fruits of these two men, it would be beneficial to know what these men thought on spiritual matters. After all, the Bible is a spiritual book! Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 - 1892) Chief Translator of the Revision Committee of the Church of England (1871 - 1881) (Responsible for the underlying Greek text used in the RSV, ASV, NASB, NIV) Dr. Brooke Foss Westcott (1825 - 1901) Chief Translator of the Revision Committee of the Church of England (1871 - 1881) (Responsible for the underlying Greek text used in the RSV, ASV, NASB, NIV) On the authority of the Bible : "I agree with them in condemning many leading specific doctrines of popular theology . . . especially the authority of the Bible." Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 - 1892) On Creation/Evolution : "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin . . . My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable" Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 - 1892) On Satan : "Now if there be a devil, he cannot merely bear a corrupted and marred image of God; he must be wholly evil, his every energy and act evil. Would it not be a violation of the divine attributes for the Word to be actively the support of such a nature as that?" Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 - 1892) On Jesus' Atonement : "The fact is, I do not see how God's justice can be satisfied without every man's suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins." Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 - 1892) On Miracles : "I never read an account of a miracle, but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability . . . " Dr.Brooke Foss Westcott (1825 - 1901) On Catholicism : "Mary-Worship and Jesus-Worship have very much in common" Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 - 1892) On Baptism : "Baptism assures us that we are children of God" Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 - 1892) On Infallibility of Scripture : "I am not able to go so far as you in asserting the absolute infallibility the canonical writing" Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 - 1892) On Infallibility of Scripture : "I reject the word Infallibility . . . of Holy Scripture overwhelmingly" Dr. Brooke Foss Westcott (1825 - 1901) On Creation : "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history . . . I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did" Dr.Brooke Foss Westcott (1825 - 1901) On Democracy : "I . . . cannot say that I see much as yet to soften my deep hatred of democracy in all its forms" Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 - 1892) On Democracy : "I suppose I am a Communist by nature" Dr. Brooke Foss Westcott (1825 - 1901) On America : "I care more for England and for Europe than for America, how much more than for all the niggers in the world! And I contend that the highest morality requires me to do so. Some thirty years ago Niebuhr wrote to this effect: Whatever people may say to the contrary, the American empire is a standing menace to the whole civilization of Europe, and sooner or later one or the other must perish. Every year has, I think, brought fresh proof of the entire truth of these words. American doctrine . . . destroys the root of everything vitally precious which man has by painful growth been learning from the earliest times till now, and tends only to reduce us to the gorilla state. The American empire seems to me mainly an embodiment of American doctrine, its leading principle being lawless force. Surely, if ever Babylon or Rome were rightly cursed, it cannot be wrong to desire and pray from the bottom of one's heart that the American Union may be shivered to pieces" Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 - 1892) We can see from these quotes that Westcott and Hort were far from "Fundamental". One should wonder why "Christian" scholarship regards these two men in such high esteem! Does it make sense to trust Egypt for God's words, Origen for God's words, and Westcott and Hort for God's words? Indeed it is undeniable that modern scholarship relies on the fruits of these men. "Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit." (Matthew 7:16-17) After examining the beliefs of Origen, Westcott, and Hort, you should seriously consider whether or not they could bring forth good fruit! But we have only scratched the surface. The Alexandrian texts, which modern versions are all based on, have a very disturbing history of corruption by Greek philosophy and humanism. The King James Bible, on the other hand, is translated from the Textus Receptus, (Received Text), also known as the Traditional Text, Majority Text, Universal Text, Byzantine Text, and other names. The Textus Receptus is made up of Antiochian texts, which have avoided the corruption of Alexandrian scholars. The Antiochian texts have passed down through time, copied by people who fear God, and believe the ultimate authority of His word. History shows that the Textus Receptus has the strongest claim of being the authentic representation of the original manuscripts. How About The Archaic Language In The King James? The beautiful prose of the King James is a treasure which should not be lost. It has been acclaimed widely as the greatest example of English literature ever written. Apart from a few archaic words, which can be easily clarified in footnotes, it is as easy to understand today as it was four hundred years ago. This is why the common people today still use and love it. It is the "intelligentsia" who tend to favor the modern versions. The King James uses mostly one and two-syllable words, and formal studies have always shown its readability index to be 10th grade or lower. It is also noteworthy that the King James was produced during the period when the English language and literature had reached their zenith of power and expressiveness. This was the age of Shakespeare, for example. Modern English is merely a decadent remnant of its former beauty and clarity. It is no wonder that a Bible translation produced at that special time in history has endured for almost 400 years, meeting the needs and guiding the culture of over ten generations of English speaking peoples. We have abandoned today many fine points of grammar commonly used in 1600. For example, we forget that "thee," "thou," and "thine" were used to express the second person singular, with "you," "ye," and "yours", reserved for second person plural. Today we use "you" indiscriminately for both singular and plural, thereby missing the precise meaning of many texts of Scripture. Furthermore, the translators were not only Biblical scholars, but accomplished writers, and one of their goals had been to produce a Bible that would "sing" with beauty and power, as well as retaining literal faithfulness to the original texts, which had themselves been written with majestic musical beauty. With all these factors in mind, do we not most honor the Lord and His revealed word by having it read and used in that form of our language which was in use when the English language was at its best, instead of in our modern jargon? All modern versions are inferior to the King James in this important regard. Conclusion I believe, therefore, after studying, teaching, and loving the Bible that Christians -- especially creationists! -- need to hang on to their old King James Bibles as long as they live. God has uniquely blessed its use in the great revivals, in the worldwide missionary movement, and in the personal lives of believers, more so than He has with all the rest of the versions put together, and "by their fruits ye shall know them." (Matthew 7:20) It is the most beautiful, the most powerful and, (I strongly believe), the most reliable of any that we have or ever will have, until Christ returns.
Kind of missing the entire point… The issue is the Textus Receptus vs. The Alexandrian texts. You can prove the Alexandrian texts dropped known verses , because many of the dropped verses appear in quotes from the early church fathers . This leads to obvious concerns about the alexandrian texts…
@@JESUS_Saves3747 Lol what does that mean? Are you saying you prefer the Textus Receptus ? It does seem if you go down the rabbit hole and actually start looking at evidence that is the more reliable translation
Translation and version are 2 different things! You can have 1 version for a various translation. So which VERSION of bible is the truth? Not the translation!
Over 30 years ago i had a KJV and NIV. To this day i still read and study from the two Holy Scripture books. I can't get into those other translation books. Oh yeah, back then they had the concordance to help you break down those difficult words. Those three books for me, made for a better study time; Sitting at the feet of Jesus!!!
@@doriansmith5667. It takes the Holy Spirit to help you interpret the scriptures! Sometimes the NIV makes for a better understanding of a difficult verse of scripture!
@@doriansmith5667. I'm not a Jehovah Witness. I'm a child of the Most High God! And the only two Holy Scriptures i use are the KJV & NIV. I rely on the Holy Spirit for understanding of the Holy Scriptures! You can't challenge me when it comes to the Holy Scriptures... I been studying the Word of God for over 30 yrs now! Oh yeah. Jehovah's Witness study out of the New World Translation Bible, not the NIV!
I like the NLT and I used to be a NIV guy because that’s what my church used. I found that the NIV translation has inaccuracies that confused me more and NLT gave me the ability to understand more in depth along with using an app like the Bible hub that provided original Hebrew and Greek text along with commentaries about hard to understand scripture. What I have realized is that some Christian doctrine became man made rules vs Gods design. This led me to be more open minded about reading vs taking everything literally and understanding historical and cultural context I may perceive were not that same cultural context that the people writing the text in their present day perceived. The one thing that is correct in any Bible is the name of Jesus which means God Saves and the story from beginning to end of him revealing that mystery to us which we now know that we are saved by his grace alone (which produces faith) because he chose to be faithful to us.
Is the Word of God perfect, complete, and inerrant? And if so, what guidelines should be used to decide which versions are perfect, complete and inerrant? Surely not all versions, correct? If a new believer came to you and asked whether his version was okay, what would you look for to be able to answer that question?
Interesting that one of these three existing older manuscripts he mentions as being more reliable and from before 1400 (sanaiticus) removed the resurrection of Christ and the ascension of Christ, leading to doctrines such as 'Jesus was just a man and not God '... And wasn't it missing 1/4 of the Old Testament? Further study is certainly needed...
Sinaiticus is from the 350's AD, and even if it has some of the Greek OT (Septuagint) there are hundreds of other ancient copies of the Septuagint). It does give us one of the earliest full GNT manuscripts. I recommend F. F. Bruce book, "The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?" from 1943, 1st ed.
I don't need a specific version to tell me Jesus was the Son of Man and the Son of God, and died for my sins! God has proven me and performed miracles in my life saving me from death three times, and allowing me to save someones life. It is my Father in Heaven who has blessed me, and it is Jesus Son of God, who died for my sins! If any version of the Bible says different that is a false doctrine from Satan, and the author is burning in hell for leading the flock astray! The Truth will set you free in Jesus name, for he is the Truth, the Way, for he is I AM!
After comparing the KJV to all the modern versions, I find that the scholarship is lacking. The people who did oversee the new translations are not as learned as the KJV scholars. Their scholarship is extremely weak. You cited James White, yet this apologist doesn't know the difference between Christian and Non-Christian. He held a debate with a Catholic Apologist on the subject of salvation. Not to debate the Catholic on whether he was saved or not, but on the subject of can someone lose their salvation. This is ignorance on a grand scale.
Dr white is one of the worlds authority’s on NT Greek and has extensive knowledge on the NT variations . So as for him being weak uhm doesn’t seem like that’s true . Maybe you simply have a preference and that is ok.
Dr. White has done more to defend the gospel, refute Catholic Doctrine, defend the authority of scripture, in his lifetime than what many lifetimes of average Christians would ever do. Nobody is perfect, but Dr. White is on the battlefield. I have the upmost respect for him. He is absolutely right... people are willing to trade truth for certainty.
Simply, yes, every person, at least once in a lifetime, do a pilgrimage, read the King James Version in all it archaic language, from cover to cover. God Almighty will reveal himself therein, even in midst of human errors.
I once heard someone say that the best translation of the bible is the one you read faithfully. I tend to agree. I personally prefer the ESV and NLT depending on my purpose. ESV is much better for really digging into the text itself and the NLT is just a really easy reading bible. I've tried to read the KJV many times, but the language is really hard for me. I understand it may not be hard for you. Some things that may be hard for you are easy for me and vice versa. For me, trying to read the KJV is almost like trying to read a foreign language.
@@maverickmovies1414 the following link is to a book that gives detail on how much of the rheims new testament went into the kjv : books.google.com/books/about/The_Part_of_Rheims_in_the_Making_of_the.html?id=xgwXAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button
This isn't even a matter of KJV vs whatever. If you believe that God gave us his word, but somehow isnt able to preserve it, you have no faith in God. Using James White as a reference doesn't help your argument one bit. When asked if he believes if any part of scripture is 100% inspired he had to admit no. Why? Because he knows if another, "older text is discovered" and oh...now...magically John 3:16 must not have been in the original...you know because this parchment is older and therefore better, logic. He's an ungodly textual critic with no real faith in the doctrine of providential preservation of scripture. And it sounds like you have no faith in God to preserve his word either. Leave it to modern man to say we've had the wrong text for 1700 years. What unbelief.
I like the KJV, NKJV and the NASB. I wanted to mention what I don't like about the KJV. The KJV does not capitalize the pronouns for God, such as He or Him etc. Here is an example using the KJV compared to the NKJV and NASB: For God so loved the world, that He gave His [a]only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (NASB) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (KJV) For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (NKJV) God's Name should always be capitalized, whether using a pronoun or His actual Name. Also, I don't like how the KJV uses the word Holy Ghost for the Holy Spirit. A ghost can only be in one place at one time. God is everywhere. Here are three examples from Matthew 28, the Great Commission: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (KJV) Go [a]therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” [b]Amen. (NKJV) Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you [b]always, even to the end of the age.” (NASB)
@16AV11 you just capitalized He for God. Which I agree with you. The KJV translation does not capitalize pronouns for God. I am just sharing a couple things that I don't like about the KJV. I know that there are several KJV only people out there. To each their own. I don't like the NIV at all, everyone has their own opinion.
2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
Was Peter speaking about the KJV only cult? Because all KJV onlyists are false teachers. So grateful this is not a biblical teaching. Satan is without a doubt behind the KJV only cult
@@ChaplainBobWalkerBTh Stay with your delusions and fantasties and idolatrous witchcraft. KJV onlyism is a false unbiblical anti God heresy, making you a heretic. I prefer to believe God's word and not add some man made tradition like KJV onlyism, which is nothing more than a doctrines of demons. You obviously do not believe God's word or you would not be teaching this poison. KJV onlyists, are like the fall teachers of Jesus day. Whitewashed tombs full of dead man's bones
As someone who has studied the Bible in Hebrew it is the most accurate translation. The Hebrew version is written in a very high, very academic and very ancient version of Hebrew so if you were to hear it in English it would sound like the majestic, academic and ancient version of English. Furthermore, the KJV makes no efforts to please the modern world with "translation" that better fits our non divine worldview.
But the kjv was supposed to be more "politically correct" leaning towards King James in comparison to the earlier Geneva bible. The Geneva bible translation wasn't trying to please the King nor the Catholic pope at that time. Does that mean the Geneva bible is a better translation?
A point made by Dr. Plummer in this video is that the New Testament authors used Koine Greek when citing the Old Testament. Rather than using, say, classical Greek that may have sounded ancient or academic, they used the language that the common people used. A powerful point which rebuts your assertion.
@@zachtbh King James set up the translation & picked from both puritans & Anglicans scholars. Even tho James had the scholarly qualifications (which was quite rare among royalty), James had absolutely nothing to do with the KJV translation, itself. The scholars didn't have to appeal to him but the puritans & Anglicans had to come together & agree on every word translated.
The idea that scribes accidentally added verses to their copies is just incredulous. When copying text, one is far more apt to accidentally leave out words rather than add them.
NKJV and KJV are the most beautiful and poetic. They are my go to. I also love the historical value as millions around the world are reading them and learning the verses. I realized that all the Bible Quotes i remember from my childhood are KJV. I also use NLT and Amplified for reference, paraphrase and to get a more modern perspective on the meaning but the missing verses in the more “modern” translations is concerning. I love your idea of preserving and referencing them all. We need to keep preserving the older texts so we don’t miss anything and as more and more modern translations seek to update the text.
@@kingston163 Here’s the problem- everyone is talking about what they like, or prefer. But nobody’s going to God, and asking him anything. So why are people so gullible? They are listening to someone who clearly the kjv existed before they were born, and stood strong then, and will exist when the worms are eating his rotted corpse. The fact that they do more than remove verses (which more than enough to stay away). They call Lucifer Jesus. Along with other damnable heresies. The nkjv also has a witchcraft symbol on it. I could type 30 paragraphs on these new perversions- but the people who can’t think for themselves, and are scared of a thou, and thus. It’s not waste my time. Idc anyway. It’s not my place to keep someone from reading a perverted version. But it’s also not theirs to steer me away from reading my real one. The one God approved, and that’s worked for 49 years of my life.
Personally, I stick to the word for word translations. I’m not really sure that I trust the thought for thought translations. I love the KJV and grew up with it, but have also come to really like and even prefer the NASB and the ESV.
Earlier (150 years) means nothing; the Alexandrian text form is poor. Read Maurice Robinson's "Defense of the Byzantine Priority Theory"; Byzantine is best as by far most follow it (also it is called the Majority text form). And the KJV is different from it in 600 - 800 places so it cannot be called Byzantine.
Who can set you free…. Jesus!👏🙏❤️✝️ Whose will do we need to e in… Gods!! I own many many translations of the Bible, and I get those two truths in every single one of them. The Bible is awesome but it’s convicting and it’s challenging and it’s not always easy. God sacrificed his only son for us. And now I see that Jesus loved me where I was at when I came to him but he did not want to leave me in that place. And he didn’t! ❤️✝️❤️✝️❤️✝️ His word is spirit and truth and it changes everything for the better. I am a new creation in Christ. The old is gone, and a new life has begun. A life I never ever thought possible Hope has a name everyone… His name is Jesus.
Modern translations are made purely to make profit. IN order to call it different enough to copywrite it has to be 20% different. So all these new translations were changes enough make money. Why trust them? I like the 1599 Geneva.
I recommend the ESV. In my experience, it's been more accurate with certain words that could mean separate things. But of course, just be open minded to all the possibilities.
I recommend the CSB. It is extremely accurate to the original text but also very easy to read. The ESV is also a great version but not as easy to read as the NIV or CSB
I think the advantage of the KJV is something like this: --The English language in Shakespeare's day was at particularly high point and had a lot of built in latitude. --In addition it is actually very literal to the Greek. --It has the italics where words were added for syntax and clarity. While the KJV only issue is ridiculous, it's even more ridiculous to suggest (as you do) that we can some how have "what Peter wrote, what Matthew wrote, what Paul wrote." The King James Version deserves its place in English literature and is an amazing thing, possibly the finest committee product of all time. It's simply a strange state of affairs in which we find some people believing that the Holy Spirit took a special interest in preserving this translation from error. You're dumbing this stuff down a little too far: Erasmus did a fine job. Wycliffe did a fine job. Tyndale did a fine job. Luther did a fine job, (putting the Bible in German for the first time) The King James committee did a fine job. The Douay-Rheims Catholic guys did a fine job. The Revised Version folks did a fine job. Almost every English Bible since was done diligently and with a purpose, not always a necessary one, but some reason, often to appeal to a certain audience--"international" English speakers, neither British nor American with the (not so poetic) NIV. There are notable exceptions, the new "Passion translation," which is a free paraphrase and far from a "translation," a faithful rendering into a language of the meaning and thoughts of the original text without unnecessary additional language and meanings. We have a million more bits of evidence and ignorance still abounds. This whole video seems like a somewhat disingenuous way of rebutting the KJV only belief. Come out and say it, man: King James only is nothing but a heresy based on staggering ignorance, and a false appeal to the purity of the Textus Receptus/Majority text tradition. So why not go back BEFORE the King James to the Bishop's Bible or the Geneva? I'm no fan of the "Pilgrims" but they didn't have the new "Authorized Version." Maybe one copy, Winthrop's personal, and that was much after the Mayflower. Almost certainly, the "papist" leanings of James would have made this new official Bible odious to these Separatists. The same suspicious Puritan spirit is applied today in a weird reversal of fortune for the KJV--it is now old, traditional, poetic, and believed to be truly "inspired' unlike any other. It's helpful to point out the textual problems with the KJV, but this commentator says they are minor, and they won't convince anyone in the "only" camp. (One exception is Romans 10:17--"So then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of CHRIST" (meaning the Gospel), where the KJV has "word of God," a far more common phrase, but one with much different implications. In context, it really doesn't make too much difference. Paul is talking about the proclamation of the Good News, not a general appeal to the Judaic scripture or even the divine Logos as a faith-inspiring principle.) What we're dealing with is a sectarian tradition, and the only thing the Devil loves more than a religious tradition is legalism, but they go hand in hand. Let's state the facts, and let the King James only guys say what they will.
King James is not perfect but the greater issue is definition attack....during James whites debate they were belittling the guy who brought an interlinear what's happening is they are broadening the definitions of the lexicons so you can make a bible say anything. Your almost forced to use a KJV
@@jimmynolet3752 Brother Jimmy, I'm not aware of either: 1. any such unfair tactics at James White debates, of which I've seen only a couple 2. ANY "modernist" lexicons, or any NEW lexicons at all. So, while I don't care much about 1, I'm totally interested in 2. Please clarify your position: 1. What about the "interlinear?" You're talking about Jay P. Green's? Apostolic Bible Polyglot? Or an older one based on the KJV? I'm not up on this stuff! 2. By "lexicon" you mean a Hebrew/Greek dictionary like Strong's or those based on Strong's, which is just about every one out there. Has anybody done a NEW lexicon? That's a huge undertaking, as I understand it. To this day, I'm not sure how Strong did it, and whose work he was indebted to. Any information would be appreciated. Strong was known to NOT be wed to the King James and supportive of newer revision efforts. So... To be honest, I love the King James, and it stands alone as a work of English Literature, but it's hardly more "inspired" than another translation, in terms of Holy Spirit "inspiration." And there's many places where it actually falls flat in terms of poetic power, due to trying to capture the flavor of the Greek. It was a committee effort, like the Septuagint.
@@duncescotus2342 I find the KJV pretty superior to anything we have today however there are a few instances in the psalms which I find maybe the modern versions did better outside the john anchorberg debate where they gave a psalms reference. Yes greens interlinear is what I have it is strongs numbered....however strongs is updated regularly and they keep adding definitions. I'm trying to get a Thayer's and a classical interlinear from what back as well analytical one.
@@jimmynolet3752 Ok, brother Jimmy, I can't argue with that arsenal. That ought to annihilate the enemy that comes near your tent. Good work, soldier for Christ.
This guy is baiting hard to question the KJV when the KJV is not a translation of Greek or Latin but from the direct Hebrew. Anyone that studies an abrahamic belief has to center thier source on the jewish language. Did this guy forget that all the apostles were jewish including Paul.
I read the King James Bible first, and I love it. However, I couldn't agree with you more. in fact I use many translations when i teach my Bible study group.
Fine. Have your own religion and "textual tradition". Just please stop calling your bibles holy. Label them as "non-inspired". Put a "not from the original text" sticker on the front. Please also stop calling the worst manuscripts the best, and the newest manuscripts the "oldest". And if you are going to leave out a verse because it's not there in your texts have the balls to leave it out, rather than deceptively split 1 John 5:8 into two. I know the tares need to grow up with the wheat. But it's time to start gathering these tares and trying them in the fire.
Thank you for having the courage to make this video. One does not disrespect the King Janes Version, or its incredible influence on the English language or Christendom in the English speaking world, by noting that several modern English translations are trustworthy and can be used with confidence. It seems so absurd that fellow Christians would be so opposed to reading God’s Word in a form of the English language that can actually by understood by someone in the 21st century.
If you can't understand the KJV blame your education system. It's literally at a 4th or 5th grade reading level. It used to be the standard by which the alphabet and such was taught in the English speaking world. Society has gotten dumber over time. On purpose I do believe so they can be better controlled and manipulated on what to think and believe. Notice a lot of school systems today teach WHAT to think instead of HOW. Critical thinking skills and an extended vernacular have gone out with window in favor of monkey see monkey do and slang.
@@proverbs31woman51 I agree the KJV is far more understandable than people act like, but we have more accurate translations available today. While the KJV is a masterpiece of literature that every Christian should respect the NASB95, ESV, LSB, or even the NKJV are generally better translations for Christians today.
Agree, I used to find it hard but as my wife and I got closer to Jesus and God and through the precious Holy Spirit it's became easier to read. Holy Spirit will even point out what I get wrong.
good point, especially when some people today are only semi literate. It is hard enough to read a modern translation. I have sat through butchered readings of the KJV by semi illiterate friends who were told by highly educated brothers they must read that version. What a shame. Good for the highly educated who have been long term Christians to read but not for others necessarily
5:10 "the manuscript tradition is overwhelming and vast..." so what you are saying is you can decide what is an accurate translation by the number of manuscripts that agree?
Yes. Because the manuscripts travel across the world over a decent spread of time, you can see which areas of the world added small portions either by copying error, or to promote a certain idea. You can see this because just that one set of manuscripts would contrast with all the rest which would agree. And the older ones can be trusted more.
@@lierox9Source document accuracy and authenticity should be part of the process. If you have small number of documents that do not agree with one another and you then take the majority of them to get a translation, you do not get an accurate version of the Bible, you get the Minority Text, which is older, less trustworthy.
Aleph and B can't even agree any two verses in a row! They contradict each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone! This is the heritage of the modern slop rags pimped out as legit Protestant bibles. But the KJV agrees with the vast majority of mss that agree with each other. So are you saying guessing what the word is is legit?
herbbearingseed yeah, and anyone notice how he accidentally left that part out? to those not acquainted with these byz vs alexandrian text questions... this statement will seem harsh. But the man in this video is a *deceiver.*
This guy means to miss the original manuscripts and their origins.... the manuscripts used to translate the king James is not the same as the ones that were used for these bibles he's comparing...NIV, ESV and many more. Point is they all differ from the original and different is not the same... truth or lie
@@iseehowitis9382 King James Version Ecclesiastes 8:4 “Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?” KJV If you want a Bible with *”power”* , then you need one translated under *”a king”* Better yet; get one translated under a king with a Jewish name (James - Jacob in Hebrew). And if all that is not enough, you will want to get a Bible connected with absolute time (Greenwich England), absolute measurement (British Thermal Unit), and absolute location (latitude and longitude) The NIV, RSV, NASV, NKJV, etc don’t even qualify . So naturally they all change the verse so you will not connect it with your King James Bible. Remember, God promised us a perfect (purified) version that has been preserved Psalms 12:6-7 “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified *seven times.* 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” KJV Why *Seven times?* 1) Hebrew of the Old Testament 2) original Greek of New Testament 3) Aramaic 4) Old Syriac 5) Old Latin 6) German 7) ENGLISH
@@iseehowitis9382 KJV only people should be disregarded. As a former member of that group I know personally it has nothing to do with scholarly accuracy.
So many nasty comments against newer translations. I read the kjv, nkjv, niv(1984), and nlt..To me the Nlt can stand up to any of the other translations and stand proud..Toni's husband
God doesn't need yours , John whites or any other man to help Him make the kjv easier for us to understand. Our understanding comes in being saved and studying His Word , period.
If you listen to the voices that are in your head and act on them you will be wrong almost every time. Studying implies the actual words of God. You need to know what the Greek says. If verses were added in the king james version then they are not the words of the new testament. God never uttered them, a scribe did. It helps to study the right things.
Your grace is awesome. Your love is evident. I Praise God for your wisdom in your answer. I have no doubt you would be a joy to learn from. Thank you.
Thanks Gene for watching! Dr Plummer would love to have you in his class as well!
Come visit us if you get a chance. Our next official "Preview Day" will be April 17, 2020 ( www.sbts.edu/preview ), but you can plan a personal visit any time ( www.sbts.edu/visit )
We also have a variety of ways for you to get started even if you can't relocate. Read more at www.sbts.edu/globalcampus/
Our admissions team would love to connect with you. Email admissions@sbts.edu to speak with an admissions counselor.
Ever online version that I have found, and I’ve looked at a lot, has the Song of Solomon 2:7 with the he vs the she. Any idea where I can find a pure copy?
I'm living in South Korea. My wife is Korean and we have decided to live here for a while.
You enjoy being decevied do you ?
@@truthseekerKJV Your comment on the surface is not done in love and would seem to be mean or spiteful and saddens me as a brother in Christ. As Christians we are to correct in love, if correction is truly your intent. Before we correct an erring brother we should pray for both the erring brother and for our own hearts to insure that we have the right attitude which is to "turn" an erring brother from sin. This is a humble action by the corrector. There can be no pride. This is a Biblical form of correction, which you would know since you read your Bible, God's Holy Word. We are to use God's word to teach so I would expect an intelligent response from a brother or sister in Christ and not just being put down for my comment. I would expect to be shown in love why I am Biblically wrong, not just some brother's feelings about a subject. I also assume you are a Christian who reads their Bible daily since you are responding to this video and my comment about the video. I would also expect, since you are commenting, that you have done an extensive amount of your own intelligent research about word-for-word translations and are probably comfortable in both Greek and Hebrew since these are the original languages of the Bible, not English. You should also have a familiarity with Latin since the Bible was also translated into Latin long before it was translated into English and we get most of our English from Latin and Greek. I would also hope that you understand that there were 17 revisions to the KJV and the one that is now used is not even in the original "old-English" it was first published in. It's true. You could say the KJV in use today is an English translation of an "Old English" translation. I would expect a brother in Christ to have an explanation for all the other non-English translations (like Chinese or German) and why those translations are not adequate since they aren't KJV translations. (?) Do the KJV-only people expect the world to learn King James English before they learn modern English? Would the Gospel message have to be given in King James English to be effective? Fact is; I have never heard a sermon in King James English, only English. Yes, during prayers, I hear the "thee's and thou's" but none of the truly King James English.
Study to show yourself an approved workman who can rightly divide God's Word comes to mind. Please don't forget that without love we are just a sounding gong. You don't want to be just making noise which frankly is what your comment is, just some really sad noise against another brother in Christ.
The Holy Spirit is the best revealer of truth.
Holy Spirit does not contradict his inspired word, though.
@@theoldpilgrimway9129 he does
The Bible has been horribly translated by clerks of a certain denomination who had no clue about God's intend, just like Muhammed.
Still the red line is clearly visible. The original text is crystal clear:
1: God created us after His own image and likeness.
2: Man fell. That is what you see in this world: lust, greed, selfishness, strange philosophies, sicknesses, corruption, terrorism, death, etc, etc.
3: God, the spirit of life, manifests fully in Christ, pays the debt for mankinds fall so we can be indwelled again by His Spirit and be transformed back to origin.
Pure grace, love, power of God for His creation.
Hence the divine healing miracles and casting out of demons His first friend, i and many others experience up to this day!
When Jesus said: "It is finished", He did a perfect job. Nothing to be changed by people comming after Him.
Some examples of these idiotic translation errors.
Saved, from the Greek Sozo means made complete, brought back to origin.
Eternal life from the Greek Zoë means life of God, divine life.
Wrath from the Greek Orge means PASSION.
Wrath from the Greek Thumos also means PASSION.
Etc, etc, etc, look it up in the Kittel Theological Dictionary or in any Greek/Hebrew Strong's app. It's there.
So now we have ignorant preachers parotting the lie that we have to be saved from God's wrath by Jesus (who is God....) and "have to repent or go to hell".
In stead it is: God restores us through Christ by His own atoning blood sacrifice and indwelling Holy Spirit, from mankind's fall, to His own image and likeness (Christlikeness) because of... passion.
For God so loved the world....
God cannot be tempted to do evil....
There is no turning or shifting with Him....
If you don't love you don't know God, for God is love....
The goal of all instruction is... love
The Father Himself loves you....
Jesus healing all..... love
Jesus raising the dead..... love
Jesus casting out demons.... love
Jesus controlling nature..... love
Etc, etc ,etc ,etc.
Amen
@@jesusdeity2010 why can't both of the things be true. John was the one who prepare the way for Jesus and he preached repentance. And Jesus taught love and redemption but said we had to make a choice. What you said pastors teach and your rebuttal is summed up in John 3:16-21.
THIS 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
I agree with almost everything that was said, but I think one thing was left out: that it is possible to have a "bad" modern translation. For example, a translation made by a single translator, or one made for a specific denomination to conform to their biases, these could be bad translations, or at least worthy of suspicion.
I just watched a video about the Mirror Bible the other day. It's literally a New Age Bible written specifically to confirm the beliefs of a cultish New Age religion... Crazy.
Some might say the same about Passion, I don't know too much about it, but I hear it uses a lot of colourful words that weren't in the original manuscripts just to make it sound "nice". I could be wrong, but that's what i heard...
New World Translation (Jehovas Witnesses lol)
King James could be blamed for continuing to manipulate scripture to support the trinity doctrine. All bibles should be under fire.
He did mention in other video about "bad" translations like New World Translation. Maybe we can add The Passion Translation. I'm not into The Message.
Agreed. Common sense with dictate that if you have two English versions that are not the same, then we ought to reasonably conclude that either one of them is wrong or both of them are. They cannot both be good versions of they have different texts (or lack thereof), we have to be able to determine through God's wisdom which one is right.
I started reading KJV when I was 10 and I have chosen to stick to it - although I reference some other translations from time to time. I rely on the Holy Spirit to teach me. I agree that English language has changed in 400 years and no translation is perfect. However, my observation and concern is that some so called modern day translations have in a sense, appear to water down the gospel, perhaps in order to accommodate "modern day culture". Example is Isaiah 7;14 where one version says "a young woman shall conceive" rather than a young virgin.
I 100% agree with you brother I'm gonna buy a authorized KJV.
@@christopherbrewer4421 I have compared the text of the KJV to the original Greek and Hebrew using an Interlinear Bible.. which shows the foreign language and below each word.. is the translation of each word into English.. and I have found.. the KJV to be the most accurate to what the Hebrew or Greek word used originally.. was.. so I have to disagree with you on that argument...and on the argument of which manuscripts are best.. read Lee Stroebels "A case for Christ".. in this book he interacts with professors who have studied these manuscripts professionally and teach on them...and most professors proficient in the original writrings.. agree that the older manuscripts however flawed they may be are more accurate than ones written hundreds of years after Christ....... Newer does Not always mean better.. it means there is more of a chance for errors..and another tidbit... I read that Tishendorff.. who is acclaimed to have found manuscripts in a monastery around 1840.. which came to be used for most Anglican (Catholic).. translations of the bible..found these manuscripts. in a trash heap.. discarded by the monks.. since even the Monks did Not believe them to be true...my belief is that Westcott and Hort perhaps had the same mindset..perhaps it was more about becoming famous for these men.. instead of doing the Right thing?...
And here inlies the hipocritc well being
@@christopherbrewer4421 let's take a look at some of the deviate ideas in the hearts of men today that were unheard of 400 years ago....
gender neutality.... who would have ever thought THIS would be an issue?
replacing the word Hell with Sheol or Hades
calling a young virgin a young woman .. which she is .......but lets just call a spade a spade for cryin out loud.. don't soften it...
Ass.. meant ...donkey.. so what?.
Gay.. meant ..happy..so WHAT?.
God called Adam and Eve both ADAM...this was changed to MAN.. in some translations...
John 2:4 from "What have I to do with thee?".. to "what does that have to do with us?"
@@jeffcarlson3269 Whatever interlinear you are using is still a translation. It is still a compilation of texts with english words chosen as 'translations'. if your methodology was sound, godly seminaries (if such a thing can be said) would simply issue interlinear Bibles instead of teaching Greek and Hebrew in ancient context. Perhaps I'm missing the point you're trying to make. but i want to urge you to look into whether 'an interlinear Bible' is actually 'original Greek and Hebrew', and if it is 'original', then what manuscript is it using and what english choices are being made and why. The fact is we have more manuscripts now than when the KJV was created. that means we can compare more manuscripts throughout a wider time range and figure out what things were original, what was added, where errors were made, and get an idea of what is reliable. AND, we have a better understanding of ancient language meaning we can more accurately translate meaning, knowing for example when poetic or artistic phrases or figures of speech are used that lose meaning between ancient cultures and 'ours'. i encourage you to search for and watch: "Dr. James White: Which Bible translation is the most reliable? Episode 1326" on wretched's yt channel. then verify the claims.
Bottom line, it is not a question of whether the words chosen in the KJV to translate the texts they used in the translation were best according to our understanding today. that's not the point and assumes the sources they used were reliable. the question and the point is whether the text source they used were accurate/reliable to begin with. the answer to that seems to be no. this is why there are extra verses and different meanings found in the KJV (especially before it has been revised) compared to the more reliable translations.
Spanish (Latin root) is my first language , English second. When I became a Christian I started to read the KJB and loved the majestic vocabulary of that era .I find that as culture becomes corrupt so does the language, truth becomes blurred and we lose the way to communicate with each other.
Seeet
Sweet
👍👏👏👏
though you could argue that culture today is less corrupt than in 1611. One word from the King back then and you were dead meat. I don't think King Charles has that kind of power today.
So true! Well said, brother.👍🌿
God will protect his Word believe it or not
yes, He will. He will protect His Word from having words added to it.
Guilherme Coelho : what about words taken from it by man and Satan? Would He not restore those words before He comes back, so we don’t stumble, so our judgement is just?
God gave his word to man. For man to keep. Man has done a piss-poor job of it! Starting with allowing Constantine to dictate exactly what the church was going to look like, and deifying him as much as possible. So much so that the Catholics eventually ignored a lot of parts of the Bible because certain churches wouldn't comply with Constantine's order.
@ it goes a lot deeper. Churches, primarily the Catholic church, but others were involved, use Biblical scripture as reason to destroy knowledge that set us back thousands of years. Not only knowledge of God. But knowledge of astrophysics, engineering, etc etc etc.
@ are you Church of Christ?
My issues come from little things sometimes. Let's take a look at two very simple, rather subtle alterations between the King James Version and the New King James Version.
(KJV)
“Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder. Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things.” - Proverbs 23:31-33
(NKJV)
“Do not look on the wine when it is red,
When it sparkles in the cup, When it swirls around smoothly; At the last it bites like a serpent,
And stings like a viper. Your eyes will see strange things,
And your heart will utter perverse things.” - Proverbs 23:31-33
Now there were minor, and rather insignificant changes made here like KJV's "adder" changed to the NKJV's "viper". KJV's "gives it's colour" changes to NKJV's "sparkles in the cup". Not really terrible changes and not really damaging, I'll agree. However... There is one change that, in my opinion, changes things quite a bit. In the KJV, the verse says that when you drink alcohol, "Your eyes shall behold strange women" while the NKJV says "Your eyes will see strange things". WHOA... These two things are VERY different. The words "women" and "things" are clearly very different. This one change almost seems to alter the entire context or meaning of the verse. "Women" is very specific and a deliberate word choice while "things" is incredibly broad and could mean a wide variety of things. I believe the KJV is warning about ADULTERY or at least, fornication. A "strange woman" is NOT your wife. But the NKJV says "things" which is non-descriptive and could be used to represent a whole slew of things.
This is one problem I ran into with the NKJV. There seem to be small changes that are not only unnecessary, but might actually take away from the intended context of the verse. Another I found was in Romans.
(KJV)
“But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.” - Romans 6:17-18
(NKJV)
“But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.” - Romans 6:17-18
Here, the word "servant" found in the KJV has been changed to "slave" in the NKJV. Now this doesn't seem like that big of a deal, and maybe it's not to most people. But, call me a perfectionist because it bothers me. A slave and a servant are not the same thing. It seems yet another change that really is unnecessary. Allow me to provide you the definitions for these two words.
SERV'ANT
- A person, male or female, that attends another for the pupose of performing menial offices for him, or who is employed by another for such offices or for other labor, and is subject to his command. The word is correlative to master. Servant differs from slave, as the servant's subjection to a master is voluntary, the slave's is not. Every slave is a servant but every servant is not a slave.
- A person who voluntarily serves another or acts as his minister;
- One who yields obedience to another.
SLAVE, (noun)
- A person who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who has no will of his own, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another. In the early state of the world, and to this day among some barbarous nations, prisoners of war are considered and treated as slaves. The slaves of modern times are more generally purchased, like horses and oxen.
A servant does his duty and his or her service of their own free will. We serve God and Christ because we WANT to, not because we HAVE to. A slave has no such choice. They do what they do and perform their service and duty because someone is forcing it onto them. These two things are very different. Now I know that most of you just "get it", right? But some people don't. There are people who use these kind of things in arguments AGAINST the faith. How many atheists will say that Christians are "slaves"? And when our own Bibles are actually calling us slaves to God, that only supports their argument. This is why I have issues with modern translations really. Things like modern sentence structure and what not are... Eh. But not really criminal. It's the changing of words like THESE examples that bother me. "Women" to "things" and "Servants" to "Slaves". I have a problem with that because it changes things and it can change the intended purpose of the verses being read. That's the way I see it.
(I do own a NKJV Bible and I do use it. In my opinion, it is the best "alternative" translation to the KJV. I suppose that is because for the most part, it IS the KJV. Only there are little changes to wording. There are many verses left perfectly in tact. I will say this: I will always prefer the KJV. HOWEVER... I won't forbid someone to read the NKJV as it IS useful. For the most part, it is compatible with the KJV in most every way. And, I will admit that numbers of the word changes are not "criminal". I will ALWAYS have my issues with other modern translations. Of that I am sure. There seem to be too many problems with some of them. So, I suppose to put it clearly, I am not exactly a KJV Only Man. BUT, I am a KJV/NKJV guy. I don't like to go anywhere but those two places.
I purchased an NKJV Bible for my younger brother because the KJV's wording is archaic and old-world (one of several reasons I love it). I chose the NKJV because it is the closest to the KJV you'll get. It is not an awful translation brothers and sisters. It really isn't. I will say that I am glad that I knew the KJV first though. When I read the verses I listed above in the NKJV, I recognized the changes immediately because I had already read them in the KJV. Had I not done that, I would not have noticed. I would not give my brother a translation of the Bible I thought would be bad for him. I can assure you of that. One reason I even purchased my NKJV Bible is because I wanted to check it out for myself and "proof read it". And, while I found things I was kind of bothered by, I was delighted to find that much of the KJV was preserved. Again, I would not have gotten a copy for my brother if I thought it wasn't worth it.)
Sebastian concerning the second one, look into the original word used, and I might be willing to bet it was Slave. New Bible translations are know for translating the original word which means slave, as servant or bond servant.
Well said .. i would like to know more.. Have you thought of intent.. i mean why change it .. if it fits a narrative or destroys one.. why ? Who does this change hurt or benifit ...? Honest question..
Or else why do it..? unnecessary u say.. but i think its more malevolent...
@@jesseayotte6925 the original word doesn't exist. Do you have it? The minority text is not the original or even accurate. They don't agree among themselves. The majority text does. The majority text is from the original
ַ ל 23:31
al
must-not-be
־
-
תֵּ רֶ א
thra
you-are-staring
יַיִ ן
iin
wine
כִּ י
ki
that
יִ תְ אַ דָּ ם
ithadm
he-is-being-sred
כִּ י
ki
that
־
-
יִ תֵּ ן
ithn
he-is-giving
K
בַּ כִּ יס
b·kis
in·the·purse
Look not thou upon the
wine when it is red, when it
giveth his colour in the cup,
[when] it moveth itself
aright.
31
Q
בַּ כּ
ס
b·kus
in·the·cup
עֵ ינ
oin·u
sparkle-of·him
יִ תְ הַ לֵּ .
ithelk
he-is-swalking
בְּ מֵ ישָׁ רִ ים
b·mishrim
in·equities
:
:
אַ חֲ רִ ית
23:32
achrith·u
last-of·him
כְּ נָחָ שׁ
k·nchsh
as·serpent
יִ שָּׁ .
ishk
he-shall-bite
וּכְ צִ פְ עֹ נִ י
u·k·tzphoni
and·as·viper
יַפְ רִ שׁ
iphrsh
he-shall-cspread
:
:
At the last it biteth like a
serpent, and stingeth like an
adder.
32
עֵ ינֶי 23:33
oini·k
eyes-of·you
יִ רְ אוּ
irau
they-shall-see
זָר
ת
zruth
strange-things
וְ לִ בְּ
u·lb·k
and·heart-of·you
יְ דַ בֵּ ר
idbr
he-shall-mspeak
תַּ הְ פֻּכ
ת
thephkuth
waywardnesses
:
:
Thine eyes shall behold
strange women, and thine
heart shall utter perverse
things.
The Proverbs text should read strange woman. The same Hebrew (zarowt) word in Proverbs 22:14 is translated strange woman.
In Romans the the Greek word is doulos it should be translated slaves. Servants are not in bondage slaves are in bondage. The proper Greek word for servant would be diakonon or deacon.
If YHVH wants you to know the truth no man can keep it from you.
What? Where? When? What middle age are you speaking about?
King James was a flaming homosexual.
Sir Walter Raleigh, a prominent member of the royal court, once quipped that “We have had King Elizabeth; now we have Queen James."
Is that why he gave us the KJV?
@@lewyndenley6381 A panel of scholars was picked by King James I of England to reach a consensus as to a different translation of the text of the Bible.
In other words, the translation was voted on.
There were other translations that were favored by the scholars that simply didn’t make the cut.
They were all inspired to make their own individual conclusions.
This is how you arrive at a CONSENSUS of opinion.
@@lewyndenley6381 It was a small group of scholars who gave King James I a new translation of the Bible.
There are over 900 English translations of the Bible. The guy talks about the 6,000 manuscripts as witnesses. But if the 6,000 witnesses all have opposing testimonies, you're back to square one. Which ones are we to believe? The King James Bible has been confirmed by the Lord in the hearts of millions of believers for almost 400 years. I have read various translations but was always led back to the KJV, that's my Bible. Ecclesiastes 12:12 says, "...of making many books there is no end".
As an Hispanic, I choose to read KJV. My primary language is Spanish. I decided to read in English and I started off with NLT in which I thought it was a very good translation. But when I read the KJV, they’re is something special in that translation that made/makes an impact in my life, versus reading newer translations that amplify a little too much and takes away the purity of what God spoke. (I am not a KJV onlyist)
Don't be afraid of labels, we all are One God, One Holy Spirit and One faith believers, we just believe there is One Holy Bible that God keeps pure Ps 12:6. PS- keep out the stuff they get in the other translations like 2Sam21:19(someone other than David kills Goliath) , Mark 9:29 has a incorrect method of exorcism, John 5:4 is missing ... and that's just a few!
So sad to see how narrow minded people like you really believe that God himself wrote the KJV of the Bible himself. Do your research. Learn the truth of how flawed the KJV Bible is.
@@josephpchajek2685 yeah it’s kind of my go to bible look ups
@@dantombs5697out of curiosity- which kjv do you read? If I understand it correctly the current kjv is the 1789 revision? I know of at least one pastor who uses 1611 only. I prefer the nkjv. I feel most secure reading anything textus receptus based
@@marvinthemartian6788 I guess I’m not that retentive, I don’t even know which version I read. Just the kjv
So many died to bring us the English translation! I love the KJV personally
Dan K :
The KJV is an early 17th century Anglican translation with many errors.
Here's 10 errors in the KJV:
1. KJV: "robbers of churches." Acts 19:37
Greek: HIEROSULOUS, "robbers of temples"
2. KJV: "Lucifer" Is 14:12
Hebrew: "O Day Star" (Lucifer is a human origin nickname for the Devil in the 1600's refers not to the devil but the king of Babylon)
3. KJV: "Easter" Acts 12:4
Greek: "Passover"
4. KJV: "Tithes of all I possess" Lk 18:12
Greek: "all I acquire"
5. KJV: "Schoolmaster" Gal 3:24
Greek: "attendant"
6. KJV: "God save the King": 1Sam 10:24, 2Sam 16:16, 1Kings 1:25
Hebrew: "May the king live" ( reflects the British culture of the 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.)
7. KJV: "God Forbid." Ro. 3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; 11:1,11; 1 Co. 6:15; Ga. 2:17; 3:21; 6:14
Greek: "may it not be" or "let it not be." (KJV adds the word God where it is absent in the TR because it was a common expression in 1600's.)
8. KJV: "sweet savour" Lev. 6:21; 8:28; 17:6; 23:18
Hebrew: "soothing aroma"
9. KJV: "ashes upon his face" 1 Kings 20:38
Hebrew: "bandage over his eyes" (KJV varies from TR by using ashes)
10. Mark 7:19b. The KJV has the Lord Jesus making a statement about excretion ("purging all meats").
Greek: the actual translation should be something like "Thus he declared all foods clean" (ESV).
Covenant Caswell It has no errors whatsoever. You do realise everything you just quoted is still translated correctly. God forbid, oh it’s an error because let it not be so. That is the same thing. For someone to think Gods perfect word is corrupt and has errors cannot stand on his word.
thats a good point, i'd be interested to hear how many people died for the sake of the NIV or NASB
Tyndale died 1km from my house.
Covenant Caswell
Those can literally be interpreted the exact same.
I currently have the NKJV and all I can say is that I received a call from my family that my uncle was dying. He had cancer and a collapsed lung. Also coughed up blood. At first the hospital was only admitting 2 visitors at a time and eventually approved 3. Soon after we were all called in because he was about to pass. 6 breathes per minute and eyes rolled back. My cousin said, “this is what god wants.” My cousins are not believers. I’m the only Christian in the family. While holding my NKJV I said, “Father, please forgive us of our sins.” After that I read 2 Samuel 7:28 and Romans 16:20 and said Amen. Not long after my uncle started recovering and no longer required intensive care. The lords word does not return to him void. This power is in Exodus 19:5. Believe and you shall receive!!!!!!
@Nick-wn1xw I believe you brother Nick but I am not bothered if they say it was Satan. The Bible says that those that deny the father and the son is the Antichrist. I am all for Jesus!!!!
@Nick-wn1xw 👏😂👏boy, there are some psycho KJV only fanatics huh! I've come to find out. 😮
I come from India, I’ve delighted in the King James Bible since childhood, it is authenticity, majestic in English literature. Many rise to diminish it, but it shall remain as the crown of all English translation. “It fainteth not, nor fadeth even in the passing age and time.
I am from England, the country of origin for the KJV. The KJV does fail. There are older manuscripts than the Masoretic Hebew text which is about 900AD. Parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls are 200BC, a difference of 1100 years. I prefer the modern translations like the NASB or ESV.
My ESV has footnotes every time the Septuagint is used because the Hebrew is unclear. Now where is the KJV footnotes? They don't exist.
I would not use the KJV.
@@stephenhowe4107 The first sentiment of Englishman ought to be King James Bible, it’s birth was in the midst of persecution and martyrdom of saints and particularly during the era of Englands Church history. The King James Bible holds the very prominent piece of the history and the heart of men and for its noble and kingly literature. I shan’t forsake. Perhaps there are scores of references and expository study materials to learn. The new translations are merely for the convenience of the lay man, since the modern man is poor in literature.
@@TheAnish01 : _The first sentiment of Englishman ought to be King James Bible_
No. My first allegiance is the set of oldest Greek and Hebrew documents, they constitute the Bible, not a particular translation.
Left out this talk was the work of William Tyndale, who more than anyone, brought the Bible in English to common people. And the English Establishment persecuted this man to his death. He was a martyr. the KJV, in some senses would not exist if it wasn't for Tyndale.
But I would not use the KJV in case I am doctrinally influenced the wrong way.
_The new translations are merely for the convenience of the lay man, since the modern man is poor in literature_
No. The new translations are closer to the Bible in terms of Greek & Hebrew and therefore superior. Translation and understanding has got better since the KJV.
I was reading the updated translation notes for the NIV 2011 edition since the NIV 1970 and I was pleasantly surprised at the detail and sharpening of the language.
For example the translators now understood that Joesph's coat was an *ornate coat* and that was in keeping with Mesopotamian culture of the time.
Where is the equivalent sharpening of the KJV language? Nowhere.
As a work of literature of the time, yes maybe it can be appreciated. But I would not use the KJV to infer biblical doctrine. It is now, no longer good enough.
And the chances are 100 years from now, we will even newer superior translations, because Biblical manuscripts are being discovered every year. The majority are newer documents, but there is always a chance for an older document to be discovered that is older than what we have.
A small percentage of the Old Testament is written in Aramaic.
The chances are Jesus understood 4 languages: Hebrew and Aramaic but also Greek and Latin
Stick with your KJV, it flows from Antioch. These post-1881 Bibles flow from EGYPT.
@@stephenhowe4107 Inspite of the improvements in the modern translations, I’m keen in the literary style of the very literature. It is satisfactory to soul as the King James presents. Every argument to defeat King James has prevailed not but in futility. For it is the largest selling translation in the world till today. Perhaps satan himself envy’s its outreach, he must have employed some within the Christian circle to render void of its value.
My main language is Spanish and I understand the "archaic" King James just fine.
The KJV agrees with many languages as it has all the correct grammar at the end of words. One of the best ESL tools in the world.
The Driver I am a native English speaker and I don’t. You must read it all the time. That’s the only way to know it that well. People who don’t read it all the time have a naturally hard time understanding it. As you probably would reading seventeenth century Spanish.
@@jordandthornburg What a joke. You do know The Lord WANTS us to read the bible all the time, right?
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15
"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." Romans 12:2
You know how many phrases in the KJV are commonly used today? Like "I'm at my wit's end," "It's beyond me," "Rise and shine," "See eye to eye" or simple words like the word "mart?" Where do we see mart today? Walmart? Kmart? Steinmart? Yet they have to "update" the word "mart" in new versions to other words/phrases that don't even make sense. And simple words in the KJV like "white of an egg" get updated to "slime of the purslane" or "juice of the mallow" in Job 6:6. "Weight" gets updated to "encumbrance." "Crown" gets updated to "diadem." The list goes on.
But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and casteth my words behind thee. Psalm 50:16-17
Stop making excuses and get to reading. It's easy to read when you put in the effort to study it (again, 2 Timothy 2:15). If you don't understand a word you can get a dictionary. Webster's 1828 dictionary online is a useful tool.
Hey brother funny how they only attacked the King James Bible all the new age perversion s are okay with those guys happy to see you here I'm glad I'm not the only one that stands up for the old black book
ImBizzyRightlyDividing I do read the Bible all the time. I don’t read it in a language I don’t understand that is silly
Are there differences that matter among the translations? Do they deliver the same message?
1.) What about hell? Why is there a tendency for modern translations to remove the word "hell" and replace it with ambiguous words such as "grave." This was done more than 60 plus different occasions on new and old testaments.
2.) Why was the name Lucifer removed in modern translations and replaced with "The morning star" in Isaiah 14:12 furthermore
The title "The morning star" belongs to none other than our Lord Jesus Christ. That sounds like a big error in the modern translations wouldn't you concur?
3) Aside from the 16 missing verses in the modern translations which are still intact in the (KJV). Why are there missing sub verses and/or key words omitted? i.e. Matthew 9:13 (KJV) "But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Matthew 9:13 (NIV) "But go and learn what this means: I desire mercy, not sacrifice. For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” The words omitted here are but to repentance. Now the Word of the God has been diminished.
I can keep going on and on with more facts and questions: bottom line is King James is a more complete bible.
Well Isaiah 14 is actually Israel's taunt to Babylon. Babylon is being prophesied against, and the LORD said it was going to fall. "son of the morning" was referring to the emperor of Babylon who was often worshiped as a god figure. Babylon is often described as building large cities that "reach the heavens" and the Lord taunts them as He reduces them to rubble. That verse is not even talking about Satan.
Like the speaker is saying, are you comparing the other translations to the king James or are you going back to the original Greek and Hebrew?
Jesus never spoke the word hell and neither did anyone else in the bible. Thats why its not in newer translations.
@@jaykaufman6339 Gehena, hades and the fire were the words used.
@Draevon May Light bearer.
James Snapp Jr. taking on 2 KJVO’s at once Saturday night live, 8pm, April 20th, debating I John 5:7. Donny at Standing for Truth hosting. Should be a good debate!
You don't have to look up every 5th old English word! You should be looking up every Greek or Hebrew word and seeing how it is used in multiple other verses. C'mon guys!!
I dont disagree with you in the main, but first, not old english at all. Its early modern english. Second, while i would never advise or confine the "average" english reading christian to the kjv, if you have grown up with the text you dont have issues like a lot of unexposed people do. And the wierder places are pretty rare and easily overcome. Yes over against ofr opposite, or prevent for before is confusing but once you understand the original meaning it isnt like you have to keep looking up words. But i do follow the complaint. My wife is totally befuddled by the kjvs language because she never grew up with it.
@@provokingthought9964 Has nothing to do with growing up with KJV or not. One factor is getting used to it which comes easily with interest. Another factor is if we have experienced spiritual transformation then we know the subject matter so well that it becomes easy for that reason also. For 300 years, until the early 1900s, the KJV was the one most widely used English document which stabilized the English language so that whatever the Scripture intends a word to mean became the standard definition of the word; we are much better off holding onto an awareness of English which is defined by Scripture rather than letting Scripture get dragged into the shifting sands of secular post modern English. When studying the ancient Greek vocab, and applying it to KJV English, we can continue that process of defining the English based on Scripture. There is one big problem that the KJV uses various words in translation in ways that are confusing, but modern and post modern translations have not improved on this so it's a moot point in this comparison.
When reading Scripture was a chore for me, it was difficult to tackle the KJV language style, but when it became a joy it became easy. We see this with pop-culture entertainment, people simply enjoy it and they easily memorize the deep detailed lore of whatever series they enjoy. The lore of Scripture is Spiritual Truth, not doctrinal conformity, and what is likely getting in people's way is when they are trying to conform to the doctrines of their denomination instead of enjoying the culture of Messiah's Spirituality.
@@provokingthought9964 you make no since but I digress
Most Hebrew and Greek has been corrupted, it takes time to study to find out which one's are tainted and which one's aren't, G.A. Riplinger has a few books on which one's are good, and which aren't, and why.......Plus, if God wanted us to read Hebrew or Greek, he would have had us born back then, imho, we should be reading, and led by the Holy Spirit first, and if we don't understand something, then look into that.
@@drtruthseeker8400 I don't believe most is corrupted. God is relevant in all times and all languages. To have to study Greek etc is an opportunity to BE led by the Holy Spirit. The struggle makes you look closer.
If you remove a verse that should instantly disqualify your translation, right? Also God is a numbers guy how do the different versions break down according to the numbers? As in does it have the ability to get the most accurate instances of blank is there 777 times, 490 times, etc etc. Just wondering, 2nd Timothy 2 15 says were supposed to study and i am new at this.
To your first question: no, not really. We have found so many new manuscripts in the past 400 years. Many much older and more reliable than the ones that were available in the early 1600's. So oftentimes it happens that in more reliable manuscripts a particular reading is missing or is different. So the translators are bound by their conscience to reflect that in their translation.
If you found the oldest dollar bill in the house of a famous counterfeiter from the time its dated, it brings into question if the bill was authentic when it was made. Older manuscripts don't constitute better if the place they are found is controversial.
Andrew I Yeah but, we’re not talking about One single Bill in a potential counterfeiter’s house. We’re talking about nearly 6k bills of widely varying background and timeframes. Nowadays it would be more feasible to cast doubt, but the closer you get to the happenings of the actual events in ancient times the better. The lack of internet in that time is a huge benefit to us in terms of authenticity preserved. One of the major faults of us in the modern day is to think that we know things better than the people that preceded us, when in actuality, the people closer to the original events definitely knew it better. I’m not talking about grasping the greater picture of events, in which case our hindsight often serves us better in looking back.
@@toferyo7473 when you do a little research you'll find that the Alexandrian text type comprises 3 to 5 percent of the extant texts (depending on who you read) and the Byzantine text type around 93 percent. The Alexandrian varies much more and more widely within itself than the Byzantine. KJV advocates say that the Alexandrian texts were "corrected" by people (most notably the Gnostics). If true, then these texts are corrupt and should not be used for translation purposes despite that fact that they are older.
@@toferyo7473 Older doesn't mean better. The oldest manuscripts were found nowhere close to Greece or Israel. They were found in territories where the surrounding cultures could have easily influenced change in the text. By saying age is a more significant factor than location ignores the fact that cults have always existed. They didn't just start popping up at the 10th century. Paul himself was fighting against people trying to corrupt his teachings in the first century. Every manuscript found in st Catherines monastery cannot be verified because its region is way too questionable.
@@toferyo7473 Not to mention that the newer manuscripts that agree more thoroughly with each other number by the thousands and were found all around that side of the world. There is no possible way they all link back to the oldest ones found outside of the new testament territory. The oldest manuscripts even disagree with eachother more than the manuscripts in the majority text.
"Alexandrian" here refers to a text type and not a place.
This is one of the most helpful videos I’ve ever watched. Thanks for creating this content.
For all my Bible classes in college, we were required to use a minimum of 3 translations for every assignment. Found it helpful.
Lies again? Semen Sperm Kran Ji
Dr Plummer -
I was born and brought up in a family that practices Sorcery and Witchcraft. Gratefully, my parents were encountered by GOD that both of them decided to follow Christ Jesus through the waters of baptism.
My first copy of the Bible is KJV.
I love the cadence of the King's English, but I have difficulty comprehending it.
Because of my voracious apetite to learn the Word, I acquired different versions, i.e., NIV, NASB, RSV, and the Paraphrased translation, gift from Logos.
I completed reading the entire Scriptures, the four versions, in three months.
My conversion experience was not induced because someone shared John 3:16. The Book of Romans "spoke" to me. I saw the tongues of fire in Hell. But, what brought me to drop prostrate is the passage that where sin abounds, God's grace abound the more. I was overwhelmed.
You are endowed with the ministry gift of teaching.
GOD be praised!
As brethrens in Christ, brother, I must warn you that Satan would love to trick you and my brother, I refuse to let him hurt you or deceive you. Remember there are false gospels he has perverted and deceived many, I plead with you please beware he doesnt trick you from GOD. Read below, beloved of the LORD.
1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Galatians 1:1 - 12
1611 King James Version (KJV)
@@invaderzim1265 Especially the false gospel of KJV onlyism. One of Satan's most subtle deceptions.
In the KJV...
“the father” is mentioned 218 times
“the word” is mentioned 469 times
“holy ghost” is mentioned 90 times
I’ll let you do the rest of the math.
1 John 5:7 KJV
[7] For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Have a blessed day.
Isaiah 34:16
Yeah, and 'Holy Spirit' also appears at least twice, what's your point? Ludicrous numerology and silly fables - 1 Timothy 4:7
@@Mic1904 “Holy Spirit” appears 7 times
“Word” (capital W) appears 7 times
“Jehovah” appears 7 times
@@TruthisChrist Which would all add up to 798 in total following your logic of adding numbers together. What's your point? What on earth is your consistent logical basis for this?
Also, almost none of these numbers are true for the actual original KJV - because the original KJV had the Apocrypha. Holy Spirit appears 10 times, for example. So to get these numbers, you had to remove things from the original KJV.
@@Mic1904 The first time LORD (all caps, referring to Jehovah) appears in the NT is the 777th word of its chapter.
First mention of LORD in OT: Gen 2:4
First mention of LORD in NT: Mat 22:44
Seek ye out of the book of the LORD and read
@@TruthisChrist "First mention of LORD in OT: Gen 2:4
First mention of LORD in NT: Mat 22:44"
These are verse divisions added by humans in the 1400s and 1500s. The number of words has no reflection on the original Hebrew and Greek in which God authored His Word. You are worshipping the work of men, not God.
Would I hand someone a dictionary and expect them to look up every 5th word? A professor telling someone not to do research! May it never be! Too many translations (notice I said too many; they can be helpful) is a cause for confusion. Don't understand something? Research it and let the Holy Spirit bring clarity, John 16:12-15.
@@allagatoral3839 what?
@@allagatoral3839 you do know most of the self proclaimed Christians aren’t saved tho, so that % isn’t a real true fact
@@allagatoral3839 I don’t rly identify wit religion I focus on the word but I get watchu saying
~1:10 'We cannot criticize modern translations'. No reason was given. Just told we cannot say other translations are bad or misleading. = False
~258. 'There are certain scribal tendencies that are in the KJV.' Nothing said about other translations' scribal tendencies. = False
~6:02. KJV people attack the character of translators. If one is part of a cult and has a different foundation for their root beliefs character is relevant. We are Not talking a moral failure. He is. Very simplistic. False
~7:00. Reliable texts. Only questions KJV texts. Not modern. No discussion on Majority vs Minority and what that means. Talks about more manuscripts post KJV. But not their quality. Origin. If they were ever used? Or discarded as garbage. Or if Dead Sea Scrolls verify KJV. = False
~10:45 Old English too hard to understand. If you are not taught the Gospel. If you do not understand the Gospel. YOu will not be able to understand the Bible in any version. Period. = False
Throughout. Talks about different translations. Says they are all good. One can get the feeling that anyone can translate and it is good because he does not have a concern with any of them. This is a concern!
There is so much more to why KJV is the best and some translations are bad and worse. To pretend that things always get better with time is a fallacy.
Again. If you do not understand the Gospel. Another translation is not going to be 'easier'.
King James had absolutely nothing to do with the translation of the 1611 version! Check your sources brother. As for the comma Johanneum, if you take it out of the text in the Greek, it falls apart on a grammatical scale. Your basis of understanding is a manuscript that was found in a Catholic monastery, protected by Islam for centuries. Why is it that you cannot see the corruption in that?
The reason why I trust the KJV is because it is not only based on the majority text, but it has miraculously changed my life. Changing some words into modern English is not a problem for me, but taking out whole texts and claiming they don't belong in the Bible, based on one manuscript that supposedly dates back to the 3rd or 4th century is ridiculously blasphemous. I am not a KJV onlyist, but I know by faith that it is the most trustworthy text we have (in English). I know that the ESV, NASB, NIV and CSB have been revised so many times that to say they are trustworthy is simply ignorant.
My lead pastor uses the ESV Bible. I respect his choice because he is a bright young man that loves the Lord, and he is a doctrinally sound individual. I recently purchased new ESV pew Bibles for the church, to keep the congregation on the same page with him on Sunday. I am not against a modern English translation, but I would never use them in my preaching or teaching. I have studied Hebrew, Greek and apologetics/textual criticism for more than 20 years. I have sought for an answer to the confusion that the Codex Sinaiaticus has brought to our faith, and the only logical answer was right before me in my library. I returned to my KJV Bible and I am determined to stick with it until I leave this life.
I came out of KJVOism and I will never go back to that condemning mentality ever again, but to trust the KJV as the most reliable text is absolutely evident in light of all the revisions we see before our eyes. Even the NKJV is about to go through a revision. The word is clear that confusion is not from God (1Cor. 13:33). Which edition of the ever changing modern translations do you trust? As for me and my house, we will trust in the one translation will always remain unchanged...the Authorized KJV Bible.
Are you a Zionist?
I agree with all my heart! Thanks for posting!
1 John 5:7 in the text does not contradict scripture anywhere else so it obviously belongs in scripture. End of discussion for me.
@@Obediah002 quotes from the early church fathers also support it belonging there
There may be some condemning people in the KJVO'ers but the KJV is thee preserved word of God for us today, if it is not defended and upheld as such the compromise, little bit of leaven will leaven the whole in the end. There is no comparing KJV and the ESV in a Bible study; you just can't go back to the language the ESV was translated form like you can the KJV, and on top of this the ESV is not from the RT but corrupted Eclectic/Alexandrian textual line. I challenge you to think this out.
I'm personally very fond of the Geneva Bible as a Reformed Baptist because it was the translation my English and Northern Irish ancestors used during the Protestant Reformation and related events thereafter, such as the English Civil Wars and their settlement of New England and Appalachia, respectively. Their breakaway from Roman Catholicism via their reading the scriptures and establishing their own churches accordingly inspired solely by scripture have given it a very special place in my heart knowing that the same blood present in those acts of faith runs through my body.
This! I love the Geneva Bible.
2 Timothy 3:16
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”
Even the New World Translation (the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible)?
Of course, all original Greek and Hebrew scripture is good. But what about a the 4th complete English translation of that scripture? Is that perfect? Is that as good as the original Greek/Hebrew?
Of course it isn't. You're going to have to use the brain God gave you. You're going to have to study.
@WakeU.S. fromSlumberCensored, so what happens when we discover what words actually mean? For instance, every Bible translates Τετέλεσται as "it is finished". When this was translated, there was only one example of this word in all of Greek, and this was it. No one knew for sure what it meant.
But now, we have many, many examples of this word. We now know without a doubt that this word means "paid in full". Shouldn't a new translation be made that more clearly expresses Jesus' last word before His death?
This is only one example. There are many examples.
God's word is preserved..., in the Hebrew and the Greek. Even the translators of the KJV admitted that a perfect translation is impossible. They admitted the the KJV was not perfect. They said that newer translations would most likely be more accurate. Why do you think you are right, when they said you are wrong?
@WakeU.S. fromSlumberCensored , Why don't they ever keep reading? You were in the correct section of the preface, but you didn't get to the the good part. They talk about the Kings speech is still the Kings speech if you translate it I to French or bunch of other long winded languages. Then they long windedly say
No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?
Weird how they say it might be imperfect and have blemishes, but you say that's impossible.
@WakeU.S. fromSlumberCensored, Am I the one that doesn't understand? Did you get the entire point of that section? They explain that translations can never be perfect, because they are translations.
Is it the Word of God? Yes. And I agree with them on that. Can it be improved on? Of course. 1611 English is a dead language. Can the meaning be even more clear to a modern reader? Absolutely! Such as the example I gave (with your half hearted refutation that still came to the odd conclusion that I was right).
You are modern day Judaizers. You've placed an unnecessary roadblock in front of baby Christians. You've place a roadblock in front of those we wish to convert. Many souls will lost because of this movement.
I have no issue with you studying the KJV. My issue is when you lie about it being the only valid translation. That's demonic. If anything was a demonic Jesuit plot, it would be that.
@WakeU.S. fromSlumberCensored, I'm sorry you spent all that time writing all that. I have no intention of reading it. You can't take an honest rebuke. Even Paul, the humble person you keep talking about, rebuked Peter when he sided with the Judaizers. You remember them? The ancient equivalent if the KJV only crowd. Nothing about that is ad hominem.
Will you use a tactic that isn't information dump.
For some strange reason some KJV only people claim that modern versions water down the Gospel. That beggars belief!
The Gospel is the same in all good English versions, no teaching or doctrine is added, or removed.
I read the Greek and English New Testaments 7 days a week, the Critical Greek New Testament and compare variants with Scrivener's, which doesn't agree with any of the printed Greek New Testaments, exactly, that the KJV translators used, including any actual manuscripts they might have used or compared with.
Most KJV only claims contradict the KJV translators themselves, especially their letter to the reader.
Most KJV only people know little, or nothing about either the Greek they used, or the letter to the reader. Why isn't the letter still included in the modern KJV s?
They just believe what they're told.
I'm going to read the entire NIV. After wards, I will start with the KJV. God willing.
Please pray God gives me enough time in earth to read the entire Bible. Thank you.
Praying for you on this quest. You might enjoy David Pawson’s “Unlocking the Bible” series on UA-cam in which he teaches a lesson on each book specifically. He went home to be with the Lord in May 2020 at the age of 92.
Don't read that NIV or any new versions. They come from Alexandria Egypt and the new versions are really Catholic versions that use the Nestles text. It us corrupt. The NIV and other new versions have many, many bible verses missing and many changed verses. Read the King James bible. Also watch the video by Gail Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions. She exposes the errors in the new versions. Stick with the King James version, otherwise you will just get confused.
I used to read to the niv and I liked it until I found out how they misinterpret GOD's WORD and even took out HIS WORD which I clearly remembered HE warned to those never alter GOD's Word! But now I only read the King James Bible.
@@berean65 can you say the King James version is 100% correct? It's modern compared to the original. Could be many missing and changed verses in it also.
@@brass1951 No and it's not modern. The King James bible was out way before any new corrupted versions.
What do you think of the NIV Bible?
I have heard pastors who favour the NIV complain quite bitterly about its inaccuracies in translation and wish that it had been more literal. Quite a few have abandoned the NIV for the ESV or the NKJV.
Its weird how people keep on saying verses were removed in the newer versions, but nobody bothered to ask whether they were even present in the oldest versions
Bingo
Nonsense!
Exactly but that is the hypocritical KJV only cult for you. Full of double standards and deceptions, modern day Pharisees
Because the Word of God was passed down through generations and now they are digging up old trash and claiming it to be the word of God but why would the word of God be hidden underground for centuries? Don't you think it would have been passed down?
Which is the true Bible and translation?
Did the text begin when the author first made a mark on papyrus or stone? Or did it start when it was edited and added to new scriptural material? Perhaps it began when the books were canonized. If so, which canonization-was it the Masoretic Text or the Septuagint of the Old Testament, or Marcion's first collection of scriptures, which was the earliest collection of New Testament writings? Or was it when the Old Testament and New Testament were combined? Or when the Apocryphal books were removed? Was it the first translation corrected by translators, or possibly even by "God"? Can anyone pinpoint the exact moment when the collection of books, written by 40 different authors over more than 3,000 years, was truly completed? Was the true text created with the first inspirational translation, or when modern translators discovered and edited interpolations? I would be interested in your answers.
At the 10:01 mark, the speaker mentioned 6,000 witnesses vs. 1 witness. That's kind of misleading. The vast majority of manuscripts line up with the King James not the new modern versions.
Exactly brethren.
The fact that many mouths are saying the same thing doesn't make it true.
2 Chronicles 18:22
Nope. 1 John 5:7 is the best example that refutes your point. There is much evidence to suggest that verse was not in the original text.
@@nguyenducdat6579 ummm except it was quoted many times in writing by the early Christian’s 🤷♂️
@@USMCKoontz Nope. You got that wrong. Early church fathers (in the first several centuries) did not quote the verse in Greek.
Latin quotes do not count because Latin manuscripts are translations from Greek ones.
@@USMCKoontz There is much evidence that 1 John 5:7 was not in the original text.
1. Of the nine Greek manuscripts that contain the verse, 4 or 5 had the verse written in the margin, not as part of the text.
2. Of the remaining mss that has the verse as part of the text, the oldest one was in the 14th century. That is 1,300 years after John supposedly wrote the letter. This verse did not appear in any earlier Greek mss that scholars have found.
3. The earliest Latin mss with the verse was dated to the 3rd or 4th century, but Latin mss are translations and therefore not reliable.
4. The early church fathers never quoted this verse even though they could have used it as a strong argument in the debates with those who did not believe in the trinity, which shows that they never heard of the verse.
5. Erasmus, who composed the NT text in the 16th century, did not include this verse in his 1st and 2nd edition. He did so in the 3rd edition under the pressure of the Catholic Church, but left it out again in the 4th edition. The KJV mostly used his 3rd edition to translate.
These facts show that 1 John 5:7 was likely an added verse of the Catholic Church to prove that the trinity is a true doctrine.
I believe in the trinity but because of other verses in the Bible, not this one. I don't think anyone can add anything to the Bible, even though it shows a correct doctrine.
Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
I have multiples of the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV, MEB, and Geneva 1599. I even have a New Oxford Annotated Bible, which was a textbook from college. I spend time in pretty much all of them. While the ESV and NASB are my favorites, I still find myself going back to the KJV during virtually all of my Bible studies. Not only as an important reference, but for the beauty of the text.
When you read the ESV, NASB, NIV, etc., you are readying from the CRITICAL TEXT from Egypt, not the scriptures that flow from Antioch, FYI. You cannot say you have THE Bible when it disagrees with the KJV. Just compare KJV 1 Cor 1:18 with any modern version. You will see the HUGE difference.
Sweet
@@hanraddas9308 What makes the KJV right? Also why are you parroting the Antioch v Alexandrian nonsense? You do know that it was in Antioch where the deity of Christ was challenged, with the Arian heresy that Jesus was a created being. It was in Alexandria that the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity was defended. All we get from the KJV only cult, is the usual circular reasoning, and double standards
@@samlawrence2695 Here’s the problem- everyone is talking about what they like, or prefer. But nobody’s going to God, and asking him anything. So why are people so gullible? They are listening to someone who clearly the kjv existed before they were born, and stood strong then, and will exist when the worms are eating his rotter corpse. The fact that they do more than remove verses (which more than enough to stay away). They call Lucifer Jesus. Along with other damnable heresies. The nkjv also has a witchcraft symbol on it. I could type 30 paragraphs on these new perversions- but the people who can’t think for themselves, and are scared of a thou, and thus. It’s not waste my time. Idc anyway. It’s not my place to keep someone from reading a perverted version. But it’s also not theirs to steer me away from reading my real one. The one God approved, and that’s worked for 48 years of my life.
@@Proverbspsalmslol
I have a NIV bible from 2011 and I've noticed that when using audio bible or the app they have changed certain words
I’ve never been a “my way is more right than yours” type of person when it comes to Christianity. What you honestly feel in your heart in relationship to Christ is all that matters to me.
Are you Mormon?
*_was it morphed by his usage_* *_Translating the King James Bible._*
I would have to disagree about your conclusion of other versions not being misleading. I've had this argument for years. It's to bad that you are on the fence, "lukewarm" on this subject. Your also working from a lot of speculation. Bad deal my friend
There's no speculation about it. The KJV is not the most accurate translation we have, translation and manuscript-wise. It just takes a little digging to find out.
Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. That's KJV. Some versions say forgive us our debts... This is a subtle yet very distinct difference. One asserts wrong doing or "trespasses." The other frames sin in terms of debt or "Mammon." Like paying a priest for forgiveness. Purchasing forgiveness. Clemency for money.
Robert White The KJV itself says “And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” in Matthew 6:12.
my apolgies. i read trespasses in the bible i once had and it stuck in my mind as such. i thought it was kjv...it must have been one of those revisions
Robert White You’re good. I honestly thought he said trespasses in Luke’s account of the prayer, but he actually speaks of trespasses after the prayer in Matthew 6: 14-15.
It's not complicated at all to see in English the KJV is God's preserved word. Just compare verses and it becomes clear in minutes.
John 6:47
KJV "He that believeth *ON ME* hath everlasting life."
NIV "He who believes has everlasting life."
NASB "He who believes has eternal life."
NWT "He that believes has everlasting life."
NLT "anyone who believes has eternal life."
ESV "whoever believes has eternal life."
So which one do you think is God's preserved Word? A Bible that says that a person believing on Christ has everlasting life, or a person believing (on who knows what) has everlasting life? Do you really think God's Word would have "on me" missing? Of course not.
And speaking of how critical God's Word is, even God points out we need to live by EVERY WORD of God. But of course the corrupted Greek/Hebrew texts will remove things like this as well, since they are in effect an attack on God and His Word.
Lk 4:4
KJV "Man shall not live by bread alone, *BUT BY EVERY WORD OF GOD* "
NIV "Man does not live on bread alone."
NASB "Man shall not live on bread alone."
NWT "Man must not live by bread alone."
ESV ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”
So I humbly ask Christians to consider looking only at God's preserved Word. This in turn would mean in English the best by far for many centuries: King James Bible.
There are thousands of other such examples and even verses outright removed. And they con you into reading them instead with "it's easier to read" or "God didn't really preserve His Word".
Please think again.
May God bless!
I love the KJV for the poetical structure.
Modern English: Woman. Why are you crying?
KJV: Woman, why weepest thou?
So pretty. But the best English translation is the one you'll read. 😊
I never really thought about that, you're right the King James Version does have a poetic-like feel to it 🙂
Instead of the argument that modern translations deleted words and verses, another argument is that KJV added words and verses
Except that everything in the King James was translated not added or made up out of thin air.
And to add to that, you'd be lying but that's what you guys do best.
You are not shouty and forceful thank you. I had lots of those people in my life when I was younger, so I left Christianity searching for the True God. Looking at some of the comments, I wouldn't dare to say more. I will try to look you up at the Seminary and you can answer my questions there, or not. Thank you. Gwen
Searching for true God??what the heck?? No body can search and find God...God has to reveal himself in the first place and it's God initiating and people receiving..may be God was after all speaking to you through those shouty and forceful people and you chose to ignore his leading looking at peoples behavior rather than the message.. nobody is perfect not even you ..so please stop your "God search " and just read the Bible and let God speak to you..and believe HIS words that IS the only thing that can give anybody eternal life...good luck...
I think you can ABSOLUTELY say KJV is the best and other versions are misleading.
The basis for comparison are the thousands of manuscripts the KJV is translated from..the other versions are based on outliers that had gross and obvious errors. Stop messing around with this stuff.
Amen
Great video! No other issue could possibly compete with this one when it comes to getting people to completely abandon their reason and common sense. The proof is in the comment section. Translation worship is very unbecoming...
Larry Anderson it would seem you didn't actually read the comment section but just assumed what people would be saying. I don't see a bunch of translation worship. your remark makes no sense.
@@AnHebrewChild i’ve been going through the comment section and have found there’s actually a lot of translation worship.
Question for my KJVO brothers and sisters that I just thought of while watching this video:
Why do KJVO folks say “KJV is the only accurate version because God will preserve His Word”?
Hasn’t the KJV only been around 500 years?
Why are we fighting over a translation that came 1200+ years after the resurrection and earliest manuscripts? Why wouldn’t we be arguing over what the earliest texts said? The original documents weren’t saved so why are we now deciding to use the “God will preserve His Word” argument for a version that came almost 1500 years later?
Thanks for any help!
why would we presume the oldest is automatically the most accurate though?
I dont use that argument. I just accept the KJV as the most trustworthy. It is what my father reads, his father, and so on. I can say a the least that I stuck to what I personally can know is true.
All power on earth is given by God. God gave king Henry the power to translate the bible in to the language of the country he ruled. And since then the only changes are the updates in language.
Also. Even the KJV has had a language update. But minimal changes have been made, one can assume it's to do as little damage to the message as possible.
My question is, why is there such a movement to debase the church from the KJV?
@@dashawncorder5151 Its ONLY as good as the manuscripts that it used. Can you really reduce Biblical accuracy down to your emotions?
@@dannymeeks1723 because the closer one is to the original the less deviations one get from the original.
@ "Because unless more accurate versions are FOUND it can be assumed that earlier versions would have less deviation. The Bible wasnt FOUND. It was compiled by humans." Did you just use the word "found", admit assumption, and then correct your own use of the word "found"? I think this is arguing semantics based on a word I didnt actually use. But thank you for responding.
Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto this things, God shall add unto him the plaques that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. 20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. 21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. KJV
Amen, but this does not force us to claim only one tranlsation is correct. Otherewise you better get to college and start learning greek and hebrew
So the true word of God was buried until the newer discoveries of modern archeology that "found" the Bible afresh... ?
Hasn't God promised to preserve His word? Every word?
The fact that these manuscripts weren't preserved to the public eye until they were (supposedly) found immediately disqualifies them all. Especially when you look at certain verses like 1 Timothy 3:16 which identifies Jesus is God... in the modern bibles that verse has been watered down. And there are many such examples. These "bibles" are constantly attacking key doctrines and that's another clear reason we cannot trust them.
I love how careful and considerate his answer is to this question. Thank you Dr. Plummer for taking the time to address this question, though I'm sure it is a thankless endeavor.
Obvious he wants to be loved by the world.
“If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.”
John 15:19 KJV
450 version that are “so called” bibles
How many versions of the US constitution are there?! I bet if there were half the amount of constitutional docs as there are bibles. This country would implode rapidly, just like the Christian church is today. Think about it.
We need Gods word Luke 4.4
And basically if you study this issue and accept the other versions as this fool does and teaches. the final conclusion is that you accept “inspiration” WITH OUT preservation. Psalms 12:6,7
@@RedSp4de - Friend, you will not find any agreement with me on this issue here. I believe strongly in "preservation", which is why I believe that God continues to protect the work of translation today. Go ahead and write me off as a flaming heretic if you want; I do not care what you think because I'm no respecter of men.
False prophets often speak beautifully.
@@RedSp4de sigh. The "them" he shall preserve is masculine. The "words" are femine. Hebrew grammar demands gender of noun matches pronoun. The "them" refers to Gods people/the poor and needy. Preservation is a true doctrine. That passage doesnt teach it. especially as it says he shall preserve them from THIS generation forevermore. That means he wasnt preserving what came before that psalm was written by that logic. Which is flawed. And why the kjv? Why not the Geneva or some prior english translation?
ProvokingThought ok smart guy.
When were the vaticanus and sinaiticus discovered/ or re discovered ?
I don’t truly understand word thought of the KJV, so I read NIV and NLT…but I always refer NKJV to ensure accuracy for complete understanding. To each their own as long as God gets the glory. 🙏🏽
The NIV says Jesus fell from heaven . The NIV is the worse version it’s basically the Bible for Catholics and as a I repented Catholic I beseech you to do your research on NIV the ESV is decent while it’s not the KJV it as easy to read as the NIV even easier in my opinion but NIV is not good
@@amandainchrist2908 I did do my research, which is why I gave my opinion on the varying transitions. Each person has their own path to God. Again, as long as El Elyon gets the glory. 🙏🏽
@@amandainchrist2908 In Christ don’t turn ppl away from reading scripture. The Bible was written in a completely different language, so do know many words in ALL translations can and are misunderstood. Just be careful because if I hadn’t had my own experience with God’s miracles I would have been deterred from further exploring because you told me a particular translation isn’t correct. As long as I’m following Christ I’m on the path God made for me. Sometimes believers are quick to correct others instead of just observing. You don’t have to correct everyone. Just pray 🙏🏽
@@El_Roi75 there is only path to God and that is Jesus Christ his son .
@@amandainchrist2908 NIV is no more incorrect than your comment.
When ever I read the Bible, I often ask God what He meant when He wrote this or that. Helps a lots. It makes the Bible come alive.
My dad reads the KJV. I used to read the NIV. It was interesting to see how the translations differed on certain passages. I ended moving to the NKJV which is a more literal translation than NIV, but still very readable.
The difference between NIV and NKJV, aside from being "thought for thought" and "word for word" is that the NIV is eclectic while the NKJV used the Textus Receptus.
Hmmm eclectic. ? Never thought about it like that.
@@jeffcarlson3269
*Textual criticism* is a method used to determine what the original manuscripts of the Bible said. The original manuscripts of the Bible are either lost, hidden, or no longer in existence. What we do have is tens of thousands of copies of the original manuscripts dating from the 1st to the 15th centuries A.D.
There are three primary methods to textual criticism. The first is the *Textus Receptus.* The Textus Receptus was a manuscript of the Bible that was compiled by a man named Erasmus in the 1500s A.D. He took the limited number of manuscripts he had access to and compiled them into what eventually became known as the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus is the textual basis behind the King James Version and New King James Version.
A second method is known as the *Majority Text.* The Majority Text takes all of the manuscripts that are available today, compares the differences, and chooses the most likely correct reading based on which reading occurs the most. For example, if 748 manuscripts read "he said" and 1,429 manuscripts read "they said" the Majority Text will go with "they said" as the most likely original reading. There are no major Bible translations that are based on the Majority Text.
The third method is known as the *critical or eclectic method.* The eclectic method involves considering external and internal evidences for determining the most likely original text. External evidence makes us ask these questions: in how many manuscripts does the reading occur? what are the dates for these manuscripts? in what region of the world were these manuscripts found? Internal evidence prompts these questions: what could have caused these varying readings? which reading can possibly explain the origin of the other readings? The New International Version, New American Standard, New Living Translation, and most other Bible translations use the Eclectic Text.
@@JesseMgala Thanks, that was really helpful. It appears you are in favour of the eclectic text. I believe new American standard is more word for word, whereas NIV is more thought for thought. Even though they are bases on the same method.
My iPad Bible (olive tree) has multiple versions. I’ll keep an eye on the NASV.
I favour the literal translations because I like to work out the meaning of what the author meant on my own. The NKJV has a built in strongs reference which helps.
@@sharpsbattle I've read the 1984 NIV 5 or 6 times If I remember correctly, before that the KJV 2 times. I just started reading NKJV in Genesis, while I'm in Romans of the NASB.
For Bible study word for word is better.
What version do you use now?
If diff versions of the bible have diff scriptural meanings or whole verses added or absent, how can we not say they are misleading?
You realize you can put the KJV into that group also, don't you? For instance, it came after the Geneva Bible and it added verses that were not in the Geneva Bible and it removed verses that were in the Geneva Bible. It also translates differently than the Geneva in places. Therefore, the KJV is guilty of doing the same thing you are "accusing" the newer versions of doing. Please, I'm not being argumentative here. I'm simply stating a point that you may not have considered. May the peace and love of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you and yours.
@@jimwilliams3517 Yes, I realize that. My question was open and all-inclusive. Im merely searching for Biblical accuracy. Although I do rely most upon the KJV personally, I am not here to endorse it. That is why I framed my question in very open way. This seems to me an unjust and inaccurate representation of my words. I havent attested to finding any translation "guilty" of anything; rather Im seeking to learn more concerning the potential discrepancies between them from my family in Christ. How is it that you think I am making any accusation?("Therefore, the KJV is guilty of doing the same thing... you are "accusing" the newer versions of doing."....) Are you not precisely accusing me yourself based on a faulty conclusion that I am? Regardless, thank you for your response and well-wishes brother. May the discretion and discernment of God be with you and yours led in love and by the Grace of our Savior as well. I understand the natural defensive reaction to this topic from every person who holds a true reverence and conviction for The Word of God because I too feel this, but thats why I am asking questions. Because God says that iron sharpens iron and we should reproof each other in love;) Im sorry if I caused you any offense and thank you again, but maybe be more careful when interpreting other people's posts. Btw, your writing style seems familiar! Have we had discussions before?
@@jimwilliams3517 modern " bibles" teach false doctrine and are based on Catholic manuscripts..KJB is right.. stick with the Book
@@hushbimbo9395 so what is the KJB based on
@@kevinross6200 Hebrew, Greek ,Old Latin...Antiochian manuscripts passed down by Christians
Doc, in as much as I'm tempted to believe all your explanations, there's no single scripture you've used to support your argument.
Well, you did ask "did Paul, et al write these?"... Gen 3:1-3.
I'll advice you prove your points with scripture, and not just the words of men.
Let God be true, but every man a liar.
In 1120, the Waldenses quoted 1 John 5:7 in their doctrinal creed. Wvcliffe included 1 John 5:7 in his 1380 Bible, so did Tyndale of 1535, the Matthew's Bible of 1537, the Taverner Bible of 1539, the Great Bible of 1539, the Geneva New Testament of 1557, the Bishop's Bible of 1568 and the King James Bible of 1611. -Dr Stringer I wish the textual critics would go into detail for the audiences sake on how many manuscripts are commonly used in the modern Bible versions. There are nearly 6000 manuscripts but the Nestle-Aland greek new testament is still based on two Jesuit corrupted abominations Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Stick with the King James Bible and trust that it's God's preserved Word.
David Chase, amen.
Www.kjvtoday.com presents more evidence for it, with quotes from early church fathers.
While Tyndale's translation thru the great and Taverner's bible did technically have 1 John 5 : 7, the verse was in parenthesis. Stringer doesn't mention that Erasmus did not have the verse in the first two editions of his novum instrumentum.
Amen brother
Dont forget:
*Cyprian writes around A.D. 250, ‘The Lord says “I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one”.’* [The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Church Fathers Down to A.D. 325
@@jbcfamily4802 the following article makes the claim that cyprian was either quoting the Latin or that was his interpretation of the verse : bible.org/article/comma-johanneum-and-cyprian
I have found that the way 1 john 5 : 7 reads in the kjv matches a way you could translate 1 john 5 : 7 of the Latin vulgate, so that may be where it comes from. The parenthesis of the bibles from the 1530s can indicate that as well for they do that with "lucifer" in Isaiah 14 : 12, and the way that verse reads in the Latin vulgate also pretty much matches the way the kjv reads.
Our problem is that we don't have the original autographs so in short what we are left with is this question. How can imperfect men determine which bible translation is perfect. I say that God said He would preserve His Word and has in many languages The Gospel preacher is considered a fool by the world I am a fool for Christ whose fool are you?
"They are going to have a hard time understanding it", that's is a poor argument. The Holy Spirit will open up the Word of God to any one sincerely seeking. Will God use anything other than a KJV to reach someone, I believe so and my example of coming to a saving faith in Jesus Christ attests to that, but what I use now is a KJV.
Why would you purposely make reading the bible more difficult than it needs to be
There are some truly evil cults that force their members to use only KJV so they don’t have to figure out how to twist multiple versions to fit their doctrine and go so far as to claim all of the Middle East spoke English rather than hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Totally bananas, but goes to show just how dangerous it can be to stick to a version that doesn’t use familiar words.
If we follow that logic to its conclusion, we could say that we do not need an English translation, at all. Why not just read the Greek? You do know that the KJV was hailed and criticized in its time, as a modern translation, right? It was written in the slang of the people in 1600's, so that the common man could read and understand it. Before that, most English speaking people, IF they had a Bible at all, or had access to one, it was in Latin. Guess how many commoners spoke and read Latin? it was not that many, to be sure.
The original kjb included the apocrypha. Now what you gotta say?
Amen it sure did
And was clearly stated to NOT be scriptural by the authors, so what's wrong
@@gasmaskerhub2075 by who?
@@gasmaskerhub2075 No it wasnt. The author's of the bible didn't say that. You are referring to the publisher's who printed the bible? Lol
@Gabriel Gonzalez-Rivera That's what I was saying. Nobody reads a book with missing chapters and gets an A on their book report. The apocrypha fills in gaps and missing time periods. It answers a lot questions one has after reading the protestant version.
A young woman named Mary vs a virgin named Mary, Is very misleading.
Almah of Isaiah 7 means young woman. Parthenos of Matthew 1 means virgin. LXX (greek translation of old testament) translated Almah as Parthenos. Matthew followed the LXX. The NRSV and other follows this more literal rendering, having young woman in isaiah and virgin in matthew. But ESV and others make it virgin in both places. Good reasons for the LXX translating it as virgin. Makes good sense fir us to maintain that. But nothing weird or conspiratorial or misleading about the textual divergence. LXX often departed from the hebrew. Note Hebrews 10.5 "a body thou hast prepared me". Try to find that old testament quote in the old testament. Youll be searching a while.
No it’s not! It all depends how u read it. We don’t care if she’s a virgin or not. They didn’t want to add virgin because it may mislead ppl thinking she was a virgin as a holly virgin and not virgin with no man if u understand what I’m saying. Bottom line is that virgin or not virgin meaning never had a man it doesn’t matter . We are here to know only about God n what he wants us to do in earth .
Well, there’s more verses in the Bible that tells us Mary was a virgin though, wasn’t there? I don’t need anyone to tell me she was a virgin, when they speak of immaculate conception, you know she’s a virgin.
@@NaomiCastro-Neo Whether Jesus was born of a virgin makes all the difference in the world. Doing good on Earth will do nothing to save you. Only the perfect sinless blood of Jesus can reconcile us to God.
What news is it that a young woman gives birth?🤔 Now, a virgin giving birth is an eye opener!
When you go to Genesis 2:7 in any of these other translations where does the "soul"that man now has which God has given him come from? See kjv. In these modern translations .man doesn't have one I guess.
Hello Brother, James Wright is the same as you are, How about New age versions by G.A. Riplinger.
Four Zulu Riplinger's book is excellent for people who does not have to read, or think, or spend a lot of time. She says those last words in a video with Kent Hovind. Watch it if you want.
KJO movement is moronic because believers basically attacks their own foundations of faith by despising ancient bible manuscripts. Believers attacks those bible manuscripts even more than skeptics. That's amazingly idiotic
@@estebanrogell9303 why is the KJV the most attacked? You don't find this suspicious?
Repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ
I don't see any book claiming that the KJV is a demonic version...
@@estebanrogell9303 who said demonic? I said attacked
Repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ
I know... isn't weird that "the most attacked version" is not called a "demonic version"? Don't you think that calling a bible version a demonic version, like Ripplinger does, is a serious attack? Come on, the new bible versions are way more attacked, even by believers, than the KJV
As to the oft heard claim that since much of the newly discovered material was older than that used by Erasmus and subsequently the Reformers, they were more reliable, the reader is reminded that the mighty Apostle Paul testified to the corruption of the Word in his day. Hence, "oldest" is not necessarily the best. This point will be more thoroughly dealt with later in our expos̩.
Virtually all modern Bibles published since the late 1800's are translated from Alexandrian texts. Bibles translated since 1898 use the Nestle's Greek New Testament, collation of Alexandrian texts. This includes the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the Living Bible, the New Revised Standard Version, the New World Translation, the New Century Version, etc. Up until the late 1800's, the Alexandrian texts were utterly rejected by orthodox Christians.
The words of God have been mutilated in the Alexandrian texts by many different Egyptian, Greek philosophy, and Humanistic "scholars". Perhaps one of the worst of these was Origen. Among other things, Origen said that Christ was a "created" God. (5) Origen also said, "The scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written." (6) Two men, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, are probably the most responsible for introducing Alexandrian texts into modern Christianity. Their text of 1881 laid the foundation for modern "Christian" textual scholarship, and also was collated into Nestle's Greek New Testament.
Since modern Bible versions, Greek New Testaments, and textual scholarship is founded upon the teachings and fruits of these two men, it would be beneficial to know what these men thought on spiritual matters. After all, the Bible is a spiritual book!
Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 - 1892) Chief Translator of the Revision Committee of the Church of England (1871 - 1881) (Responsible for the underlying Greek text used in the RSV, ASV, NASB, NIV)
Dr. Brooke Foss Westcott (1825 - 1901) Chief Translator of the Revision Committee of the Church of England (1871 - 1881) (Responsible for the underlying Greek text used in the RSV, ASV, NASB, NIV)
On the authority of the Bible : "I agree with them in condemning many leading specific doctrines of popular theology . . . especially the authority of the Bible."
Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 - 1892)
On Creation/Evolution : "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin . . . My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable"
Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 - 1892)
On Satan : "Now if there be a devil, he cannot merely bear a corrupted and marred image of God; he must be wholly evil, his every energy and act evil. Would it not be a violation of the divine attributes for the Word to be actively the support of such a nature as that?"
Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 - 1892)
On Jesus' Atonement : "The fact is, I do not see how God's justice can be satisfied without every man's suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins."
Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 - 1892)
On Miracles : "I never read an account of a miracle, but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability . . . "
Dr.Brooke Foss Westcott (1825 - 1901)
On Catholicism : "Mary-Worship and Jesus-Worship have very much in common"
Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 - 1892)
On Baptism : "Baptism assures us that we are children of God"
Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 - 1892)
On Infallibility of Scripture : "I am not able to go so far as you in asserting the absolute infallibility the canonical writing"
Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 - 1892)
On Infallibility of Scripture : "I reject the word Infallibility . . . of Holy Scripture overwhelmingly"
Dr. Brooke Foss Westcott (1825 - 1901)
On Creation : "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history . . . I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did"
Dr.Brooke Foss Westcott (1825 - 1901)
On Democracy : "I . . . cannot say that I see much as yet to soften my deep hatred of democracy in all its forms"
Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 - 1892)
On Democracy : "I suppose I am a Communist by nature"
Dr. Brooke Foss Westcott (1825 - 1901)
On America : "I care more for England and for Europe than for America, how much more than for all the niggers in the world! And I contend that the highest morality requires me to do so. Some thirty years ago Niebuhr wrote to this effect: Whatever people may say to the contrary, the American empire is a standing menace to the whole civilization of Europe, and sooner or later one or the other must perish. Every year has, I think, brought fresh proof of the entire truth of these words. American doctrine . . . destroys the root of everything vitally precious which man has by painful growth been learning from the earliest times till now, and tends only to reduce us to the gorilla state. The American empire seems to me mainly an embodiment of American doctrine, its leading principle being lawless force. Surely, if ever Babylon or Rome were rightly cursed, it cannot be wrong to desire and pray from the bottom of one's heart that the American Union may be shivered to pieces"
Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 - 1892)
We can see from these quotes that Westcott and Hort were far from "Fundamental". One should wonder why "Christian" scholarship regards these two men in such high esteem!
Does it make sense to trust Egypt for God's words, Origen for God's words, and Westcott and Hort for God's words? Indeed it is undeniable that modern scholarship relies on the fruits of these men. "Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit." (Matthew 7:16-17) After examining the beliefs of Origen, Westcott, and Hort, you should seriously consider whether or not they could bring forth good fruit! But we have only scratched the surface. The Alexandrian texts, which modern versions are all based on, have a very disturbing history of corruption by Greek philosophy and humanism.
The King James Bible, on the other hand, is translated from the Textus Receptus, (Received Text), also known as the Traditional Text, Majority Text, Universal Text, Byzantine Text, and other names. The Textus Receptus is made up of Antiochian texts, which have avoided the corruption of Alexandrian scholars. The Antiochian texts have passed down through time, copied by people who fear God, and believe the ultimate authority of His word. History shows that the Textus Receptus has the strongest claim of being the authentic representation of the original manuscripts.
How About The Archaic Language In The King James?
The beautiful prose of the King James is a treasure which should not be lost. It has been acclaimed widely as the greatest example of English literature ever written. Apart from a few archaic words, which can be easily clarified in footnotes, it is as easy to understand today as it was four hundred years ago. This is why the common people today still use and love it. It is the "intelligentsia" who tend to favor the modern versions. The King James uses mostly one and two-syllable words, and formal studies have always shown its readability index to be 10th grade or lower.
It is also noteworthy that the King James was produced during the period when the English language and literature had reached their zenith of power and expressiveness. This was the age of Shakespeare, for example. Modern English is merely a decadent remnant of its former beauty and clarity. It is no wonder that a Bible translation produced at that special time in history has endured for almost 400 years, meeting the needs and guiding the culture of over ten generations of English speaking peoples.
We have abandoned today many fine points of grammar commonly used in 1600. For example, we forget that "thee," "thou," and "thine" were used to express the second person singular, with "you," "ye," and "yours", reserved for second person plural. Today we use "you" indiscriminately for both singular and plural, thereby missing the precise meaning of many texts of Scripture.
Furthermore, the translators were not only Biblical scholars, but accomplished writers, and one of their goals had been to produce a Bible that would "sing" with beauty and power, as well as retaining literal faithfulness to the original texts, which had themselves been written with majestic musical beauty.
With all these factors in mind, do we not most honor the Lord and His revealed word by having it read and used in that form of our language which was in use when the English language was at its best, instead of in our modern jargon? All modern versions are inferior to the King James in this important regard.
Conclusion
I believe, therefore, after studying, teaching, and loving the Bible that Christians -- especially creationists! -- need to hang on to their old King James Bibles as long as they live. God has uniquely blessed its use in the great revivals, in the worldwide missionary movement, and in the personal lives of believers, more so than He has with all the rest of the versions put together, and "by their fruits ye shall know them." (Matthew 7:20)
It is the most beautiful, the most powerful and, (I strongly believe), the most reliable of any that we have or ever will have, until Christ returns.
The KJV speaks to me, no other translation does.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaamen
SPEAKS TO YOU??? wow that is strange. What does it say?
@@Day12My lol
lol so it is better than the original haha
@@akiraasmr3002 I think these KJV only nuts think it's the original Bible. They are so brainwashed
Kind of missing the entire point… The issue is the Textus Receptus vs. The Alexandrian texts. You can prove the Alexandrian texts dropped known verses , because many of the dropped verses appear in quotes from the early church fathers .
This leads to obvious concerns about the alexandrian texts…
Textus Receptus.
@@JESUS_Saves3747 Lol what does that mean? Are you saying you prefer the Textus Receptus ? It does seem if you go down the rabbit hole and actually start looking at evidence that is the more reliable translation
@@bill_y4762 TR on top
Translation and version are 2 different things! You can have 1 version for a various translation.
So which VERSION of bible is the truth? Not the translation!
Over 30 years ago i had a KJV and NIV. To this day i still read and study from the two Holy Scripture books. I can't get into those other translation books. Oh yeah, back then they had the concordance to help you break down those difficult words. Those three books for me, made for a better study time; Sitting at the feet of Jesus!!!
The NIV is corrupt.
@@doriansmith5667. It takes the Holy Spirit to help you interpret the scriptures! Sometimes the NIV makes for a better understanding of a difficult verse of scripture!
@@darrellbarnes1171 jehovas witness bible?
They belive Jesus is an angel and deny the Holy Spirit power.
@@doriansmith5667. I'm not a Jehovah Witness. I'm a child of the Most High God! And the only two Holy Scriptures i use are the KJV & NIV. I rely on the Holy Spirit for understanding of the Holy Scriptures!
You can't challenge me when it comes to the Holy Scriptures... I been studying the Word of God for over 30 yrs now!
Oh yeah. Jehovah's Witness study out of the New World Translation Bible, not the NIV!
I like the NLT and I used to be a NIV guy because that’s what my church used. I found that the NIV translation has inaccuracies that confused me more and NLT gave me the ability to understand more in depth along with using an app like the Bible hub that provided original Hebrew and Greek text along with commentaries about hard to understand scripture. What I have realized is that some Christian doctrine became man made rules vs Gods design. This led me to be more open minded about reading vs taking everything literally and understanding historical and cultural context I may perceive were not that same cultural context that the people writing the text in their present day perceived. The one thing that is correct in any Bible is the name of Jesus which means God Saves and the story from beginning to end of him revealing that mystery to us which we now know that we are saved by his grace alone (which produces faith) because he chose to be faithful to us.
*_was it morphed by his usage_* *_Translating the King James Bible._*
Is the Word of God perfect, complete, and inerrant? And if so, what guidelines should be used to decide which versions are perfect, complete and inerrant? Surely not all versions, correct? If a new believer came to you and asked whether his version was okay, what would you look for to be able to answer that question?
Interesting that one of these three existing older manuscripts he mentions as being more reliable and from before 1400 (sanaiticus) removed the resurrection of Christ and the ascension of Christ, leading to doctrines such as 'Jesus was just a man and not God '... And wasn't it missing 1/4 of the Old Testament? Further study is certainly needed...
Sinaiticus is from the 350's AD, and even if it has some of the Greek OT (Septuagint) there are hundreds of other ancient copies of the Septuagint). It does give us one of the earliest full GNT manuscripts. I recommend F. F. Bruce book, "The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?" from 1943, 1st ed.
I don't need a specific version to tell me Jesus was the Son of Man and the Son of God, and died for my sins! God has proven me and performed miracles in my life saving me from death three times, and allowing me to save someones life. It is my Father in Heaven who has blessed me, and it is Jesus Son of God, who died for my sins! If any version of the Bible says different that is a false doctrine from Satan, and the author is burning in hell for leading the flock astray!
The Truth will set you free in Jesus name, for he is the Truth, the Way, for he is I AM!
KJV, 1 Corinthians 2:1-16, God's Wisdom and His Holy Ghost upon you is the key to understand His word.
Christ is the Power of God and the Wisdom of God [1st Corinthians 1;24].❤
The Greek word means Spirit and or breath, but not ghost.
After comparing the KJV to all the modern versions, I find that the scholarship is lacking. The people who did oversee the new translations are not as learned as the KJV scholars. Their scholarship is extremely weak. You cited James White, yet this apologist doesn't know the difference between Christian and Non-Christian. He held a debate with a Catholic Apologist on the subject of salvation. Not to debate the Catholic on whether he was saved or not, but on the subject of can someone lose their salvation. This is ignorance on a grand scale.
Dr white is one of the worlds authority’s on NT Greek and has extensive knowledge on the NT variations . So as for him being weak uhm doesn’t seem like that’s true . Maybe you simply have a preference and that is ok.
Dr. White has done more to defend the gospel, refute Catholic Doctrine, defend the authority of scripture, in his lifetime than what many lifetimes of average Christians would ever do. Nobody is perfect, but Dr. White is on the battlefield. I have the upmost respect for him.
He is absolutely right... people are willing to trade truth for certainty.
Read Genesis chapter 40.
Do you have any sources? Any at all?
Simply, yes, every person, at least once in a lifetime, do a pilgrimage, read the King James Version in all it archaic language, from cover to cover. God Almighty will reveal himself therein, even in midst of human errors.
The AV 1611 is without any proven error.
I hear this guy in my sleep because I am learning Greek from his teaching series lol. Love Dr. Plummer.
I once heard someone say that the best translation of the bible is the one you read faithfully. I tend to agree. I personally prefer the ESV and NLT depending on my purpose. ESV is much better for really digging into the text itself and the NLT is just a really easy reading bible. I've tried to read the KJV many times, but the language is really hard for me. I understand it may not be hard for you. Some things that may be hard for you are easy for me and vice versa. For me, trying to read the KJV is almost like trying to read a foreign language.
What do you think it is that God prefers?
@@maverickmovies1414 the following link is to a book that gives detail on how much of the rheims new testament went into the kjv :
books.google.com/books/about/The_Part_of_Rheims_in_the_Making_of_the.html?id=xgwXAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button
That sentence "God was manifest in the flesh" is saying so clearly that Jesus is God.
This isn't even a matter of KJV vs whatever. If you believe that God gave us his word, but somehow isnt able to preserve it, you have no faith in God.
Using James White as a reference doesn't help your argument one bit.
When asked if he believes if any part of scripture is 100% inspired he had to admit no. Why? Because he knows if another, "older text is discovered" and oh...now...magically John 3:16 must not have been in the original...you know because this parchment is older and therefore better, logic. He's an ungodly textual critic with no real faith in the doctrine of providential preservation of scripture. And it sounds like you have no faith in God to preserve his word either.
Leave it to modern man to say we've had the wrong text for 1700 years. What unbelief.
I like the KJV, NKJV and the NASB. I wanted to mention what I don't like about the KJV. The KJV does not capitalize the pronouns for God, such as He or Him etc. Here is an example using the KJV compared to the NKJV and NASB:
For God so loved the world, that He gave His [a]only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (NASB)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (KJV)
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (NKJV)
God's Name should always be capitalized, whether using a pronoun or His actual Name. Also, I don't like how the KJV uses the word Holy Ghost for the Holy Spirit. A ghost can only be in one place at one time. God is everywhere. Here are three examples from Matthew 28, the Great Commission:
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (KJV)
Go [a]therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” [b]Amen. (NKJV)
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you [b]always, even to the end of the age.” (NASB)
@16AV11 you just capitalized He for God. Which I agree with you. The KJV translation does not capitalize pronouns for God. I am just sharing a couple things that I don't like about the KJV. I know that there are several KJV only people out there. To each their own. I don't like the NIV at all, everyone has their own opinion.
2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
Yeah like this Bible Cemetery graduate
Was Peter speaking about the KJV only cult? Because all KJV onlyists are false teachers. So grateful this is not a biblical teaching. Satan is without a doubt behind the KJV only cult
@@ChaplainBobWalkerBTh Stay with your delusions and fantasties and idolatrous witchcraft. KJV onlyism is a false unbiblical anti God heresy, making you a heretic. I prefer to believe God's word and not add some man made tradition like KJV onlyism, which is nothing more than a doctrines of demons. You obviously do not believe God's word or you would not be teaching this poison. KJV onlyists, are like the fall teachers of Jesus day. Whitewashed tombs full of dead man's bones
As someone who has studied the Bible in Hebrew it is the most accurate translation. The Hebrew version is written in a very high, very academic and very ancient version of Hebrew so if you were to hear it in English it would sound like the majestic, academic and ancient version of English. Furthermore, the KJV makes no efforts to please the modern world with "translation" that better fits our non divine worldview.
I agreed. Well said.
But the kjv was supposed to be more "politically correct" leaning towards King James in comparison to the earlier Geneva bible. The Geneva bible translation wasn't trying to please the King nor the Catholic pope at that time. Does that mean the Geneva bible is a better translation?
A point made by Dr. Plummer in this video is that the New Testament authors used Koine Greek when citing the Old Testament. Rather than using, say, classical Greek that may have sounded ancient or academic, they used the language that the common people used. A powerful point which rebuts your assertion.
@@zachtbh King James set up the translation & picked from both puritans & Anglicans scholars. Even tho James had the scholarly qualifications (which was quite rare among royalty), James had absolutely nothing to do with the KJV translation, itself. The scholars didn't have to appeal to him but the puritans & Anglicans had to come together & agree on every word translated.
I've been trying to study & learn Hebrew. Are there any resources you recommend to help me learn quicker?!? Appreciate any help!
The idea that scribes accidentally added verses to their copies is just incredulous. When copying text, one is far more apt to accidentally leave out words rather than add them.
NKJV and KJV are the most beautiful and poetic. They are my go to. I also love the historical value as millions around the world are reading them and learning the verses. I realized that all the Bible Quotes i remember from my childhood are KJV. I also use NLT and Amplified for reference, paraphrase and to get a more modern perspective on the meaning but the missing verses in the more “modern” translations is concerning. I love your idea of preserving and referencing them all. We need to keep preserving the older texts so we don’t miss anything and as more and more modern translations seek to update the text.
Amplified Classic to 1987 is better than the subsequent Amplified.
@@kingston163 Here’s the problem- everyone is talking about what they like, or prefer. But nobody’s going to God, and asking him anything. So why are people so gullible? They are listening to someone who clearly the kjv existed before they were born, and stood strong then, and will exist when the worms are eating his rotted corpse. The fact that they do more than remove verses (which more than enough to stay away). They call Lucifer Jesus. Along with other damnable heresies. The nkjv also has a witchcraft symbol on it. I could type 30 paragraphs on these new perversions- but the people who can’t think for themselves, and are scared of a thou, and thus. It’s not waste my time. Idc anyway. It’s not my place to keep someone from reading a perverted version. But it’s also not theirs to steer me away from reading my real one. The one God approved, and that’s worked for 49 years of my life.
@Proverbspsalms Amen brother!
@@pbmc_ amen! This is foolishness
@@Proverbspsalms I ve never even opened ,held another version. I m a kjv onliest to the fullest👊.
Personally, I stick to the word for word translations. I’m not really sure that I trust the thought for thought translations. I love the KJV and grew up with it, but have also come to really like and even prefer the NASB and the ESV.
FYI, *no* translations are word for word.
@@mookyss it is common parlance for formal equivalence translations. Also there are several actual word-for-word interlinear translations.
Earlier (150 years) means nothing; the Alexandrian text form is poor. Read Maurice Robinson's "Defense of the Byzantine Priority Theory"; Byzantine is best as by far most follow it (also it is called the Majority text form). And the KJV is different from it in 600 - 800 places so it cannot be called Byzantine.
Who can set you free…. Jesus!👏🙏❤️✝️
Whose will do we need to e in… Gods!!
I own many many translations of the Bible, and I get those two truths in every single one of them.
The Bible is awesome but it’s convicting and it’s challenging and it’s not always easy.
God sacrificed his only son for us. And now I see that Jesus loved me where I was at when I came to him but he did not want to leave me in that place. And he didn’t!
❤️✝️❤️✝️❤️✝️
His word is spirit and truth and it changes everything for the better.
I am a new creation in Christ. The old is gone, and a new life has begun.
A life I never ever thought possible
Hope has a name everyone…
His name is Jesus.
Modern translations are made purely to make profit. IN order to call it different enough to copywrite it has to be 20% different. So all these new translations were changes enough make money. Why trust them? I like the 1599 Geneva.
I recommend the ESV. In my experience, it's been more accurate with certain words that could mean separate things. But of course, just be open minded to all the possibilities.
I recommend the CSB. It is extremely accurate to the original text but also very easy to read. The ESV is also a great version but not as easy to read as the NIV or CSB
And you are fine with the 300 times it lessens the deity of Jesus?
Amazing.
I think the advantage of the KJV is something like this:
--The English language in Shakespeare's day was at particularly high point and had a lot of built in latitude.
--In addition it is actually very literal to the Greek.
--It has the italics where words were added for syntax and clarity.
While the KJV only issue is ridiculous, it's even more ridiculous to suggest (as you do) that we can some how have "what Peter wrote, what Matthew wrote, what Paul wrote."
The King James Version deserves its place in English literature and is an amazing thing, possibly the finest committee product of all time. It's simply a strange state of affairs in which we find some people believing that the Holy Spirit took a special interest in preserving this translation from error.
You're dumbing this stuff down a little too far:
Erasmus did a fine job.
Wycliffe did a fine job.
Tyndale did a fine job.
Luther did a fine job, (putting the Bible in German for the first time)
The King James committee did a fine job.
The Douay-Rheims Catholic guys did a fine job.
The Revised Version folks did a fine job.
Almost every English Bible since was done diligently and with a purpose, not always a necessary one, but some reason, often to appeal to a certain audience--"international" English speakers, neither British nor American with the (not so poetic) NIV.
There are notable exceptions, the new "Passion translation," which is a free paraphrase and far from a "translation," a faithful rendering into a language of the meaning and thoughts of the original text without unnecessary additional language and meanings.
We have a million more bits of evidence and ignorance still abounds.
This whole video seems like a somewhat disingenuous way of rebutting the KJV only belief. Come out and say it, man:
King James only is nothing but a heresy based on staggering ignorance, and a false appeal to the purity of the Textus Receptus/Majority text tradition.
So why not go back BEFORE the King James to the Bishop's Bible or the Geneva?
I'm no fan of the "Pilgrims" but they didn't have the new "Authorized Version." Maybe one copy, Winthrop's personal, and that was much after the Mayflower. Almost certainly, the "papist" leanings of James would have made this new official Bible odious to these Separatists.
The same suspicious Puritan spirit is applied today in a weird reversal of fortune for the KJV--it is now old, traditional, poetic, and believed to be truly "inspired' unlike any other.
It's helpful to point out the textual problems with the KJV, but this commentator says they are minor, and they won't convince anyone in the "only" camp. (One exception is Romans 10:17--"So then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of CHRIST" (meaning the Gospel), where the KJV has "word of God," a far more common phrase, but one with much different implications. In context, it really doesn't make too much difference. Paul is talking about the proclamation of the Good News, not a general appeal to the Judaic scripture or even the divine Logos as a faith-inspiring principle.)
What we're dealing with is a sectarian tradition, and the only thing the Devil loves more than a religious tradition is legalism, but they go hand in hand.
Let's state the facts, and let the King James only guys say what they will.
King James is not perfect but the greater issue is definition attack....during James whites debate they were belittling the guy who brought an interlinear what's happening is they are broadening the definitions of the lexicons so you can make a bible say anything. Your almost forced to use a KJV
@@jimmynolet3752 Brother Jimmy, I'm not aware of either:
1. any such unfair tactics at James White debates, of which I've seen only a couple
2. ANY "modernist" lexicons, or any NEW lexicons at all.
So, while I don't care much about 1, I'm totally interested in 2.
Please clarify your position:
1. What about the "interlinear?" You're talking about Jay P. Green's? Apostolic Bible Polyglot? Or an older one based on the KJV? I'm not up on this stuff!
2. By "lexicon" you mean a Hebrew/Greek dictionary like Strong's or those based on Strong's, which is just about every one out there. Has anybody done a NEW lexicon? That's a huge undertaking, as I understand it. To this day, I'm not sure how Strong did it, and whose work he was indebted to. Any information would be appreciated.
Strong was known to NOT be wed to the King James and supportive of newer revision efforts. So...
To be honest, I love the King James, and it stands alone as a work of English Literature, but it's hardly more "inspired" than another translation, in terms of Holy Spirit "inspiration." And there's many places where it actually falls flat in terms of poetic power, due to trying to capture the flavor of the Greek. It was a committee effort, like the Septuagint.
@@duncescotus2342 I find the KJV pretty superior to anything we have today however there are a few instances in the psalms which I find maybe the modern versions did better outside the john anchorberg debate where they gave a psalms reference. Yes greens interlinear is what I have it is strongs numbered....however strongs is updated regularly and they keep adding definitions. I'm trying to get a Thayer's and a classical interlinear from what back as well analytical one.
@@jimmynolet3752 Ok, brother Jimmy, I can't argue with that arsenal. That ought to annihilate the enemy that comes near your tent. Good work, soldier for Christ.
All Bibles are mistranslated, KJB is the same.
This guy is baiting hard to question the KJV when the KJV is not a translation of Greek or Latin but from the direct Hebrew. Anyone that studies an abrahamic belief has to center thier source on the jewish language. Did this guy forget that all the apostles were jewish including Paul.
I can’t WAIT to read the comments below. I have not peeked yet. But I can just imagine that it’s going to get VERY interesting.
My favorite comments are those who say or imply God spoke in King James English and that is good enough for me.
I needed this, thank you!
I read the King James Bible first, and I love it. However, I couldn't agree with you more. in fact I use many translations when i teach my Bible study group.
Hello how’re you doing over there ?
That's because you may not have the Holy Spirit teaching you
@@nathanhyland8671Has the Holy Spirit led you to a KJV approach ?
Fine. Have your own religion and "textual tradition". Just please stop calling your bibles holy. Label them as "non-inspired". Put a "not from the original text" sticker on the front. Please also stop calling the worst manuscripts the best, and the newest manuscripts the "oldest".
And if you are going to leave out a verse because it's not there in your texts have the balls to leave it out, rather than deceptively split 1 John 5:8 into two.
I know the tares need to grow up with the wheat. But it's time to start gathering these tares and trying them in the fire.
Thank you for having the courage to make this video. One does not disrespect the King Janes Version, or its incredible influence on the English language or Christendom in the English speaking world, by noting that several modern English translations are trustworthy and can be used with confidence. It seems so absurd that fellow Christians would be so opposed to reading God’s Word in a form of the English language that can actually by understood by someone in the 21st century.
If you can't understand the KJV blame your education system. It's literally at a 4th or 5th grade reading level. It used to be the standard by which the alphabet and such was taught in the English speaking world. Society has gotten dumber over time. On purpose I do believe so they can be better controlled and manipulated on what to think and believe. Notice a lot of school systems today teach WHAT to think instead of HOW. Critical thinking skills and an extended vernacular have gone out with window in favor of monkey see monkey do and slang.
@@proverbs31woman51 I agree the KJV is far more understandable than people act like, but we have more accurate translations available today. While the KJV is a masterpiece of literature that every Christian should respect the NASB95, ESV, LSB, or even the NKJV are generally better translations for Christians today.
Agree, I used to find it hard but as my wife and I got closer to Jesus and God and through the precious Holy Spirit it's became easier to read. Holy Spirit will even point out what I get wrong.
good point, especially when some people today are only semi literate. It is hard enough to read a modern translation. I have sat through butchered readings of the KJV by semi illiterate friends who were told by highly educated brothers they must read that version. What a shame. Good for the highly educated who have been long term Christians to read but not for others necessarily
I am not a KJV only guy.
But where I do stick to it specifically, is in regards to prophecy.....
Great video!
5:10 "the manuscript tradition is overwhelming and vast..." so what you are saying is you can decide what is an accurate translation by the number of manuscripts that agree?
Yes. Because the manuscripts travel across the world over a decent spread of time, you can see which areas of the world added small portions either by copying error, or to promote a certain idea. You can see this because just that one set of manuscripts would contrast with all the rest which would agree. And the older ones can be trusted more.
@@lierox9Source document accuracy and authenticity should be part of the process. If you have small number of documents that do not agree with one another and you then take the majority of them to get a translation, you do not get an accurate version of the Bible, you get the Minority Text, which is older, less trustworthy.
Aleph and B can't even agree any two verses in a row!
They contradict each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone!
This is the heritage of the modern slop rags pimped out as legit Protestant bibles.
But the KJV agrees with the vast majority of mss that agree with each other.
So are you saying guessing what the word is is legit?
Read Genesis chapter 40.
herbbearingseed yeah, and anyone notice how he accidentally left that part out? to those not acquainted with these byz vs alexandrian text questions... this statement will seem harsh. But the man in this video is a *deceiver.*
This guy means to miss the original manuscripts and their origins.... the manuscripts used to translate the king James is not the same as the ones that were used for these bibles he's comparing...NIV, ESV and many more. Point is they all differ from the original and different is not the same... truth or lie
ASV, NASB, ESV all word for word and great translations. NIV, NLT are great for helping me understand at times before looking up commentary.
I wonder how strong your Bible doctrine is when reading those corrupt Bible versions…
@@Kevin-nr9hp which version of the bible would you suggest?
@@iseehowitis9382 King James Version
Ecclesiastes 8:4 “Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?” KJV
If you want a Bible with *”power”* , then you need one translated under *”a king”*
Better yet; get one translated under a king with a Jewish name (James - Jacob in Hebrew).
And if all that is not enough, you will want to get a Bible connected with absolute time (Greenwich England), absolute measurement (British Thermal Unit), and absolute location (latitude and longitude)
The NIV, RSV, NASV, NKJV, etc don’t even qualify .
So naturally they all change the verse so you will not connect it with your King James Bible.
Remember, God promised us a perfect (purified) version that has been preserved
Psalms 12:6-7 “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified *seven times.*
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” KJV
Why *Seven times?*
1) Hebrew of the Old Testament
2) original Greek of New Testament
3) Aramaic
4) Old Syriac
5) Old Latin
6) German
7) ENGLISH
@@iseehowitis9382 KJV only people should be disregarded. As a former member of that group I know personally it has nothing to do with scholarly accuracy.
So many nasty comments against newer translations. I read the kjv, nkjv, niv(1984), and nlt..To me the Nlt can stand up to any of the other translations and stand proud..Toni's husband
God doesn't need yours , John whites or any other man to help Him make the kjv easier for us to understand. Our understanding comes in being saved and studying His Word , period.
If you listen to the voices that are in your head and act on them you will be wrong almost every time. Studying implies the actual words of God. You need to know what the Greek says. If verses were added in the king james version then they are not the words of the new testament. God never uttered them, a scribe did. It helps to study the right things.
Wake up! Believe in Jesus Christ and you shall have everlasting life! Get a king james bible and believe.
Read Matthew.
@@curious011 don't know what your talking about...
@@MichaelAChristian1 did you not read what your responding too????
@@MichaelAChristian1 I don't like the King James, I like my NIV, thanks though.
“Language changes over time” Me (looks around 2021) “oh brother, there’s a huge understatement “ 😂
dId YoU jUsT aSsUmE tHeIr GeNdEr?!
/s
@@Razaiel no idea 😂 that was so 4 weeks ago…
@Andrew Ervin you know you could just be kind and respect what people want to be called by.
@@m_disulphide I may choose to indulge another person's delusions depending on the situation.
@@Razaiel Why not see it as a perfectly fine mode of being? A binary is much too strict for all the incredible variety of people on this earth.