We are saved by grace through faith. Bible versions are not an issue with believing the Gospel by which we are saved (1 Cor 15:1-4).... anybody who believes that can be saved. But salvation isn't the only will of God. There's also the coming to the knowledge of the truth which requires one to study God's word. 1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. Now, in coming to the knowledge of the truth, one has to have the accurate words of God. And by far, nothing beats the KJB.
I do believe the King James Bible is terrific and an accurate translation, I just want people to be aware of the evidence surrounding this conversation so they can make an educated decision about their Bible translation.
Variety of translations One line from the Preface to the KJV is often cited by supporters of modern versions. It has to do with the goal of the KJV translators in making a good translation better. In his tract entitled, Pick a Bible, Any Bible, Mr. Terry Alverson cites Dr. Miles Smith of the KJV translation committee and states, "Obviously Smith and his co-workers did not undertake the task of translating the KJV with the intent that it was to be the only Bible. Quite the contrary. It appears the 1611 KJV translators would be the first to applaud a modern day effort to 'make a good translation better.' "(p.2). One wonders if the claim that the KJV translators would be the first to applaud a modern day effort is correct in light of their full statement. The context of Dr. Smith's citation is given below: Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk:) but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principle good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark. The history of all the "good ones" which predated the KJV shows that they were all based upon the same Greek line of manuscripts; the Traditional Text. Further, it should be noted that the translators said their goal was NOT to make a bad one good, else the accusation from the Pope that the translators were feeding their people with "gall of dragons" might have some basis. Their goal was to make "one principle one" from the good ones which predated the KJV. Clearly, this is not an affirmation to alter the text based on either the Alexandrian or Western line of manuscripts. Likewise, the KJV translators spoke of the need for many translations. Some have used this to justify the use of modern versions based on a differing line of manuscripts. (end of Mr. Alverson's comments) Bible agnostic and professional liar, James White, who SAYS he believes the Bible is the infallible words of God, yet when asked to tell us where we can get a copy of this "infallible Bible" he professes to believes in, he immediately changes the subject, writes in his book: "When the very preface to the KJV says, 'variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures,' it is obvious that the KJV Only position is proven utterly ahistorical thereby. The position requires the translator to be something its own authors never intended it to be." (The King James Only Controversy, pp. 76-77). The context of this statement was the use of marginal notes to explain the meaning of some Hebrew and Greek words which either carry several meanings or for rare animals or precious stones. Please note the full context of the phrase in question: The King James Bible translators write: "There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. AGAIN, THERE ARE MANY RARE NAMES OF CERTAIN BIRDS, BEASTS, AND PRECIOUS STONES, &c., CONCERNING WHICH THE HEBREWS THEMSELVES ARE SO DIVIDED AMONG THEMSELVES FOR JUDGEMENT.... NOW IN SUCH A CASE, doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident, so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgement of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that VARIETY OF TRANSLATIONS IS PROFITABLE FOR THE FINDING OUT OF THE SENSE OF THE SCRIPTURES: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded." Obviously the KJB translators were referring to the variety of translations regarding specific names of certain birds, beasts and stones, NOT to the wholesale omission or addition of thousands of phrases, verses and words to the God inspired texts. The modern version proponents like James White rip this quote out of context and apply it in an attempt to justify their rejection of the Traditional Greek Text of the Reformation Bibles, and their rejection of many Hebrew texts as well.
you obviously have a good attitude to this issue, which is appreciated, but i think it is important to point out why there existed an "adulterer's" bible ... just to mention that it existed will not do justice to the issue... it must be emphasized that this was solely an error of a certain printing press, not anything to do with the KJV per se, not anything to do with the work of the KJV translators... the "adulterer's" bible has been put out there to ridicule separated from being careful to point out it is solely a printer's mistake, a technical printing error, the printer's press error, a typo... especially in our day, when printing is something different than what it was back then... no one today would make a point regarding the ESV for instance if there was missing a word due to a printing/typo error.... but the KJV is ridiculed for this again and again by certain anti-KJV-only people... i do not mean to say YOU did this in this video, though, for you obviously did not.... - a note in conclusion: the KJV translators' use of the expression "the meanest translation" is taken out of context... the KJV translators would not have accepted a bible translation like the NIV, such a notion was far from the meaning in their Preface... you interpreted this anachronistically... (it is a "James White anecdote") - the information about this is out there.... also, the "expansion of piety" is an issue often taken up, and the issue of "if the KJV translators were alive today" is pushed by James White, and those trusting what he says about it, should do more research... JW is no expert in TC, or in the history of the KJV, his book on the KJO has numerous errors, and fallacies, i recommend listening to the videos by Nick Sayers on James White's errors, videos which contain much useful and revealing information.... :) (standardsacredtext.com/2021/12/11/the-preface-to-the-kjv-meanest-and-translations/)
Thank you for your insightful comment! Right, I agree that the adulterer’s Bible existence has nothing to do with the quality of the King James Bible Translation, I only bring it up to say that our standard must be the manuscript tradition, that way, If someone is using the adulterer’s Bible, we can use the manuscript tradition to show how their translation is in error. And as far as the NIV goes, while it isn’t as literal as other translation, I would say it is a “mean” or rough around the edges translation, that contains the full doctrine of God’s Word
Excellent video! Do I agree with every word that came from your lips? No. But I agree with more than enough of them to walk away thinking, "That guy has not only a proper understanding of the discussion, but also understands life application." You picked up a subscriber.
@@ScienceFaithReasoning No problem. I felt it only fair that you get a comment from a non-KJV onlyist. The responses to you didn't exactly seem fair or balanced. 😂
I don't hardly read the KJV, but I do read from the NKJV and MEV, I stick with the TR because I believe it is the closest to the truth, I also just purchased an AMP and NASB because from reading them, it seems the lockman foundation Bibles tend to be more honest to the text as well like you said except for the verses missing.
@@deeman524 yes I think the NASB are more literal and therefore closer tot the original writings of the apostles and other Biblical authors, but the new Bibles often include verses that are in the KJV (if there’s remotely any manuscript evidence for them), and simple indicated with brackets what the manuscript evidence is for a particular verse. Which I think is best since they’re just telling you the truth about the evidence for a particular verse.
Although I don't always agree with the NASB's textual choices, I think the NASB, excluding the 2020 revision, is at least a more _honest_ translation than a lot of other translations. And sometimes, more honest than the KJV.
I've seen KJVOs react to having their talking points torn down by the footnotes and the preface by saying that those were inserted by the printers (perhaps in cahoots with the devil) against the translators' wishes! (I mean, if they believe THAT...) The Ruckmanite stance that God reinspired the KJV in 1611, and the Riplingerite stance that God had to spend 85 years "purging" the Bible of errors, resulting in the KJV, are especially problematic because they imply that God couldn't preserve his word and had to reinspire it.
The channel Truth is Christ on UA-cam shows the mathematical precision of the KJV that you don’t find in other versions. There is no way man could write such a book.
All new versions come from the Critical Text. All new versions come from the Westcott and Hort Text. Are you Westcott and Hort Only? If there is no perfect Bible today (except for the "Original Autographs) what is the point? What good are the "originals" if no one has seen them? The first copy of Genesis was never contemporary with the first copy of Romans. What does Paul tell Timothy? And that from a child thou hast known the *holy scriptures,* which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 2 TIMOTHY 3:15 Did Timothy have the "originals"? For the word of God is *quick,* and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. HEBREWS 4:12 QUICK, verb intransitive To stir; to move. [Not in use.] QUICK, adjective [If q is a dialectical prefix, as I suppose, this word coincides with the Latin vigeo, vegeo, and vig, veg, radical, coincide with wag.] 1. *Primarily, alive; living; opposed to dead or unanimated; as quick flesh.* Leviticus 13:10. The "originals only" argument was first popularized by Richard Simon a French Roman Catholic priest in 1689, Histoire critique du texte du Nouveau Testament. The Jesuit tradition of biblical criticism (adopted in favor of "church tradition") starting with Alfonso Salmeron had paved the way for his approach. Simon declared that Moses could not be the author of much in the writings attributed to him. Two Presbyterians, A.A. Hodge and B.B. Warfield continued in this heresy in the publication The Presbyterian Review 6 (April 1881): 1. We do not assert that the common text, but only that the original autographic text was inspired. This statement conflicts with 2 Timothy 3:15 and Hebrews 4:12. The premise of believing there is no perfect Bible is the ability to reference different versions to fit your opinions, doctrine or ignorance. If God is an Instructor would he let His students study from hundreds of different "bibles"? Today professors teaching a course require the student to acquire the same edition of a textbook for class study. God is not the author of confusion. The Word of God is Jesus Christ. The word of God is scripture. Both are not many but ONE. One is Holy, sinless and perfect The other is inerrant, inspired of God and preserved.
That Steven Anderson clip is so troublesome! He thinks they aren’t saved, and “Why don’t they recognize the voice of the shepherd?” Jesus didn’t speak Early Modern English, Steven, He spoke Aramaic. I’m sure if the apostles heard their words recited back to them from the King James or any newer translation - none of them would recognize it either! I know many will say the KJV is perfect and all others are corrupt and produced by satan, etc… but the KJV does have a few errors, just like all other versions. I’ve heard some say that if your Bible isn’t perfect - how do you know you have the perfect word of God? Most Bible translations contain the perfect DOCTRINE that the Father gave us. This idea that the Holy Spirit re-inspired the Bible in 1611 seems strange. It’s almost parallel with Joseph Smith claiming new revelation from God. Anyway… just my thoughts. As for the CSB - this is my main translation. It’s at that “sweet spot” between formal and dynamic. I use the NIV and the KJV as well. Great video!!!
@@ScienceFaithReasoning I only heard about the CSB this summer. We were in a store looking at Bibles and saw that translation and had to Google it! It reads quite easy. I picked up one with very extensive study notes.
@@Jeremy_White75 thanks for the info, when I buy Bibles for people I always go with the NASB or ESV study Bibles, but I see the CSB is often cheaper, I just wasn’t comfortable buying it not having any familiarity with it
@@ScienceFaithReasoning Neither was I the first time I saw it. We were shopping at Ollie’s (discounted merchandise) in the Bibles section. Along with KJV, NIV, NKJV, they had these CSBs. The first one I bought was actually a cheesy paper back for like $3. So it was a small price to pay just to get introduced. Then I went for the more expensive study edition which they also carried there. I wish they would get in a shipment of additional translations. I’d love to get an ESV, NASB, or even the BSB.
The NKJV Bible is short by more than 60,000 words compared to the KJV Bible. So your taking away God's word that many words from his children. There is probably punishments to people who are promoting the NKJV. Which it says your name will be taken out of the book of life if you alter the KJV Bible. Which means you go to Hell. Plus, I would say leaving out 60,000 words of the Bible is proof the the NKJV or any other new versions of the Bible are actually the ALTERED VERSIONS which are considered perversions. That information can be found at KJV Revelation 22:19 !
Revelation 22:19 doesn’t say that your name will be removed from the book of life if you alter the “KJV”, it says if you take away from the words of this book, meaning removing the words/message from the text. The KJV has many iterations with different versions of the KJV with different numbers of Words in Revelation itself. So by your standard, everyone who worked on the KJV would be going to Hell for having different versions of the KJV with different numbers of words in Revelation.
@@Studio54MediaGroup And the 1769 Blayney Revision is still different from the 1611. The point is there are different version of the KJV with varying word counts. To use word counts as a measurement is not optimal or accurate. The measurement that must be used for Bible translations is its accuracy in rendering what the original author's wrote, and that comes from the best manuscript evidence available.
@@ScienceFaithReasoning yes, I am aware of the 1611 reprints for spelling and printing press errors. All KJV Bibles today are a result of the 1769 edition. There are no more differences and I am more concerned in pointing folks towards a perfect Bible in 2023. As far as the originals they are forever gone as dust in the wind. As far as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus they are far from the best manuscripts and contradict each other in hundreds of places.
"Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"? This quote is always taken out of context by the KJB critics. Throughout the Preface there are repeated references to the contrast between between the Bible translation work of Christians of the Reformation faith and those of the Catholic church. The whole quote in context is this. "Now to the latter we answer, That we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that THE VERY MEANEST TRANSLATION of the Bible in English SET FORTH BY MEN OF OUR PROFESSION, (for we have seen NONE OF THEIRS of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay is the word of God." It should be clear that Miles Smith (the man who wrote the Preface) is referring to the Douay-Rheims ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT here, which was published by the Roman Catholics in 1582, the Old Testament not appearing until 1610, some five or six years AFTER the King James Bible translators began their own work of translation. Thus the reason for Smith's notation that they had "SEEN NONE OF THEIRS OF THE WHOLE BIBLE AS YET." Even the Catholics themselves acknowledge that the King James Bible translators severely criticized and mocked the Catholic versions. Here is their own Catholic Cultur.org site where they talk about their Douay-Rheims bible. www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4300&CFID=64452699&CFTOKEN=99023368 Here in their own words they mention: "Further, the translators of the KJV make specific reference to the Douay version in their translators' preface, where they devote space to attacking the word choices made by the translators of the Douay. "We have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their [use of words like] AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like [words], whereof their late Translation is full" ("The Translators to the Reader," King James Version, 1611 ed.). "Men of our profession" refers to the Protestant, Reformation Christians and the "theirs" refers to the Catholics. In the previous paragraph to this quote we read them say regarding "the translations of the Bible maturely considered of and examined" that "all is sound for substance in one or other of OUR editions, AND THE WORST OF OURS FAR BETTER THAN THEIR AUTHENTICK VULGAR" (which refers to the various Latin Vulgate versions) The context of the Preface by Miles Smith shows the contrast between early English Protestant translations and the "Bible" of the Roman Catholic Church. Translations like Tyndale's 1525, Coverdale's 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible 1587 and such were translations "set forth by men of our profession" and thus, "containeth the Word of God, nay is the Word of God." Throughout the Preface there is a constant contrast between "our" and "their" translations, and between Protestant thought and Catholic thought. They also state in their Preface - "also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their asimes, tunike, rational, holocausts, praepuce, pasche, and a number of such like, whereof THEIR LATE TRANSLATION, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may be kept from being understood. In another part they stated: "So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God?s holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness." The translators of the AV saw their task as the perfecting of the earlier English translations that followed the Traditional Greek texts as found in the Reformation bible translations of Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible. The supreme irony today is that these same modern versions most anti-King James Bible folks are promoting are in fact the new "Catholic" bible versions.
Thanks for commenting. I haven’t heard a lot of what you are saying here, and I apparently haven’t looked into the preface as much as you have lol but from what you’re telling me, it seems their qualms with the Catholics was that they were promoting translations in Latin that the common people couldn’t read. Which would mean that the context of the quote stands appropriate in terms of their view of English translations, and the way that folks like myself and James White have used the quote is also appropriate to their meaning. Some of the good modern Bible translations today would make them very proud at how serious study and analysis of thousands of original manuscripts have been used to bring God’s Word to the common man with consistency and clarity.
@@ScienceFaithReasoning The original Douay-Rheims was a very obscurantist translation; literal to the point of unreadability ("a vineyard was made to my beloved in horn the son of oil") and left a lot of words untranslated. Richard Challoner's revision of the Douay-Rheims in 1748-1752 was practically a whole new translation.
Thank you for your content brother. I would love to know how I can respond to this video, if you would be willing to examine it. My pastor is KJV only and he recommended this for me. He thinks it’s THE only legit version in English. The title of this video alone made me cringe, but I can see how it may be persuasive to someone who buys into that belief. ua-cam.com/video/t6ck6KrVPIk/v-deo.htmlsi=NBLplD3uguW3UXJq
I haven’t researched the good news Bible. But I would look into the translation of many different key doctrinal texts, compare it to the KJV, NASB, and ESV, and then do research on how the translation was developed (Was it made from the Greek/Hebrew, or was it made from other English translation?). That would be good places to start
There’s nothing wrong with being KJV Only, it’s when you use that to say others are lost simply because they read a different translation of God’s Word, it becomes a problem for the unity of believers.
That's a lie newer versions are not easier to read, because KJV is written at a 5th grade level, compared to NKJV Bibie, which is written at a 7th-9th grade level.
The KJV of the Bible has words in it that no one uses in that manner these days. 99.99999999% of people today do NOT call a donkey an "ass". 99.9999999% of people today do NOT say "apt to teach". 99.9999999% of Bible translators know that Genesis 1:1 CLEARLY reads "Heavens" not "Heaven" in the Hebrew.
NASB, ESV both make Jesus a liar and make Jesus and Satan the same person. I am KJV only but I do believe God can use these other versions, after all He made a jackass speak. But the KJV is the preserved word of God in English. Also, you don't need a Hebrew or Greek dictionary, just get a Websters and you don't need an expert, you need the Holy Spirit. For instance (Insert your favorite verse here.) Did you research it in the original language? Shouldn't you be reading out of a bible you can trust, IE the Greek/Hebrew/Chaldean? What, you don't know those languages? Shouldn't you learn them? No? Than how can you know yours is a trustworthy translation? Is that what it said in the originals we no longer have and even if we did you couldn't read? So, is yours correct or does it need you or an expert to correct it? Did you consult the guru, oops I mean the expert and create the MMTPV (me, myself and third party version). Are you sure you or the expert is correct? How? By faith in yourself or them? Now, who told you there is no prefect translation in the English? Bet it was an expert or a salesman. Must be terrible to serve a god you cant trust or who isn't powerful enough to give you a prefect bible in your own language. I don't have that problem myself. My God loved me enough to give me His prefect Son, His prefect Spirit and His prefect word. How do I know this? By faith in the one true God.
Your main complaint, if I understand you correctly, is that I can't read Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic, therefore, I can't do any research on Bible translations? If that is your assertion, then that's a strange complaint that is self-defeating. If I can't understand the quality of a translation because I can't read the original languages, then neither can you; therefore, you would be just as misguided by blindly supporting the KJV over all other versions that are available as I would be by being skeptical of its "perfection" in translation of all words. I want you to genuinely think about my assertion: Any complaint of the solid new modern translations that are put forth by KJV onlyist, when you take that complaint and turn it around on the KJV, the exact same problems exists. Most of these issues are not reliant on experts either. Most of these issues are resolved by common sense logic that our great God and Savior Jesus Christ bestowed upon us when He made us in His image.
@@ScienceFaithReasoning But your assertion is easily disproved by the blatant mistakes found in the new versions, Even the touted NASB which I used for 8 years. How much of my comment did you read? My point was simple. If your bible is not prefect than how can you trust it? But let me expound. First, I'm not mad. I don't think your not saved. I used many translations for many years, my favorite was the NASB, But before I started using them I used the KJV for 20 years. This eventually led me out of those twisted versions. I wont get into the perversions I found at this point because you have most likely herd them. So, I will start like this. How do you decide what is the correct word and what is not and who gave you that right? Here's the problem. If your translation is not perfect in every word that means there is room for error and if there is room for error, where are those errors? So in any study you must assume the position that the text your using could have wrongly translated words. So, your task is to find out what is the correct word and what is not, than “YOU” correct it. You are the authority on what the right words are, not the author, and anyone can assume that role. This means that your starting position in any debate is open to private translation. Your opponent could simply disagree on the grounds that your word choice is incorrect and seeing that you don't trust every word to be correct, whose to say which translation of that word is correct when even the words themselves are up for reinterpretation by anyone with a Strong's or a degree? In any debate your position is weakened from start to finish and you can not overcome it with logic or reason. On the other hand, KJV only people (ME) believe that their Bible is perfect, every word. That the God who loved them so much that He gave His only begotten Son also loved them enough to give them His perfect word in their native tongue. They do not stand on changing personal translation of words like shifting sand, but on the unchanging rock of the words God chose. The Bible they trust is unchanging just like their God. In any study they simply need to understand what the definition of each word is (WEBSTERS) to know what the text is saying, not weather or not each word was translated correctly and thus, there is no need for them to correct it. They start from a position of surety, knowing what they are reading is accurate and trustworthy. In any discussion all they need do is establish what the text is saying and stand with it. Their position is fortified. They cannot be attacked by doubts in the text itself. The argument that it means different things to different people is effectively voided and no longer private. Its no longer what does it all mean but what does it say.
@@ScienceFaithReasoning No. You are! Time is running out, better get saved before it’s too late. Gospel of salvation is in KJV Corinthians 15: 1-4! You can the information online if you don't own a KJV Bible.
@@lydiaconcha7362 the NASB says in Romans 10:9, “9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.” - does this verse in the NASB have no saving power? If not, explain to me specifically why it does not.
A majority of the KJV text came from other versions already in existence, only a small majority came from original texts, if I’m not mistaken.
IIRC, 90% of the New Testament and a good chunk of the Old derive directly from the work of William Tyndale.
We are saved by grace through faith. Bible versions are not an issue with believing the Gospel by which we are saved (1 Cor 15:1-4).... anybody who believes that can be saved. But salvation isn't the only will of God. There's also the coming to the knowledge of the truth which requires one to study God's word.
1 Timothy 2:4
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
Now, in coming to the knowledge of the truth, one has to have the accurate words of God. And by far, nothing beats the KJB.
I do believe the King James Bible is terrific and an accurate translation, I just want people to be aware of the evidence surrounding this conversation so they can make an educated decision about their Bible translation.
Variety of translations
One line from the Preface to the KJV is often cited by supporters of modern versions. It has to do with the goal of the KJV translators in making a good translation better. In his tract entitled, Pick a Bible, Any Bible, Mr. Terry Alverson cites Dr. Miles Smith of the KJV translation committee and states, "Obviously Smith and his co-workers did not undertake the task of translating the KJV with the intent that it was to be the only Bible. Quite the contrary. It appears the 1611 KJV translators would be the first to applaud a modern day effort to 'make a good translation better.' "(p.2).
One wonders if the claim that the KJV translators would be the first to applaud a modern day effort is correct in light of their full statement. The context of Dr. Smith's citation is given below:
Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk:) but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principle good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark.
The history of all the "good ones" which predated the KJV shows that they were all based upon the same Greek line of manuscripts; the Traditional Text. Further, it should be noted that the translators said their goal was NOT to make a bad one good, else the accusation from the Pope that the translators were feeding their people with "gall of dragons" might have some basis. Their goal was to make "one principle one" from the good ones which predated the KJV. Clearly, this is not an affirmation to alter the text based on either the Alexandrian or Western line of manuscripts.
Likewise, the KJV translators spoke of the need for many translations. Some have used this to justify the use of modern versions based on a differing line of manuscripts. (end of Mr. Alverson's comments)
Bible agnostic and professional liar, James White, who SAYS he believes the Bible is the infallible words of God, yet when asked to tell us where we can get a copy of this "infallible Bible" he professes to believes in, he immediately changes the subject, writes in his book: "When the very preface to the KJV says, 'variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures,' it is obvious that the KJV Only position is proven utterly ahistorical thereby. The position requires the translator to be something its own authors never intended it to be." (The King James Only Controversy, pp. 76-77).
The context of this statement was the use of marginal notes to explain the meaning of some Hebrew and Greek words which either carry several meanings or for rare animals or precious stones. Please note the full context of the phrase in question:
The King James Bible translators write: "There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. AGAIN, THERE ARE MANY RARE NAMES OF CERTAIN BIRDS, BEASTS, AND PRECIOUS STONES, &c., CONCERNING WHICH THE HEBREWS THEMSELVES ARE SO DIVIDED AMONG THEMSELVES FOR JUDGEMENT.... NOW IN SUCH A CASE, doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident, so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgement of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that VARIETY OF TRANSLATIONS IS PROFITABLE FOR THE FINDING OUT OF THE SENSE OF THE SCRIPTURES: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."
Obviously the KJB translators were referring to the variety of translations regarding specific names of certain birds, beasts and stones, NOT to the wholesale omission or addition of thousands of phrases, verses and words to the God inspired texts.
The modern version proponents like James White rip this quote out of context and apply it in an attempt to justify their rejection of the Traditional Greek Text of the Reformation Bibles, and their rejection of many Hebrew texts as well.
you obviously have a good attitude to this issue, which is appreciated, but i think it is important to point out why there existed an "adulterer's" bible ... just to mention that it existed will not do justice to the issue... it must be emphasized that this was solely an error of a certain printing press, not anything to do with the KJV per se, not anything to do with the work of the KJV translators... the "adulterer's" bible has been put out there to ridicule separated from being careful to point out it is solely a printer's mistake, a technical printing error, the printer's press error, a typo... especially in our day, when printing is something different than what it was back then... no one today would make a point regarding the ESV for instance if there was missing a word due to a printing/typo error.... but the KJV is ridiculed for this again and again by certain anti-KJV-only people... i do not mean to say YOU did this in this video, though, for you obviously did not.... - a note in conclusion: the KJV translators' use of the expression "the meanest translation" is taken out of context... the KJV translators would not have accepted a bible translation like the NIV, such a notion was far from the meaning in their Preface... you interpreted this anachronistically... (it is a "James White anecdote") - the information about this is out there.... also, the "expansion of piety" is an issue often taken up, and the issue of "if the KJV translators were alive today" is pushed by James White, and those trusting what he says about it, should do more research... JW is no expert in TC, or in the history of the KJV, his book on the KJO has numerous errors, and fallacies, i recommend listening to the videos by Nick Sayers on James White's errors, videos which contain much useful and revealing information.... :) (standardsacredtext.com/2021/12/11/the-preface-to-the-kjv-meanest-and-translations/)
Thank you for your insightful comment! Right, I agree that the adulterer’s Bible existence has nothing to do with the quality of the King James Bible Translation, I only bring it up to say that our standard must be the manuscript tradition, that way, If someone is using the adulterer’s Bible, we can use the manuscript tradition to show how their translation is in error. And as far as the NIV goes, while it isn’t as literal as other translation, I would say it is a “mean” or rough around the edges translation, that contains the full doctrine of God’s Word
Excellent video! Do I agree with every word that came from your lips? No. But I agree with more than enough of them to walk away thinking, "That guy has not only a proper understanding of the discussion, but also understands life application." You picked up a subscriber.
Thank you for the kinds words and support!! I appreciate your feedback!
@@ScienceFaithReasoning No problem. I felt it only fair that you get a comment from a non-KJV onlyist. The responses to you didn't exactly seem fair or balanced. 😂
I don't hardly read the KJV, but I do read from the NKJV and MEV, I stick with the TR because I believe it is the closest to the truth, I also just purchased an AMP and NASB because from reading them, it seems the lockman foundation Bibles tend to be more honest to the text as well like you said except for the verses missing.
@@deeman524 yes I think the NASB are more literal and therefore closer tot the original writings of the apostles and other Biblical authors, but the new Bibles often include verses that are in the KJV (if there’s remotely any manuscript evidence for them), and simple indicated with brackets what the manuscript evidence is for a particular verse. Which I think is best since they’re just telling you the truth about the evidence for a particular verse.
Although I don't always agree with the NASB's textual choices, I think the NASB, excluding the 2020 revision, is at least a more _honest_ translation than a lot of other translations. And sometimes, more honest than the KJV.
I've seen KJVOs react to having their talking points torn down by the footnotes and the preface by saying that those were inserted by the printers (perhaps in cahoots with the devil) against the translators' wishes! (I mean, if they believe THAT...)
The Ruckmanite stance that God reinspired the KJV in 1611, and the Riplingerite stance that God had to spend 85 years "purging" the Bible of errors, resulting in the KJV, are especially problematic because they imply that God couldn't preserve his word and had to reinspire it.
Why the monster (idols) likenesses on your shelf?
They are Star Wars Episode 1 figures
The channel Truth is Christ on UA-cam shows the mathematical precision of the KJV that you don’t find in other versions. There is no way man could write such a book.
All new versions come from the Critical Text. All new versions come from the Westcott and Hort Text. Are you Westcott and Hort Only? If there is no perfect Bible today (except for the "Original Autographs) what is the point?
What good are the "originals" if no one has seen them? The first copy of Genesis was never contemporary with the first copy of Romans. What does Paul tell Timothy?
And that from a child thou hast known the *holy scriptures,* which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 2 TIMOTHY 3:15
Did Timothy have the "originals"?
For the word of God is *quick,* and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
HEBREWS 4:12
QUICK, verb intransitive
To stir; to move. [Not in use.]
QUICK, adjective [If q is a dialectical prefix, as I suppose, this word coincides with the Latin vigeo, vegeo, and vig, veg, radical, coincide with wag.]
1. *Primarily, alive; living; opposed to dead or unanimated; as quick flesh.* Leviticus 13:10.
The "originals only" argument was first popularized by Richard Simon a French Roman Catholic priest in 1689, Histoire critique du texte du Nouveau Testament. The Jesuit tradition of biblical criticism (adopted in favor of "church tradition") starting with Alfonso Salmeron had paved the way for his approach. Simon declared that Moses could not be the author of much in the writings attributed to him. Two Presbyterians, A.A. Hodge and B.B. Warfield continued in this heresy in the publication The Presbyterian Review 6 (April 1881):
1. We do not assert that the common text, but only that the original autographic text was inspired.
This statement conflicts with 2 Timothy 3:15 and Hebrews 4:12.
The premise of believing there is no perfect Bible is the ability to reference different versions to fit your opinions, doctrine or ignorance. If God is an Instructor would he let His students study from hundreds of different "bibles"? Today professors teaching a course require the student to acquire the same edition of a textbook for class study.
God is not the author of confusion.
The Word of God is Jesus Christ.
The word of God is scripture.
Both are not many but ONE.
One is Holy, sinless and perfect
The other is inerrant, inspired of God and preserved.
That Steven Anderson clip is so troublesome! He thinks they aren’t saved, and “Why don’t they recognize the voice of the shepherd?” Jesus didn’t speak Early Modern English, Steven, He spoke Aramaic. I’m sure if the apostles heard their words recited back to them from the King James or any newer translation - none of them would recognize it either!
I know many will say the KJV is perfect and all others are corrupt and produced by satan, etc… but the KJV does have a few errors, just like all other versions. I’ve heard some say that if your Bible isn’t perfect - how do you know you have the perfect word of God? Most Bible translations contain the perfect DOCTRINE that the Father gave us. This idea that the Holy Spirit re-inspired the Bible in 1611 seems strange. It’s almost parallel with Joseph Smith claiming new revelation from God.
Anyway… just my thoughts. As for the CSB - this is my main translation. It’s at that “sweet spot” between formal and dynamic. I use the NIV and the KJV as well.
Great video!!!
Thank you for your comment. I completely agree! I’ve never read the CSB but I see it all the time on sale, I’ll have to look into that one!
@@ScienceFaithReasoning I only heard about the CSB this summer. We were in a store looking at Bibles and saw that translation and had to Google it! It reads quite easy. I picked up one with very extensive study notes.
@@Jeremy_White75 thanks for the info, when I buy Bibles for people I always go with the NASB or ESV study Bibles, but I see the CSB is often cheaper, I just wasn’t comfortable buying it not having any familiarity with it
@@ScienceFaithReasoning Neither was I the first time I saw it. We were shopping at Ollie’s (discounted merchandise) in the Bibles section. Along with KJV, NIV, NKJV, they had these CSBs. The first one I bought was actually a cheesy paper back for like $3. So it was a small price to pay just to get introduced. Then I went for the more expensive study edition which they also carried there. I wish they would get in a shipment of additional translations. I’d love to get an ESV, NASB, or even the BSB.
@@Jeremy_White75 I will have to try Ollie’s, I’m familiar with that store, I usually buy online from ChristianBook.com, but they can be a bit pricey!
The NKJV Bible is short by more than 60,000 words compared to the KJV Bible. So your taking away God's word that many words from his children.
There is probably punishments to people who are promoting the NKJV. Which it says your name will be taken out of the book of life if you alter the KJV Bible. Which means you go to Hell. Plus, I would say leaving out 60,000 words of the Bible is proof the the NKJV or any other new versions of the Bible are actually the ALTERED VERSIONS which are considered perversions.
That information can be found at KJV Revelation 22:19 !
Revelation 22:19 doesn’t say that your name will be removed from the book of life if you alter the “KJV”, it says if you take away from the words of this book, meaning removing the words/message from the text. The KJV has many iterations with different versions of the KJV with different numbers of Words in Revelation itself. So by your standard, everyone who worked on the KJV would be going to Hell for having different versions of the KJV with different numbers of words in Revelation.
Nonsense. So the version with the largest word count wins? 😂
@@ScienceFaithReasoning All KJV’s for the last 250+ years come from the 1769 edition and remain the same in any bookstore today.
@@Studio54MediaGroup And the 1769 Blayney Revision is still different from the 1611. The point is there are different version of the KJV with varying word counts. To use word counts as a measurement is not optimal or accurate. The measurement that must be used for Bible translations is its accuracy in rendering what the original author's wrote, and that comes from the best manuscript evidence available.
@@ScienceFaithReasoning yes, I am aware of the 1611 reprints for spelling and printing press errors. All KJV Bibles today are a result of the 1769 edition. There are no more differences and I am more concerned in pointing folks towards a perfect Bible in 2023.
As far as the originals they are forever gone as dust in the wind. As far as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus they are far from the best manuscripts and contradict each other in hundreds of places.
"Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?
This quote is always taken out of context by the KJB critics. Throughout the Preface there are repeated references to the contrast between between the Bible translation work of Christians of the Reformation faith and those of the Catholic church.
The whole quote in context is this. "Now to the latter we answer, That we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that THE VERY MEANEST TRANSLATION of the Bible in English SET FORTH BY MEN OF OUR PROFESSION, (for we have seen NONE OF THEIRS of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay is the word of God."
It should be clear that Miles Smith (the man who wrote the Preface) is referring to the Douay-Rheims ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT here, which was published by the Roman Catholics in 1582, the Old Testament not appearing until 1610, some five or six years AFTER the King James Bible translators began their own work of translation. Thus the reason for Smith's notation that they had "SEEN NONE OF THEIRS OF THE WHOLE BIBLE AS YET."
Even the Catholics themselves acknowledge that the King James Bible translators severely criticized and mocked the Catholic versions. Here is their own Catholic Cultur.org site where they talk about their Douay-Rheims bible.
www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4300&CFID=64452699&CFTOKEN=99023368
Here in their own words they mention: "Further, the translators of the KJV make specific reference to the Douay version in their translators' preface, where they devote space to attacking the word choices made by the translators of the Douay. "We have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their [use of words like] AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like [words], whereof their late Translation is full" ("The Translators to the Reader," King James Version, 1611 ed.).
"Men of our profession" refers to the Protestant, Reformation Christians and the "theirs" refers to the Catholics. In the previous paragraph to this quote we read them say regarding "the translations of the Bible maturely considered of and examined" that "all is sound for substance in one or other of OUR editions, AND THE WORST OF OURS FAR BETTER THAN THEIR AUTHENTICK VULGAR" (which refers to the various Latin Vulgate versions)
The context of the Preface by Miles Smith shows the contrast between early English Protestant translations and the "Bible" of the Roman Catholic Church. Translations like Tyndale's 1525, Coverdale's 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible 1587 and such were translations "set forth by men of our profession" and thus, "containeth the Word of God, nay is the Word of God."
Throughout the Preface there is a constant contrast between "our" and "their" translations, and between Protestant thought and Catholic thought. They also state in their Preface - "also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their asimes, tunike, rational, holocausts, praepuce, pasche, and a number of such like, whereof THEIR LATE TRANSLATION, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may be kept from being understood.
In another part they stated: "So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God?s holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness."
The translators of the AV saw their task as the perfecting of the earlier English translations that followed the Traditional Greek texts as found in the Reformation bible translations of Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible.
The supreme irony today is that these same modern versions most anti-King James Bible folks are promoting are in fact the new "Catholic" bible versions.
Thanks for commenting. I haven’t heard a lot of what you are saying here, and I apparently haven’t looked into the preface as much as you have lol but from what you’re telling me, it seems their qualms with the Catholics was that they were promoting translations in Latin that the common people couldn’t read. Which would mean that the context of the quote stands appropriate in terms of their view of English translations, and the way that folks like myself and James White have used the quote is also appropriate to their meaning. Some of the good modern Bible translations today would make them very proud at how serious study and analysis of thousands of original manuscripts have been used to bring God’s Word to the common man with consistency and clarity.
@@ScienceFaithReasoning The original Douay-Rheims was a very obscurantist translation; literal to the point of unreadability ("a vineyard was made to my beloved in horn the son of oil") and left a lot of words untranslated. Richard Challoner's revision of the Douay-Rheims in 1748-1752 was practically a whole new translation.
You left out CT- only, it's just as bad as KJV-O
@@deeman524 what is CT only?
Thank you for your content brother. I would love to know how I can respond to this video, if you would be willing to examine it. My pastor is KJV only and he recommended this for me. He thinks it’s THE only legit version in English. The title of this video alone made me cringe, but I can see how it may be persuasive to someone who buys into that belief.
ua-cam.com/video/t6ck6KrVPIk/v-deo.htmlsi=NBLplD3uguW3UXJq
@@RandyJHughes thank you for your comment and heart, I will look into this video and I may do a review of it!
@@ScienceFaithReasoning THANK YOU!!!
i have a good news bible how u feel bout that one?
I haven’t researched the good news Bible. But I would look into the translation of many different key doctrinal texts, compare it to the KJV, NASB, and ESV, and then do research on how the translation was developed (Was it made from the Greek/Hebrew, or was it made from other English translation?). That would be good places to start
I'm King James Version only, and I'm proud of it!
There’s nothing wrong with being KJV Only, it’s when you use that to say others are lost simply because they read a different translation of God’s Word, it becomes a problem for the unity of believers.
That's a lie newer versions are not easier to read, because KJV is written at a 5th grade level, compared to NKJV Bibie, which is written at a 7th-9th grade level.
The KJV of the Bible has words in it that no one uses in that manner these days.
99.99999999% of people today do NOT call a donkey an "ass".
99.9999999% of people today do NOT say "apt to teach".
99.9999999% of Bible translators know that Genesis 1:1 CLEARLY reads "Heavens" not "Heaven" in the Hebrew.
NASB, ESV both make Jesus a liar and make Jesus and Satan the same person. I am KJV only but I do believe God can use these other versions, after all He made a jackass speak. But the KJV is the preserved word of God in English. Also, you don't need a Hebrew or Greek dictionary, just get a Websters and you don't need an expert, you need the Holy Spirit. For instance (Insert your favorite verse here.) Did you research it in the original language? Shouldn't you be reading out of a bible you can trust, IE the Greek/Hebrew/Chaldean? What, you don't know those languages? Shouldn't you learn them? No? Than how can you know yours is a trustworthy translation? Is that what it said in the originals we no longer have and even if we did you couldn't read? So, is yours correct or does it need you or an expert to correct it? Did you consult the guru, oops I mean the expert and create the MMTPV (me, myself and third party version). Are you sure you or the expert is correct? How? By faith in yourself or them? Now, who told you there is no prefect translation in the English? Bet it was an expert or a salesman. Must be terrible to serve a god you cant trust or who isn't powerful enough to give you a prefect bible in your own language. I don't have that problem myself. My God loved me enough to give me His prefect Son, His prefect Spirit and His prefect word. How do I know this? By faith in the one true God.
Your main complaint, if I understand you correctly, is that I can't read Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic, therefore, I can't do any research on Bible translations? If that is your assertion, then that's a strange complaint that is self-defeating. If I can't understand the quality of a translation because I can't read the original languages, then neither can you; therefore, you would be just as misguided by blindly supporting the KJV over all other versions that are available as I would be by being skeptical of its "perfection" in translation of all words. I want you to genuinely think about my assertion: Any complaint of the solid new modern translations that are put forth by KJV onlyist, when you take that complaint and turn it around on the KJV, the exact same problems exists. Most of these issues are not reliant on experts either. Most of these issues are resolved by common sense logic that our great God and Savior Jesus Christ bestowed upon us when He made us in His image.
@@ScienceFaithReasoning But your assertion is easily disproved by the blatant mistakes found in the new versions, Even the touted NASB which I used for 8 years. How much of my comment did you read? My point was simple. If your bible is not prefect than how can you trust it? But let me expound. First, I'm not mad. I don't think your not saved. I used many translations for many years, my favorite was the NASB, But before I started using them I used the KJV for 20 years. This eventually led me out of those twisted versions. I wont get into the perversions I found at this point because you have most likely herd them. So, I will start like this. How do you decide what is the correct word and what is not and who gave you that right? Here's the problem. If your translation is not perfect in every word that means there is room for error and if there is room for error, where are those errors? So in any study you must assume the position that the text your using could have wrongly translated words. So, your task is to find out what is the correct word and what is not, than “YOU” correct it. You are the authority on what the right words are, not the author, and anyone can assume that role. This means that your starting position in any debate is open to private translation. Your opponent could simply disagree on the grounds that your word choice is incorrect and seeing that you don't trust every word to be correct, whose to say which translation of that word is correct when even the words themselves are up for reinterpretation by anyone with a Strong's or a degree? In any debate your position is weakened from start to finish and you can not overcome it with logic or reason. On the other hand, KJV only people (ME) believe that their Bible is perfect, every word. That the God who loved them so much that He gave His only begotten Son also loved them enough to give them His perfect word in their native tongue. They do not stand on changing personal translation of words like shifting sand, but on the unchanging rock of the words God chose. The Bible they trust is unchanging just like their God. In any study they simply need to understand what the definition of each word is (WEBSTERS) to know what the text is saying, not weather or not each word was translated correctly and thus, there is no need for them to correct it. They start from a position of surety, knowing what they are reading is accurate and trustworthy. In any discussion all they need do is establish what the text is saying and stand with it. Their position is fortified. They cannot be attacked by doubts in the text itself. The argument that it means different things to different people is effectively voided and no longer private. Its no longer what does it all mean but what does it say.
Apparently, you are lost.
You’re*
@@ScienceFaithReasoning No. You are! Time is running out, better get saved before it’s too late. Gospel of salvation is in KJV Corinthians 15: 1-4! You can the information online if you don't own a KJV Bible.
@@lydiaconcha7362 the NASB says in Romans 10:9, “9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.” - does this verse in the NASB have no saving power? If not, explain to me specifically why it does not.
And apparently, you’re a judgmental Pharisee. Shame on you.