I have no problem with people only using a KJV/Any other translation, but with KJV-only it just gets to a point of legalism. I love to read the CSB. I don't mind most translations, in fact my faith isn't solely dependent on scripture, it is 100% dependent on the person of Jesus Christ.
Actually, the KJV is my favorite translation, followed by the NKJV and NASB. What I detest is the cultish exclusiviism that you find in cults. That mindset is very legalistic and judgmental. THE KJV has become a golden calf by those who fail to acknowledge what the very translators themselves acknowledged in the preface to the reader.
Praise God. That’s awesome. When I got out of it I realized for the first time how much more I actually understood from the scriptures. My walk improved dramatically. 99.99% of people simply do not have the capacity to understand the KJV anymore today. The remaining .01% are English scholars.
@@akepot well not a kjv onlyist but thats a bit of a stretch. It isnt that hard to understand, especially if youve grown up with it. Its got its linguistic archaisms but most are obvious in context. The hardesr can be overcome with reference books or digital resources and those definitons memorized. Dont misunderstand what im saying but far easier to follow the kjv archaic language than to follow the hebrew and greek. Not thst the kjv is superior to the original languages just a lot will argue to go back to those languages while saying the early modern english of 1611 is too hard. Moreover its only been in the last five decades that we moved away from the kjv. Before that almost everyone used it and understood it just fine. Unless weve all suddenly gotten dumber in the last fifty years i dont think its so much an archaic language problem as a literacy problem. I dont mean you by the way. Im sure you are very bright, just it wasnt the rifht translation for you. Again not a kjv only person but lets be fair.
There is nothing wrong with reading the KJV. Its KJ only-ism that I have a problem with. I know of someone that left the faith because they were told it was perfect and when they saw it wasn't, they wonder what other lies were they told and no longer believed. A translation is a work of men and nothing man does is perfect. Any English Bible that is Masoretic based will have multiple errors in it. Learning these issues in our Bibles and the explanations for them, should be taught in all God fearing churches. We need to have an answer when witnessing to the lost.
Amen, I can only say! The KJV is an outstanding translation indeed, but perfect? Certainly not! I also got fooled by this KJV onlyism for a very long time
Don't jump into conclusions just because you are ignorant of what's going on with a Bible passage. Kindly watch the following video if you're conflicted about Acts 12:4. ua-cam.com/video/ct42Rde4EQk/v-deo.html and you'll see that there's no error whatsoever!!!
@@RemoBlissSam Gipp? KJV only cultist? Full of circular reasoning and false teaching. Trying to justify the mistranslation of Easter. Pascha means Passover not Easter. The KJV is wrong. Just as KJV onlyism is a false teaching.
Thanks for your insight! I’m no Bible scholar or expert, I’m just a young adult who loves God and loves reading all my different Bible translations. My comment my be partially wrong but these are my thoughts on this topic: I’ve gotten attacked by a couple KJV onlyists and it’s so crazy.. one guy literally told me to throw all my Bibles away because they were “corrupt.” Another said they KJV is the only true Word of God that even other languages are “corrupt.” Their arguments make no sense to me..are they saying that only English speakers who can understand old English can be saved? I don’t think God would only save English speakers. Can people who speak Spanish, French, Chinese, etc. not be saved?? This seems to really doubt the power of God because I think the Holy Spirit can work in ALL OF US through whatever Bible translation we read. God spoke to me when I read the NIV and got saved. I also feel close to God through other translations like NLT, HCSB, CSB, etc., and even in the KJV. I’m okay with people being only KJV for themselves if that’s what they feel convicted is true, but it’s horrible how some of them are extremely hateful and just plain mean online. In my opinion it would be more productive for them to share their KJV Bible with people who have never heard of the gospel before, instead of discouraging current believers from reading their own Bibles and condemning them for reading “corrupt” translations. Their way of spreading hateful comments online seems so counterproductive in my opinion. Satan is probably loving it. A common KJV only argument is that all the other Bibles are “corrupt” because they have “missing verses” but it seems like all of them have the same “missing verses”...if anything it seems like the KJV has added additional verses rather than ALL other translations having “missing” ones. Additionally, all the non-KJV Bibles I’ve seen always have footnotes that say something like “some Bibles say ---- here” so the verses aren’t even “missing.” I’m tired of getting condemned from KJV onlyists. They have to right to determine who is saved and who isn’t..solely based on which Bible translation they use. That’s between each person and God. In conclusion: There is no perfect Bible translation. You’d have to learn Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic from the original manuscripts that Moses and Paul (and other people) themselves wrote..this is impossible because we don’t have them anymore. Read whatever translation(s) that speak most to you and live out God’s Word in your life. We are so blessed to have so many translations in English and other languages, so why not use them and enjoy them? Pray for the Holy Spirit to guide you (and others) to the truth. There’s no need to condemn each other for these petty things. Instead, we should use this energy to share the Bible with people who have never heard of the Bible!!
As a new believer I almost fell into kjv onlyism. It's a cult and there's a heavy spirit of pride over there. I even heard someone say the kjv is more accurate than the hebrew and greek itself😳 There's no logic with those peeps.
I myself was saved when I read the Living Bible after giving up on the awkward King James bible. The new versions are of God and not of the Devil as Satan doesn't want people saved.
“In January 1604, King James VI ...convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived *problems* of the earlier translations as *detected* by the Puritans. James gave the translators instructions intended to *guarantee* that the new version would *conform* to the *ecclesiology* and reflect the episcopal *structure* of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained *clergy.* The translation was done by 47 scholars, *all* of whom were members of the Church of England.”
KJO, what's worse: 1) Having less accurate and out-of-date translation that cannot clearly communicate to modern-day people; or 2) Having a more accurate and understandable version(s) that modern-day people can grasp easily? If God has a problem with translations, as you erroneously believe, then why did God not insist that it had to be read in the original languages? Crazy stuff.
I only use the KJV but I’m not KJV onlyist! There is a huge difference! KJV Only is a tradition of men and a religious spirit that needs to be repented of! I love the KJV it’s my favorite version but I do admit that it’s far from perfect
My question for kjv cultists is simple: I read the ESV. Tell me, exactly, what essential Christian doctrine it has left out? I don’t want to hear about some verses that aren’t there (because they were ADDED to the TR), I’m talking about essential doctrine-which one or ones is gone?
when I began to get sort of serious about the Bible/God (1992,3?) I picked up some version (KJ?) not written in Modern English, but I struggled heavily, and soonafter put it down and continued the pursuit of profanity, So in 1997 I picked up a modern English translation and though I did not expect a different outcome, and it helped me grow in the LORD much more....I realized that even now, I almost always get more from the modern translation and I encourage others to try it....you will be much more inspired to learn even greater truth. It is more important than ever: read the Bible in the language that you are most familiar...I think it is a matter of logic that we are more likely to be inspired by the language we grew up speaking. (if you personally think that the KJV more understandable, the next step is to start learning to speak the older English so you can more perfectly spread the news in a more understandable way! This is very important!)
" if the king James is authentic then why use a different bible that may be a translation that has a negative agenda" That's not logical. That' like saying I don't want to get married because i might get divorced. Use the King James all you want but don't be dogmatic against us who don't.
Mr Liver - alive in Christ The KJV is a weird translation concerning homosexuality, it has not only that "abusers of themselves with mankind" but also says that *two men* will be in a bed when Christ returns. I tell you, in that night there shall be *two men in one bed;* the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. (Luk 17:34 KJV) "Men" was added here by the translators, it's not in the TR.
The comments are what I expected. KJVO itself is a symptom of a strange hermeneutic that in its attempt to find an "objective perfection" ironically disconnects itself from the world of the text.
What nonsense. For starters, my salvation is secured by my faith in Christ. If anyone needs to repent, it's you, for considering that one's salvation is secured by their faith in a specific translation of scripture instead of the living Messiah. Your argument is theologically null and void. You need to be delivered from your irrational fundamentalism.
+Mr tee: Erasmus had to find the manuscripts your early 17th century Anglican translation is based on too. Your arguments are self-defeating and shows how unreasonable you are.
More and more I see kjv only-ist as the Pharisees in Jesus's days. They add to God's word things God never said. Thus sayeth the Lord , the King James is my perfect word...… cant seem to find that verse anywhere, even in the kjv.
Dr Brown failed to point out that scholars can not authorize any bible translation because they have no authority. The Holy Bible is authorized by God in accordance with the scriptures.
Textus Receptus was used for NKJV and Modern English Version. KJV was first translated in 1611. It was updated in 1613, 1629, 1664, 1701, 1744 1762, 1769, and 1850. Because the language changed over time. 1613 and 1769 were likely corrections.
Here's a question for KJV onlyist... If you are truly concerned about absolute 100% accuracy in what God actually said, why don't you learn Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic since those are the languages in which He chose to transmit the word? There is no such thing as a word for word exact translation having the same word count in rendering from one language to another. It seems very convenient that KJV onlyism exists amongst English speaking groups.
The King James only crowd strongly discourage the study of Hebrew or Greek among among native English speakers. It is partly this anti-intellectualism that led me to abandon the KJO position.
The non English speaking world think its idiotic and ignorant to be KJVO. It makes no sense. I was also in this KJVO trap at one point. Thank God I got set free!
@@BloodBoughtMinistries the non- English speaking world doesn't really need to be any more concerned with the kjv than we are with the Swahili or French version.
Don't jump into conclusions just because you are ignorant of what's going on with a Bible passage. Kindly watch the following video if you're conflicted about Acts 12:4. ua-cam.com/video/ct42Rde4EQk/v-deo.html and you'll see that there's no error whatsoever!!!
What makes the Holy Bible first printed in 1611 A.D. the perfect , and preserved word of God? The Manuscripts. The Holy Bible first printed in 1611 A.D. Has Hebrew in the Old Testament. Revised Version Bibles have Greek in the Old Testament. Yet, The Holy Scriptures were written by Moses, the Prophets and the Psalmist in Hebrew not Greek. And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, Luke 24:44, 45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? John 5:45-47 The Revised Version Bibles are clearly flawed for that reason alone. The only Revised Version that uses Hebrew Manuscripts in the Old Testament is the New King James Version. But it is flawed like the other Revised Version Bibles. How? Because of derivative copyright laws in order to receive royalties it must be 10% different from the original. So it changes words in the same Hebrew Old Testament so they can get paid, but in doing so they flaw God's word. The Theologians promote oldest and best because they claim the LXX Septuagint was written in 285 B.C. which is older than the Masoretic Hebrew Text in Russia dated to 1008 A.D. But God doesn't leave himself without a witness. - Acts 14:17 In 1946 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. Do the Dead Sea Scrolls have Holy Scripture Manuscripts? Yes. In Greek? Nope. In what language? In Hebrew. Ah So. How old? 408 B.C. The oldest Holy Scriptures in the history of the world. Is the the Hebrew different from the Hebrew Masoretic Text? Nope. It's the same, preserved over a 1,416 year period and matches the Hebrew Masoretic Text down to the word count. Just like God said. 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. Psalms 12:6, 7 Do the revised Bibles have these Oldest and Best Hebrew Manuscripts in their Revised Versions? Nope. Why? They have no Hebrew anywhere in their Bibles, It's all Greek. Old and New Testament from Alexandria. (false witnesses against the real saints Acts 6:8-13). Is there any Bible on the planet Earth in English that has the Hebrew Masoretic Text in it that matches the Oldest and Best Holy Scripture manuscripts found in the Dead Sea Scrolls that are 123 years older than the supposed Greek LXX (Septuagint) date? Yes? In the name of all that is Holy WHO?! The Holy Bible first printed in 1611 A.D. Which by the way is in my very hand as I type with my left hand and hold God's pure and promised preserved word in English in my right hand. in the language of LAWYERS this is a open and shut case, In the language of PREACHERS this is sound doctrine. How is it sound doctrine? Because it is written in the Holy Scriptures - Proverbs 22:20, 21
Ezekiel 45:21 NLT "On the fourteenth day of the first month, you must celebrate the Passover. This festival will last for seven days. The bread you eat during that time must be made without yeast.
I heard that Hebrew language had also change and some words cannot be understanding because the original language have been lost. Its that true? Does God name Jehovah was translate right?
So JHVH or YHWH or YHVH is how we might write it the hebrew in english. We know that Jah or more properly Yah is used in the bible as a shortened version of Gods name. The Jehovah way of saying it came from latin. Basically, the jews got where they wouldnt say Gods name because it was too sacred but instead would write in the vowels to the hebrew word adonai (lord) above the sacred name (YHWH) so they would know to say adonai instead of YHWH when they read it aloud. When Latin speakers translitersted the hebrew they took the vowels associated with adonai and applied them to the consonants YHVH or YHWH. Which made for Yahovai or some such which then in the process of time and language jumps became jehovah. Thats basically it but check what i say as im going off memory.
For what I received I passed on to you as of [first importance]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time,
I read from the New Living Translation because it's a very understandable Contemporary English Bible translation to read from. I also read from the One Year NLT Praying Through The Bible everyday.
It’s too bad the King James Onlyists can’t go back in time and correct Jesus and the apostles about their use of the Septuagint. They could’ve set them straight and let them know it wasn’t the word of God.
“Father, I know that I have broken your laws and my sins have separated me from you. I am truly sorry, and now I want to turn away from my past sinful life toward you. Please forgive me, and help me avoid sinning again. I believe that your son, Jesus Christ died for my sins, was resurrected from the dead, is alive, and hears my prayer. I invite Jesus to become the Lord of my life, to rule and reign in my heart from this day forward.
A G please see the dialogue between JESUS and the scribe around Mark 12:28 Also, you *must* be born again: John 3:3-5 = Acts 2:38-39 to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD Our GOD shall call. Once you are born of the Spirit, you have the Promise which includes being led into all Truth. ONE LORD ONE FAITH ✌🏻
Im not a kjv onlysit but original 1611 being "very different" is a stretch. I counted about four meaningful (word) differences. I found word differences in: Genesis 39:16, Numbers 6:14, 2 Chronicals 28:11, Job 39:30 Then i note two meaningful differences between the oxford and the cambridge editions: Joshua 19:2 and Jersmuah 34:16. If anyone has a more comprehensive list of WORD differences betweem any of the editions i would welcome it. Not so much intrested in differences of spelling, punctuatiom, or capitalization. And can anyone explain the relationship between the blayney edition and the oxford and cambridge editions? Im confused about what came first or is the blayney edition the oxford? Have had a hard time finding this info.
In fairness, the KJV provided a marginal note at Acts 12:4; easter Gr. Passover. Moreover, the base text for KJV was the 1602 Bishops' Bible; which also uses "Easter". I'm not currently sure why they did not change the text given their note. Perhaps we need to also hold all KJV publishers accountable for leaving out the marginal notes.
David yes most KJVOnlyists don’t even know it used to have marginal notes. I point them to the notes for Psalm 12:6-7 when they want to claim that “them” is the words of the Lord instead of plural for “him” meaning the poor and the needy. Also Isaiah 14:12 when they want to say “morning star” is wrong.
@@totalityofscripture1001 I have pointed out that first one a lot. They just ignore it. I know morning star is more literal but doesnt lucifer just mean venus. Literally light bringer but a latin name for venus and thus same thing in the broader sense?
ProvokingThought it does. The Greek is Heosphorus which is another name for Phosphorus. The Greeks believed the evening and morning star were 2 different gods. Both used to describe the planet Venus. Even Jerome didn’t believe the Satan thing and he’s the one who used the word luciferum. We have his commentary on the verse.
What version do you use? Other versions take so much out that new believers could stumble. The arguments against the kj you are explaining are not that.
@@henrylaurel1188 Luke 4:4, Luke 4:8, John 6:47, Mathew 9:13, Mathew 18:11 That is just a few. Compare what the KJV says to an NIV or modern version and tell me they are not important.
I enjoy discussions like this. When one understands what the Holy Bible truly is, one understands that God chose not to preserve the word at the same level as the original inspired autographs. First, it wasn't necessary. The doctrines of both the Old and New Testaments are such that they maintain integrity regardless of whether or not every word was perfectly preserved down to the last letter. I was raised KJVO, just not to the greatest extreme. I still love and respect the KJV and the amazing work the translators accomplished but the deeper one delves into the KJV, the more one realizes that a Strongs, a really good dictionary and more are needed to understand what it says. The words whose meanings have completely changed over time, the archaic words, and so forth create an additional barrier to truly understanding the Bible. I moved to translations such as the NKJV and MEV, that have that level of familiarity, but are so much easier to understand but am using many others based on the CT as well. I just bought a copy of the LSV & highly recommend it. All the major translations are the preserved word of God, as we have available to us today. We can prefer the MT or the CT, but either way, we have translations, that when we obey them, we can and will live a life pleasing to God our Father. Thankful to have such a wealth of textual information available to me as a lay person, not familiar with the original languages, yet I'm able to read and understand the nuance and differences in the discipline of Textual Criticism.
The KJV original edition included the Apocrypha. Are we to believe the KJV is the only correct version of a writing that Protestants don't accept to begin with?
The title page states that the Holy Bible consists of both, the Old and New Testaments. Thus, the apocrypha is not confused with the text of the Holy Bible. God ordained the publishing of the Holy Bible. God has not authorized some herd of greedy self appointed scholars to rewrite it. The haters of the Holy Bible seek to deny its authenticity and authority. The true title is THE HOLY BIBLE. Btw, testaments are legal documents and it is illegal to tamper with it.
I'm curious why the KJV is the first English translation to change 2 Thessalonians 2:3 from 'departure' to 'a fallin away?' Every English translation before then translated it as 'departure.'
Im not KJV only. But i would probably consider the weakest translation right now as the message bible. If we tell someone what you just said about the message being the word of God there will develop such a huge crisis. I think we do need to be careful what translation we choose to read and teach from. I stay away from NIV and the message for sure. I know there are many other severely flawed versions as well. I haven't studied them all. But KJV and NKJV are probably the best we have available. I know many are leaning towards ESV now. Which I haven't studied that out. But what would you consider the best? As far as most accurate?
The NIV is the favorite punching bag for KJVO. Why would this be?? Every statement I've ever heard about the NIV has been easily proven false, just as every claim for the KJVO is easily put down. Basically people keep parroting and recycling the same old lies. Satan must be enjoying the discourse and division.
Baltic Hammer most of the time the NIV explains the verses in question. My favorite is when they bring up Hosea 11:12 and I say the KJV rendering is from the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic. I know how the KJVOnlyist feels about the LXX being from the evil Alexandria. Or Acts 8:37 when I tell them the 2 oldest Byzantine manuscripts don’t have this verse because their presupposition is that all Byzantine texts agree in every place 100%. 😁
Amen, Dr Brown,...God's inspired inerrant word are the autographs, God's preserved word is the manuscripts,... not a translation,...KJV onlyism is ignorance of textual criticism and the translation process. The autographs are the original inspired inerrant documents written by the prophets, apostles, or disciples. The manuscrpts are handwritten copies of the autographs or other manuscripts.
+Tom Dunn: We know the KJV wasn't inspired because it has so many errors. The KJV is NOT perfect. Here is some of its errors: 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 "Passover" 4. KJV: "Tithes of all I possess" Lk 18:12 Greek: "all I acquire" 5. KJV: "Schoolmaster" Gal 3:24 Greek: "attendant" (the law was the one who brought us to Christ, not taught us about Christ) 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. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.) 8. KJV: "sweet savour" Lev 6:21; 8:28; 17:6; 23:18 Hebrew: "soothing aroma" (KJV appeals to wrong senses- taste instead of smell in the TR) 9. KJV: "ashes upon his face" 1 Kings 20:38 Hebrew: "bandage over his eyes" (KJV varies from TR by using ashes).
+Mr tee: One difference between me and you is that I can actually quote and list your lies. You just spew baseless accusations, with no evidence, break the 9th commandment (Ex. 20:16) and continue in sin. If you were really born again, you would not continue in sin (1 John 3:8).
I'll need to check that 1 out. I'm always on the lookout for new versions of the Bible to read. Tree of Life caught my attention but I don't know much about it. I'm told Dr. Brown had a hand in translating it. If so, I'll put it on my list to read later. 😊😊
When dr white and dr brown walk into a church together one says greek and the other says hebrew . Yep lets agree the only truly inspired perfect word of GOD is the autographs; i agree but also the manuscripts . True. One Lord One Spirit One faith One Word and thousands of translations is from the Lord .
Brown accepts the Septuagint as an authoritative translation so why does he keep insisting 'aionios' ( which is the Septuagint translation of 'olam' ) means 'eternal when it can easily be shown that 'olam' does not mean 'eternal' ?
I don't accept the LXX as authoritative. What in the world give you that idea? As for olam, sometimes it means eternal and sometimes it doesn't. I've said that many times as well.
@@LFTV What do you think of the late Christian cartoonist Jack T. Chick and his famous Chick Tracts, Jack Chick passed away in 2016 at the age of 92, Chick was a staunch King James Only advocate, see his website www.chick.com , other Christian websites I suggest are www.carm.org by Matt Slick, GotQuestions.org , and The Interactive Bible, at www.bible.ca
Acts 12:4 NLT Then he imprisoned him, placing him under the guard of four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring Peter out for public trial after the Passover.
The English Standard Version is not a new translation at all but, simply based on the 1971 edition of the Revised Standard Version. The English Standard Version is 90% word for word of the Revised Standard Version.
Funny thing here, let's use "bible logic" against the King James Onlyism position. Whoever does not believe in Jesus Christ makes God the Father a liar (1Jn 5:10). The KJO folks claim that the KJV is a perfect translation even knowing what the Preface says. Therefore they make the KJV translators liars. LOL!
Please enlighten me as a KJV only since you know so much about the KJV. Preface! What does it actually say??? instead of just throwing a vague comment and let it run loose!!!
"Network analysis of Genesis 1:3" by David Morrison: 1382 Wycliffe Bible And God seide, Be maad li3t; and maad is li3t. 1395 Later Wycliffe And God seide, li3t be maad; and li3t was maad. 1530 Tyndale Bible Then God sayd: let there be lyghte and there was lyghte. 1535 Coverdale Bible Than God sayd: let there be light: & there was lyght. 1537 Matthew Bible And God sayde: let there be light, and there was light. 1539 Great Bible And God sayde: let there be made lyght, and there was light made. 1560 Geneva Bible Then God saide, Let there be light: And there was light. 1568 Bishop's Bible And God sayde, let there be light: and there was light. 1609 Douay-Rheims Bible And God said: Be light made And light was made. 1611 King James Version And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 1750 Challoner Revision And God said: Be light made. And light was made. 1769 Blayney Revision And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 1833 Webster's Bible And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 1862 Young's Literal Translation and God saith, 'Let light be;' and light is. 1885 English Revised Version And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 1890 Darby Bible And God said, Let there be light. And there was light. 1901 American Standard Version And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 1950 Knox Bible Then God said, Let there be light; and the light began. 1952 Revised Standard Version And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 1971 New American Standard Bible Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 1973 New International Version And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 1976 Good News Bible Then God commanded, "Let there be light" - and light appeared. 1982 New King James Version Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 1995 God's Word Translation Then God said, "Let there be light!" So there was light. 1996 New Living Version Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 2011 Common English Bible God said, "Let there be light." And so light appeared. Conclusion "The lack of any simple tree-like relationship among these biblical texts makes any attempt to study their phylogeny difficult. My own look at the business of stemmatology suggests that the results here are quite typical of any study of written texts. Part of the problem seems to be that ideas developed in one historical lineage can be transferred to other lineages, and even transferred to earlier parts of those lineages (see my previous post: Time inconsistency in evolutionary networks). So, even though there is a general historical trend through time, that trend is not consistent enough for a tree-based historical analysis to be effective."
I know it was a rhetorical question, but I'll answer it anyway, they are brainwashed. I'm not being sarcastic, really mean it. No matter how much clear evidence you show them, they'll call you a liar or a bunch of others names. I have yet to find one KJ onlyist explain the following error in their Bible. Read the following Acts 7:14 then read Deut 10:22 and Exd 1:5. How many people went?
@@dlbard1 everything I check shows both the LXX and the Masoretic to read 70, and the Greek of NT to read 75. So it seems a case of them just being faithful to what the text says (however inconsistent it might seem). Do you have another explanation? Or a solution? It is an interesting point. Should we try to "fix" such issues or leave them as is when we translate? Edit: could be that there is a credible variant tho that would sythesize.... didn't dig that deep
What versions were you looking at? Just checked ABP, Westcot & Hort, Swete, Rahlfs, and Brenton. All show no conflict in those passages. They agree with the NT and state 75. Even the DSS 4Q1(Which contains Exd1:5) reads 75. No DSS readings for Deut 10:22
@@dlbard1 ok. Honestly don't know. Just googled LXX interlinear. And used the first one that came up (I'm working on learning Greek but am way away from being even decent with it). Thanks. I wasn't trying to argue or anything was just curious what you meant as I had never checked that particular thing (though I had other things like that) . Good to know.
@@dlbard1 but yeah definitely think that you got a point about the Masoretic from the stand point of it's post Christ put together by openly hostile competing religious group. I've often wondered about psalm 22. I know zero of Hebrew but I do know that the Hebrew is completely missing the verb in the critical "they have pierced my hands and feet". Which is weird seems to me.
I appreciate the video. I used to be KJV only-even went to a school that taught that, I remember asking the teacher if it would ok to make a new translation since they said it was a textual argument. They just got very upset and said that people should just study more....After several years from graduation, I watched a James debate and it got me thinking. I found out many of the things I was taught wouldn't hold up when honestly opened up to criticism. I eventually switched to the ESV and CSB and the Bible seemed to come alive to me--i feel truly blessed being set free from these bad teachings. Please keep putting out more videos like this!
The New Living Translation is based on the most recent scholarship in the theory of translation. The challenge for the translators was to create a text that would make the same impact in the life of modern readers that the original text had for the original readers. In the New Living Translation, this is accomplished by translating entire thoughts (rather than just words) into natural, everyday English. The end result is a translation that is easy to read and understand and that accurately communicates the meaning of the original text. The Living Bible is a paraphrase of the Old and New Testaments by Kenneth Nathaniel Taylor. Its purpose is to say as exactly as possible what the writers of the Scriptures meant, and to say it simply, expanding where necessary for a clear understanding by the modern reader. Get your facts straight.
Dr Brown thank you for your many books you've written. I particularly admire your Love for the Jewish people. However I think that your remark about Easter in the King James Bible it's not really accurate. The translators I believe were trying to convey Easter in the book of acts as Wellers Pesach as Easter was a pagan festival. I would also like to know your opinion on the origin of the Septuagint. Was it written later than many scholars believe ? Also simply there are basically two texts the Textus Receptus and the Nestle Allende texts. When I first believed in Jesus I turned up aged 27 at my local church was the King James Bible that I have been given as a two year old child. My minister who is a very good minister said what are you doing with that old thing! So he advised me to buy an NIV which I read for 40 years. In 2011 I discovered a facsimile of the 1611 King James Bible and out of curiosity I started to study it and eventually came to the conclusion that it was the perfect word of God for the English speaking people. As you know Dr Brown Psalm 12 verse seven says that God promises to preserve his word. We all know that God cannot lie, and as there are no original copies where has he preserved it? I think the best thing for all of this is to ask the Lord! God bless you and yours -Bill - UK
Easter has a pagan origin. Plus it originated way after the scriptures were written, copied, and distributed originally. Peter told us that no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation. Acts 12:4 obviously meant something different than Easter to the early church obviously since there was no such thing as Easter.
The Bible Itself , God's Word of Scripture that is God Breathed is Perfect but Translations isn't Perfect. Obviously Translations is written by People that might make Typographical Errors and Is Re-edited , Making Correct the words of the Bible to Better Reflect the Original MS of Greek and Hebrew.
I primarily read the NIV but I also have other translations as well I don't really care for the ESV it follows the masoretic text to the T even when there's an error , at first Samuel chapter 13 verse 1 Saul's age and his Reign are clearly and error
That was a very good argument and analysis of the evidence that I haven't heard before. I'm going to disagree with Dr. Brown on a point - the KJ translators' statements can only be applied to the known translations at the time they wrote it - they would have no clue of the blatantly heretical versions that would be in print by the 21st century, including ones like The Message, which Dr. Brown included in his comment. The "it's all good" philosophy applied to Bible translation is the road to hell paved by demons. Contemplate the meaning of "a little leaven leavens the whole lump". It means a little compromise, filth or sin corrupts the entire thing.
"The Message: *The Bible in Contemporary Language* was created and translated by Eugene H. Peterson and published in segments from 1993 to 2002. *It is an idiomatic translation of the original languages* of the Bible. *The Message was translated by Peterson from the original languages.* It is a highly idiomatic translation, using contemporary slang from the US rather than a more neutral International English, and it falls on the extreme dynamic end of the dynamic and formal equivalence spectrum." - It claims to be and is recognized as a translation of "The Bible" (not a "commentary" as your other reply asserts). "1-3 God, my shepherd! I don’t need a thing. You have bedded me down in lush meadows, you find me quiet pools to drink from. True to your word, you let me catch my breath and send me in the right direction. 4 Even when the way goes through Death Valley, I’m not afraid when you walk at my side. Your trusty shepherd’s crook makes me feel secure."-Psalm 23? No more "paths of righteousness". No more of "Your rod and Your staff they comfort me" - which are God's discipline and guidance. The rendering is neither dynamic equivalence nor commentary. It's completely inane garbage - omitting the truth of God's word for a single man's pathetic lack of understanding, and I'm being kind to refrain from saying it is a deliberate false teaching.
+Troy H: You quoted wikipedia. On the same wikipedia page it says: "Translation type: Idiomatic/Dynamic equivalence/Paraphrase". You implicitly ascribe those words to the version itself which it isn't. It's from wikipedia. You lied. Why do you KJV-onlyists lie so often?
+Mr tee: Yet more lies from you! 1. You claim the KJV is "inerrant" when it clearly translated "pascha" wrongly as "Easter" (Acts 12:4). I've listed at least 9 errors in the KJV. 2. People 400 years ago did not have a good grasp of Hebrew. It was uncommon to find Hebrew scholars then. 3. The KJV translators didn't use Vaticanus and Sinaticus because it didn't have access to them. Erasmus would have used them if he could have. 4. You talk about a "uninspiring new generation of Christians. We all know they're phony." We've proven that YOU are a phony, lying constantly. 5. Apparently the sin of lying, breaking the 9th commandment (Ex. 20:16) is nothing in your mind because you are almost constantly committing that sin. 6. You've been told to repent over and over again and yet you continue spewing your lies.
+Mr tee: If we'd started to make the list from your first lie on the other page, we'd probably be into the hundreds by now. Here's just a partial list of your own going lies: "Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood." (Rev. 22:15) 1. You can't show that I don't agree with Leviticus 20 but you make the false accusation anyway. 2. You lie that I refuse to affirm the Law of God. You refuse to obey it! 3. You lie that not playing your stupid games proves someone is not a Christian. 4. You lie that it's "amusing" that someone doesn't play your stupid games. 5. You lie that I've negated Leviticus 20. You can't provide any evidence of that whatsoever but you continue to lie. 6. You spew empty insults, like "scumbag" in violation of the Lord Jesus' command not to do so in Matthew 5:22. How can you claim to be a believer when you won't obey the Word of God? 7. You lied that I refuse to condemn sodomites. You're an unrepentant slanderer who continues in the sin of breaking the 9th commandment (Ex. 20:16) by bearing false witness. 8. You lied that we Bible-believers are omitting the resurrection in Mark. 9. You spew profanities like "damn", "ass", etc., showing the damnation that is in your heart. Out of your unclean heart come unclean words. 10. You're so completely ignorant you absurdly say that the Talmud is a product of Christendom. 11. You lie that we Bible-believers are in favor of removing parts of the Bible.. 12. The Lord Jesus commanded to not judge but you break His Word and judge people, telling them, "you're going to burn in Hell". You can't possibly know who is going to burn in hell. But the Word of God says that all liars go to hell and you are unrepentant for your continual lies. 13. You've never repented of your lie that I said something about Anderson. 14. You've lied about what the question was. The question was never what is Jesus is called in Greek. You're trying to change the question in order to cover up your lie and your ignorance. 15. You lied that there is a doctrinal perversion Proverbs 29. The KJV is wrong about Prov. 29:11: "A fool gives full vent to his spirit, but a wise man quietly holds it back.." (Proverbs 29:11, ESV) 16. No one saying "NO BIBLE IS GOOD IN ENGLISH". You are just lying. The Bible says that all liars go to hell. Repent of your lies and stop spewing your KJV-only nonsense. 17. You do exactly what you condemn others for, thus being the very definition of a hypocrite. Read Matthew 23 as applied to you, Woe to you hypocrite! 18 You claim the KJV is "inerrant" when it clearly translated "pascha" wrongly as "Easter" (Acts 12:4). I've listed at least 9 errors in the KJV. 19. People 400 years ago did not have a good grasp of Hebrew. It was uncommon to find Hebrew scholars then. Your claim otherwise was a lie. 20. The KJV translators didn't use Vaticanus and Sinaticus because it didn't have access to them. Erasmus would have used them if he could have. Your claim that the they didn't use them for some good reason is a lie. 21. You talk about a "uninspiring new generation of Christians. We all know they're phony." We've proven that YOU are a phony, lying constantly. You hypocritically accuse others of exactly what you do. 22. You accuse others of being soft on sin when you are nearly constantly committing the sin of lying, breaking the 9th commandment (Ex. 20:16). 23. You accuse others of not telling others to repent when you've been told to repent over and over again and yet you continue spewing your lies.
If you really wanted to know what the Word of God says, you'd study Hebrew and Greek, not a flawed early 17th century, Anglican translation based on later manuscripts.
+Bradley: The Lord Jesus commanded us not to spew empty insults (Matthew 5:22) like you've just done. You've broken His Word. How can you claim to believe in Jesus when you won't obey His commands? Until you repent, that's the only issue you need to deal with. You need to examine yourself as to whether you are really "in the faith" (2 Cor. 13:5).
When Tyndale later translated the Pentateuch (Genesis - Deuteronomy) from the Hebrew, he used the word "Passover" throughout, so why "Easter" in the New Testament? Probably because the Greek word for Passover, "Πάσχα" (Pascha) does not have an actual meaning in Greek. Instead, it is a transliteration from the Hebrew "פֶּסַח" "Pesach." In Hebrew, the word literally means "Passover," so in the Old Testament, Tyndale was translating the word's actual meaning. In the Greek, however, the word had no meaning and was simply the proper name of a Holiday. By that time, most Greeks used the word to refer to the now separate holiday known in English as "Easter." Thus, ignorant of the roots of the word at the time he was translating the New Testament, Tyndale used "Easter" to translate "Pascha." It is a quite understandable error!
Id dont want Dr Browns name on my bible,nor Benny Hinn ,nor Billy Graham, nor Joel Olsteen, nor Donald Trump, nor Joe biden, i dont want King James either, he didnt write it, I call it the 1611, its a good translation, but not the only one.
2 Peter Chapter 2 1But 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. 2And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. 4For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 5And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; 7And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: 8(For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) 9The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: 10But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. 11Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. 12But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; 13And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; 14Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: 15Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; 16But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet. 17These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. 18For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. 19While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. 20For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 21For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 22But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
Dr. Brown does an excellent job of dealing with the controversy associated with bible translation.I was once a kjv only person however after considering other versions and taking some Greek in bible school I realized that although kjv is a good translation it is a translation. Jesus as I understood it spoke in Aramiac and the new testament was written in Greek so I ask myself the question how could an English translation be " more inspired" than the original. Kjv came on the scene some 1500-1600 years after most of the recorded events of the bible took place.Based on anything I know concerning the history of King James and the translators of his day he was not interested in creating an God- Inspired version.It is information like we see in this clip that gives us a balanced view as to how we should look at the various translation. Truth is constant. How we see and interpret that truth can be the challenge.Good interview
2 Peter Chapter 3 1This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 14Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
KJVO are VERY MEAN people!!! It’s like talking to a brick wall lol. I love the KJV. And even preach from it often. But to say the only true word of God is in English language only and is in 1611 England English is insane!! What about Spanish speaking people? Russian? Etc. 😂
"KJ3" by Jay Green, Sr. is really good and corrects some difficult passages. "Young's Literal Translation" is good also. Catholic Bible is terribly watered down. Thank you!
1. Is there currently any Bible in any language that is the 100% complete and inerrant Word of God? If no, is there any way for a modern human to access the 100% complete and inerrant Word of God? If no, why do you suppose God failed to preserve his word? 2. Since we're not sure about the Johanneum Comma (and several other passages) (I say we're not sure because I haven't heard or read anyone who will unequivocally say I John 5:7 is not original), why would we abandon the reliable texts (no modern scholar I've heard or read calls the KJV unreliable) passed down by our Christian forefathers based on some recently discovered manuscripts? What if we find older manuscripts that remove the deity of Christ from the Biblical text? Would we call them unreliable, even if they're proven to be very old? 3. If these old, but recently discovered, Greek manuscripts are more accurate than the TR, why do you think God allowed them to be hidden from the world for so long, especially since the Bible is his means of communicating his good news to the world?
1. Does a typo in your bible mean the word of God is not preserved? Does there exist any single copy printed or otherwise without a typo or scribal error? 2. If I take the KJV and take a verse that simply has "but of the Son he saith, though art my son.... " And Change it to "but of the Son, the one true God, Jehovah, conequal and co eternal with the Father, he saith, thou art my son..." Have I made Gods word more reliable? Have I improved upon it? 3. If there are less words in those old manuscripts how has Gods word not been communicated. The added words post the originals are not part of the communication after all. Put it another way, if my great great grandfather passed a puzzle down to his son and his son to his son and so on to me, and if in all that a handful of extra pieces were added by way of carelessness that do not fit when carefully examined, has my ancestor still not successfully given me the puzzle? Note: those Alexandria texts may be flawed. May be very flawed. Time will tell. Point is it's a complex situation and the TR clearly has problems. And transmission clearly isn't a monostream.
ProvokingThought 1. No, it would not mean preservation was lost. If the meaning is preserved, then it’s preserved. 2. No, adding a statement (whether true or not) to something that was communicated perverts what was communicated. 3. The number of words doesn’t matter. If I ask your name in English, I would usually say, “what is your name?” (4 words). If I ask in Spanish, I would usually say, “como te llamas?” (3 words). The meaning is retained with the same number of words. I could also ask “cual es su nombre?” (4 words). The meaning is retained there too. God promised to preserve his words to all generations. If the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are correct, then we didn’t have the preserved words of God available to us for about 1,500 years. That’s how we can know for a fact that they’re perversions of the text.
@@troydrury12 but see your reply to 1 and 2 seem to be contradictory. A typo or scribal error can and does one includes word alterations, deletions, and additions. So in 1. You say some error of sense (whether alteration, deletion, or addition) does not change the meaning overall and thus we have preservation still. But in 2 you say that the same category of error makes it a perversion (granted my example was purposeful so intent is relevant to the discussion). And originally you seem to balk at the idea of no single copy of the innerant word available anywhere in the world (more ok that below) but are ok with the general meaning being what matters. I will possibly grant you your response to my number 3. But back to 1 if you have KJV's with typos and you think the KJV is inerrant how does that work exactly? Does the innerant KJV exist as an ideal? Is there some copy that does not have error? If it exists as an ideal or some such how is this different than a conservative but non KJV only view of preservation?
ProvokingThought first, a typo is not in the same category as your second example. In your second example, you perverted the original text by elaborating (even though the elaboration may have been true). To illustrate, I’ll provide an example of both. Let’s say I wrote an original sentence stating, “my wife is 5’ 3” tall” and you copied it to read, “my wiffe (misspelled) is five foot, three inches tall.” In this case, the sentence has retained the original meaning despite a typo and minor textual variation. If, however, you translated it to read “my wife is a 5’ 3” tall nurse, who likes to cook,” you have perverted what I actually said, even if the details you added may happen to be true. I don’t balk at the idea of a single, inerrant copy of God’s Word. In fact, I have a copy of the KJV right beside me. I’m KJV only, but I’m not some Ruckmanite claiming that the KJV is superior to the original. I do, however, think the KJV is a perfect English translation. This is proven by the fact that it’s without error and matches the TR that was passed down through the ages. I reject all modern translations because they contain errors. If there was one that didn’t, I would say it was also a good (but not perfect) translation. Nothing in modern English could approach the perfection of the KJV because we have lost the ability to delineate between the second person singular and plural in modern English. This change to English would obscure the clear meaning of some verses. For example, John 3:7 states, “Marvel not that I said unto thee (Nicodemus), Ye (everyone) must be born again.” If you replace “ye” and “thee” with a simple “you,” the deep meaning is lost. The reason I think the KJV could still be inerrant with typos is as described above. Facsimiles of the original 1611 text are available online that read the same as a modern KJV-Compare them for yourself. They’re harder to read due to modern spelling changes, but they read the same (yes, they contain print errors and typos). Some of the print errors change the meaning of a sentence, but they were easily identified and corrected by comparing to the original document produced by the translators and the underlying Hebrew and Greek. There are also minor differences between the Oxford and Cambridge texts, but not a single one of those differences changes the meaning of any verse. Print errors and typos in the 1611 edition of the KJV have no bearing on the fact that the underlying Hebrew and Greek are inerrant and that the 1769 edition has been perfected and is error free. However, you can still find typos in modern KJV Bibles because some publishers have added errors to the text due to computer and print press issues. I never stated that I was okay with the retaining only general meaning. I said the SAME meaning. If I wrote, “Jesus was a first century Jew and God in the flesh,” and you copied it to read, “Jesus was a Jewish man, who lived in the first century, and was God in the flesh,” your copy is exactly true to the meaning. If you copied it to read, “Jesus was a first century Jew thought to be God in the flesh,” that would be a perversion of the original, even though some might say that the same general meaning was conveyed. Inerrancy is not just an ideal. I believe the KJV is the perfect Word of God in English. That doesn’t mean that no variation could be accepted. For example, where the KJV uses the term “God forbid” in the New Testament, the literal translation of the Greek word used would read something like, “never let it be so.” I think “God forbid” is a great translation, but I wouldn’t say that translating it as “never let it happen” would be inaccurate.
The NLT was built off a paraphrase the living bible but the current edition is actually very good.... Honestly there is much to many "SEARCH BAR" scholars wasting their time bible shaming over stupid things.
People do not need the bible to get into heaven. So weather you use KJV or any other translation, it does not matter. Yeshua (Jesus) wrote his Law into the dust of the earth and so it is in your inner parts. It is in your heart and in your mind. Jeremiah 31: 33 Remember when Yeshua (Jesus) was writing in the dust of the earth? He was putting his Law in the earth, our bodies are made from the dust of the earth. This is how he did it. He eve even test it by saying, "You who are without sin, cast the first stone." So how do I say that people do not need the bible to get into heaven. Matthew 25:31-46King James Version (KJV) 31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. It should be 100% clear that those people do not know who Yeshua (Jesus) is at that judgment and they also do not know what they even did to get into heaven. You can read it over and over and you will always get the same thing, They do not know Yeshua's (Jesus') teachings. That is why they ask him the questions. Here it is in another translation 31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ People get in without knowing him, or knowing his teachings. So people do not need the bible to get into heaven. Why? The Law of Yeshua (Jesus) is already in their inner parts, from the foundations of the earth. Where Yeshua (Jesus) wrote them on that day.
Mr tee It is not for every person to understand. If someone understands, it is for them to understand, if they do not understand, it is not for them to understand. It is just like anything else that some people see and understand and some people do not understand. I clearly stated it for anyone with an eye to see and the mind to perceive, if you do not understand, it does not matter to me. I was not shown this by any man or woman. I share what I know, if someone does not understand, I think to myself, "It is a sign that it is not revealed to them". If you pray and meditate on it, you might understand. If you are perceptive, you might perceive. Perhaps it is your culture, religion or level of education that makes it hard for you to understand. This is not an insult. It is a fact that each person has different levels of understanding. Some are meant to understand some thing and some are not. To keep it simple, every person will be judged by what they know in their mind and what they obey in their heart. If someone knows more, then more will be expected of them. If they know less, then less is expected of them. But the general population has a basic level of understanding of what is right and what is wrong. What is in their heart and mind. That is what they will be judged by. That is that Law that God has Written in their inner most parts. Jeremiah 31:33English Standard Version (ESV) 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. So how do you think "I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts." How will "Write it on their hearts" happen? Does a God go write it on every heart across the earth? or Does he bend down and write it in the earth? The same thing he made Adam from, which s what everyone comes from. Either you understand how a God does things, or you do not.
Mr tee You make my point. Yes, everyone has it. That is what everyone is judged by. As I said, for those who do not know by teaching, the base Law is inside them now. That base Law is where the Judgment begins. Jesus explains that when he talks about the judgment where the sheep and the goats are separated. Even if they do not know him or heard his teachings, they will be judged guilty by those Law written into the earth, or they will be exonerated by that Law written into the earth. You say it seems a bit disjointed from the situation that was happening at the time. If you go back and read it carefully, you see he is writing a Law, then he test it by saying, "You who are without sin, cast the first stone." You see, they must obey Moses' Law and stone her. Unless a new Law has been written that is over all of Moses' Law. Now pay attention. Moses' Law was written in stone, which is hard and unyielding or as it were, without mercy. A Law written in the dust of the earth is flexible and can be manipulated to each situation. If you can not see the difference between a stone tablet and some dust, you go crack your heat on a stone tablet and I will sprinkle dust on my heat. We will see who fares better. Likewise, because Jesus wrote his Law in the dust of the earth, it is inside everyone and each person has the ability to be pliable to each situation and yield to that Law inside them. Thus each person has the ability to do the right things at the right times and thus at that judgment, be exonerated by their actions. By keeping that base Law, anyone who is willing, is able to follow Jesus and never have met him or heard his teachings. So what is that Law? He explains it in that situation. Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone. The other part of that Law is, that if you have no accusers, he will not judge you guilty. John 8 1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.” This is in keeping with what Jesus said about if you have an offering to offer, if your brother has something against you, go and make it right, then come back and offer your offering and it will be accepted. You can see that whoever has a charge against you, that charge is standing in the way of you being acceptable. If there is no charge, you are acceptable. I tell you the truth, I go my way, and do all I can, to honestly use the secrets I have been shown to get people into heaven. Others use what ever they understand to do the same. I can not help it if I see things most people do not see. I also follow Yeshua in what he said, "What is whispered in your ear, shout from the rooftop." If the Wisdom, knowledge and Understanding I am given, is a stumbling block to some, it is not by my doing. It is by the Holy Spirit. Still, I will not stop telling what I know, when I am inspired to tell it. On that day, it will be proven I was teaching the truth. Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns." That was Peter he said that to. Peter later lied and called down curses on himself to fend off questions. Then later Peter was sinning and the Spirit of Christ corrected him through Paul. How easy it is for the flesh to blind people, even someone as respected as Peter. Yet Jesus was merciful and pliable to Peter and worked it out with him, as the Spirit of Christ continued to do. Salvation is not written in stone. It is written in the earth and it is pliable. Pliable by us too, because if we work it out for someone to be saved, we are just like Jesus. If you do not see the wisdom in what I know and share, it is not for you. It is for others who will read it and those will rejoice that they have been shown something rarely taught.
Mr tee it is interesting that you do not know the difference between an Old Covenant and a New Covenant, is the difference in the Law or Agreement. The agreement is the Law. In their Law, it is a Law of Don't Touch and Don't Eat, our's is not a Law of Don't Touch, Don't Eat. Their's is a Law of things being withheld from them. In our's "Nothing is withheld from me." Under their Law, they go to Abraham's Bosom. Under our Law we go to Heaven. Even Jesus said, "In Your own Law it says..." Jesus refers to their scripture as Old Wine and the New Covenant as the New Wine. He refers to people of Moses' Law as Old Wine-skins and His followers as New Wine-skins. A person being acceptable is what makes their offering clean. This is why it was said "You say to make a vow by the bread on the table. What is greater, the bread on the table or the table that makes the bread holy?." Jesus is making the point that the offering is acceptable, because the person is acceptable. If the person comes unrepentant, the offering is unacceptable, because the person is unacceptable. If however the person thinks they are repentant, yet have not made right the wrongs they did, they are lying to themselves and are in fact unacceptable. Their is no punishment for those who are acceptable. So the Torah of punishment, is the Torah of Moses and that Torah is Old Wine. Jesus is the Torah of the New Covenant in the New Covenant is pliable each person's situation. For those who are in Yeshua (Jesus) their is no Law/Teaching/Torah of punishment. Moses' Law is Stone and Yeshua's Law is dust to be blown about by the wind of the Holy Spirit. Random sins are not Continual Willful Sinning. As it is written, "If we sin, he is faithful and just and will forgive us of our sins." And for Willful sinning it says, "If we (meaning believers on Yeshua) continue to willfully sin, their remains no more sacrifice for sin, but a fearful looking for of judgment." This is why Jesus would tell people to Stop Sinning and live right. The disciples did the same thing. You seem to be able to study scripture, but do not understand the underlying secrets. You remind me of the disciples who had to ask Jesus what his parable meant. That frustrated Jesus to the point that he says something to them about their inability to understand his parables.
Mr tee you are having a hard time with reading comprehension. I never said he did away with Adultery. I said that the new Law is pliable for each person and the situation. I also said that Jesus said to her, to stop sinning. Just as Jesus told other people to stop sinning or to go and sin no more. Like the man he healed at the pool/spring. So you are confused about what I say. You are also projecting your idea of what I mean, into the conversation. This means the Holy Spirit is hiding from you, what I have written or you are stubborn in your ways of thinking and have no interest in learning. You are wrong and my responding to you is over. Anyone else who reads this line of post, if they have eyes to see, they will see you are wrong and making things up I did not say or imply. They will also see i am telling the truth concerning Jesus writing on the ground to put his Law in the Earth, so as to get in in our bodies, that are made form the earth.
+Mr tee: Just another of your continual stream of lies. I never said Jesus didn't keep the Law. You've broken the 9th commandment (Ex. 20:16) again. You have no reason to be dealing with these issues. You're a racist hater, too cowardly and dishonest to admit that you're a racist, continually lying, spewing nonsense and profane insults, hypocritically doing exactly what you condemn in other, and amazingly despite all that rotten fruit coming from your sick heart, you imagine yourself to be a believer in the Lord you habitually disobey.
All older KJV Bibles included a preface page which read "In honor of our high and mighty prince James". This is absolute pure Blasphemy !! There is only ONE 'high & mighty Prince' and it's NOT James. That is, unless you are talking about the "Prince of this world" ( Satan ) to which the KJV is truly dedicated....
My favorite version is the ESV which is the adopted version of my church for scripture readings during worship. But there is nothing wrong with the KJV Holy Bible and many other versions like the NIV. Dedicating a work to the person who authorized the KJV translation is not blasphemy (why it's officially called the Authorized Version). Even in the gospel of Luke, Luke in the verses 1:1-3 dedicates the letter (gospel message) to his dear friend Theophilus. I do not presume anything wrong with Luke's gospel message just because of him honoring his friend.
That's doing the same thing as onlyest, using traditions of man to measure the truth and accuracy of the translation. The letter to King James is just a tradition of the culture and time period that it was made, its not effecting the truth of the Gospel one bit. One of the greatest introductions that all kJV bibles should have is the Translators To The Reader which shows the mindset and opinions of those of the day. Focusing on traditional things which have zero bearing on salvation and core doctrines is a waste of time. Preaching to the choir traditions of man only causes the choir to fight and destroys fellowship.
2 Peter Chapter 1 1Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: 2Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, 3According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: 4Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. 5And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; 6And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; 7And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. 8For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. 10Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: 11For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 12Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. 13Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; 14Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me. 15Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance. 16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
God's inspired inerrant word are the autographs, God's preserved word is the manuscripts and all translations claim to be the exact words from GOD fully inspired. blessed be mans intellectual ability of textual criticism and the translation process. The autographs are the original inspired inerrant documents written by the prophets, apostles, or disciples. The manuscrpts are handwritten copies of the autographs or other manuscripts. These statements are truth therefore one original ,hundreds of copies and thousands of translations is the end result for us all.
+Bradley: You dare scoff at the Word of God, sounding just like the mockers we are not supposed to associate with (Psalm 1). The Lord Jesus commanded us not to spew empty insults (Matthew 5:22) like you've just done. You've broken His Word. How can you claim to believe in Jesus when you won't obey His commands?
Jeff david i heard paul prefered the word of GOD givin in the common peoples tongue of his era. Paul also prefered people do as he did . Use common language for the people that you are witnessing to.
Thanks Dr Brown! Prayerfully making my exodus from KJV onlyism and agree with everything said EXCEPT it seems obvious to me that IN ENGLISH “Easter” originally meant “Passover fulfilled in Christ.” Wish Dr Brown could help lead a path all the way from KJV only by explaining his take on God’s promised preservation of His words and dealing some with the text tradition issue. Many blow holes in KJVO but it’s hard to find clear answers to these problems that keep many clinging to it. God bless you and your work!
I think the biggest clarification to be made is that the meaning/interpretation is what has been preserved. Then making the distinction between these 2 Greek words...Logos and graphé. This is an excerpt from another discussion where I explained these 2 words. I hope this helps. ...That’s right it started when the holy men of God SPOKE not when it was recorded into Scripture. These prophecies of Scripture will come to pass whether they are written down or not. The ultimate power is contained in the “Logos” but the Scripture “graphe” can have the power as well because it is describing the Logos. If all the Bibles were destroyed would our faith be dead or would it continue in the spoken form? Logos verses graphe 1124. graphé ► Strong's Concordance graphé: a writing, scripture Short Definition: a writing, passage of scripture, the scriptures Definition: (a) a writing, (b) a passage of scripture; plur: the scriptures. 3056. logos ► Strong's Concordance logos: a word (as embodying an idea), a statement, a speech Short Definition: a word, speech, divine utterance, analogy Definition: a word, speech, divine utterance, analogy. I believe it all comes down to the understanding of logos verses graphe. In John 1 logos is used as Christ. Logos is embodied in Christ. It isn’t contained or restrained to the page. Its essence is on the air, in the speech, in the thought and therefore spiritual. Logos is eternal in this manner and is why the Spirit through John described Christ as the Word. In Timothy graphe (Scripture) is the written. The graphe describes and conveys the written form of logos but the graphe is limited to the written form and logos is not. Before the manuscript existed the logos was there. It was from the beginning. For example Moses is credited for writing Genesis but it existed in the oral tradition/speech (logos) for many years before that and had the power of God nonetheless. It survived the Flood because logos is immaterial. Another example is the verse about all the things that Jesus did couldn’t be contained in all the books. Why? Because the logos isn’t only contained in the graphe. It can’t be. Graphe is dependent on logos for its power but logos has power apart from graphe. It becomes alive and sharper than a sword by describing the eternal truth of the logos. This spoken word form is how the Apostles went out and preached. When they went out they didn’t have the written gospels. Before Paul wrote Galatians he had gone there and spoke the words of Christ and those believers in Galatia believed what he said before they had any Scripture. How many places do you think Paul went to where he didn’t write a follow up letter? Many. Look at the maps of his missionary trips and see how many places he went where there’s no written letter to those places. He converted believers everywhere he went as did the other Apostles and disciples. Most of church history exists among peoples who couldn’t even read but yet they believed in the Logos/Word nonetheless.
Acts 4:13 Bible College, I only trust the Holy Bible because that is the only book the Holy Ghost has ever used for teaching me. What I do is as follows, after an unbeliever presents a corrupt verse out of a modern phony bible I simply compare the fake bible verse to the truth as stated in the Holy Bible. The truth always exposes the lies found in modern versions.
The correct word is Easter. Easter is not the Feast of Passover. Easter is not the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Herod referred to Easter not Passover because he was attacking the followers of Jesus Christ not the Jews. Acts 12:1-3 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) In fourteenth day of the fist month is passover. The feast of unleavened bread lasted from the fourteenth to the 21st day of the first month. Acts 12:4-5 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him. Peter was taken during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. So it is made obvious that Herod waited until after Easter to politically maximize his attack on the church as was pleasing to the Jews of his day.
Im from Finland and read KJV, NKJV and also some Bible translations in my own language. I think KJV (King James Version) is simply awesome! Excellent! Super! People should be very careful to NEVER disqualify it nor laugh at it! For years and years I have recommended KJV very much as a very excellent Bible translation into English. English is not my native language and still I dont have any problem with language of KJV whatsoever! Its sounds so funny for me when some American's talk as if KJV language is an obstacle because its so OLD and hard to read. Im like "what???? Even I can understand it easily!" I think the TRUE REASON and THE BIGGEST REASON that some American christians talk like that about KJV is not the difficulty of the language. Its something else. I guess the true reason is probably that they want to be "trendy", "relevant" and not labelled as "old school". They care so much what their friends think of them! I think that people who read KJV and preach from it should be shown honor because of it rather that laughed at. I dont understand people who say: "It really does not matter what Bible translation you read." They say: "They are all translations anyways".... Come on! How ignorant is that? I cannot understand why english speaking people would choose NIV or NLT for example? WHY???? WHAT IS THE REASON? If people would really really care a least bit about the Word of God and respect its divine inspiration... then they surely would want to have in their hands some translation(s) that GOD KNOWS are translated with absolute fear of God! I dont think they would ever choose their personal Bible based on "its trendy & easy-to-read language and I dont want to be labelled as hillbilly" ! If thats the most important thing to us, then God help us!
In Finland we have a translation called KR1992 ("Church-Bible 1992"). Its translated with a principle called "dynamic equivalence". That means its "translators" tried to get the "thought" of each verse out off the original manuscripts as they understood it with their own natural mind. So... Rather than trying to translate the message exactly as it is word-to-word (as much as possible.) they are giving their own human intepretation (of what they think God was thinking) as a "translation". The result is what you could expect it to be: NOT REALLY A TRANSLATION. Result: So much is lost. And so much is added. So much is re-defined. So much is misunderstood. So much is twisted. Its because the "filter" is WORSE rather than BETTER. Im convinced these "dynamic equivalence"-translations of Bible are made by people who dont grasp what means "HOLY Bible". Its just "bible" with little "b" to them. Here just an example in one verse: (Compare:) Deut.32:8 KJV "When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel." Deut.32:8 ERV (easy-to-read version) "God Most High separated the people on earth and gave each nation its land. He set up borders for all people. He made as many nations as there are angels." Deut.32:8 Finnish KR1992 translated into english: "When the Most High divided lands to nations, when he spread men across the circle of the earth, he commanded the habitations of nations and gave each of them its own god." You see? "but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word." (Isaiah 66:2 KJV) "that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord." (Deut.8:3 NKJV) If some translators are confident they can translate it "thought-to-thought" (dynamic equivalence) that means they must be very confident also that they understand every single thing that God thought and wanted to communicate through every single verse (every thought of God in each verse). How unrealistic it is to even think that way. “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah.55:8 NKJV) If we understand even a little glimpse (of what God really meant&thought) its simply because the Holy Spirit has taught us! Its God's grace! God's word is majestic! "The entirety of Your word is truth," (ps.119:160 NKJV) Its the Holy Spirit's job to teach us all things. Its not the translator's job to put their own interpretation into the translation. Translator's job should be to translate as faithfully as possible in total dependency to God. Only One who can make the letter alive to us is the Holy Spirit! Until then... no matter if we had the best translations - Bible would still be dead&locked to us! Spirit quickens! He teaches! He feeds us with the BREAD OF LIFE! He opens our ears to hear the Word. Holy Spirit helps us and teaches us! (John chapters 14-16) Jesus said "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:" ... When I was 17 years old I got a new Bible translation instead of KR1992 and it really made a BIG difference in my life then! Could it be that Holy Spirit approves some translations more than some others? Could it be that He has something to say about this issue to us if we would just listen? I believe that even the translator's of the "donald duck"-cartoon are more faithful towards the original author than SOME of the Bible translators are toward God in translating His holy words! Do they fear God to take hold of this principle while producing a new translation: "18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues 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." (Rev 22) Another important question is about the manuscripts used (But lets leave that for now.) LET US PRAY, AND LEAN ON GOD ALONE (not to men) EVEN IN THIS MATTER AND HE WILL SHOW US THE RIGHT WAY! Proverbs 3 5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. 6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. 7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil. God bless you!
@@kingjesuscomes probabky wont see this but the deut. 32 passage divided up according the the sons of god/angels vs children of israel is about different source texts. Dead sea scrolls and or LXX vs Masoretic? Check specifics. Cant remember for sure.
Praise the Lord have you noticed that the book of Acts 2 38 and Matthew 28:19 has the same message (in the name of the) Peter is teaching you how to rightly divide the word in spirit and truth and put Jesus first in your life.
I noted also that Dr Brown doesn’t understand that the King James translator instructions insured the prophetic fulfillment of... Psalms 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
"Words" is feminine, "them" is masculine. Grammar must agree. The "them" is therefore the poor and needy. God will preserve his word but this passage doesn't speak of that specifically. That passage says God will preserve the poor and needy from this generation forevermore, or however it goes. I do not recall specifically. And if we say "this generation" refers to 1611or some other date post the closing of the canon that would be quite the difficulty. It would mean new inspiration or purification or perhaps at a stretch proliferation from one language (Hebrew in this case) to another (English). That is it might mean any or all of those but not preservation. In any event the KJV only position simply does not teach preservation at all. It is a text that like all editions and translations and indeed (especially) even copies whether written or printed that is somewhat unique to itself, and novel in arrival (1611) and thus demonstrates whatever method God used for preservation it was not through a single edition or translation. All of which is easily understood. For what men were inspired after the apostles? None. Could you or I write a perfect copy of our KJV? Not at all. We are human and would err for we are not carried along by the Spirit to pen the words as God breathed them. In the main most KJV only folks seem to mean purification, as if God had to rework it , as if he could not get it right. It's all rather odd when one thinks deeply on the KJV only doctrine. That being said, if that is your view, well have it as you will. You are after all reading Gods word and that is the most important point. Edit: of course I refer to the hebrew words not the English words themselves that are translations of the Hebrew.
Are you up for a debate Is God the author of confusion Charlie or is it Satan? Why would you want to read something "only sorta pure" and "could cause confusion" and think that is truly from God? If we do a hangout, it will have to be a debate format just on the topic of bible translations/KJV. You can ask your questions for NIV, MSG or whatever translation you wish, or just specifically on the KJV and we will answer and give facts as to those versions/KJV you bring up in your questions. I would say we start with 5 questions of your choice. You need to figure out what 5 questions you wish to ask and stick with them and then once you determine what 5 you need to send that list here to all of us 2 wks before the debate, so those answering you has time to study and have an answer for you. If time permits, you could add another 2-3 and we could do those if time doesnt run out. Plan on a 4 hr hangout in order to cover at least 5 of your main concerns/questions. Looks like Sat 8 am PST would be best for you with your work schedule. I would send link to join 30 min ahead of time so all can connect and we start right at 8 am PST. I cant do any earlier due to others in my home getting ready for work, waking up etc...Plan for a 4 hr hangout so you have time to ask your questions/us to answer and you get to work. I want everyone to have time to prepare for this, so maybe the 27th Oct or Nov 10 would be good? I will be out of town on Nov 2-3. If we go with the 27th you need to submit your questions to this email group no later than this Sat Oct 13th. This would need to be done the way Bill set it up on his channel when he was the mod for Ryan and Mathias debate. I would be the mod for this one. I would be impartial, keep track of everyone's time and keep the peace and not be "in the debate". Each question would be allowed 5 min to ask and explain your position and then Bill, Merle and Hannah would each have 5 min to respond. Since Hannah is KJV only herself, she would be on the opposing side from you. None of us wishes you to feel ganged up on, or outnumbered. If you wish to bring in someone else that isnt KJV only, you need to let me know by this Sat. I need their channel name and email address to send email to them. I'd prefer if you bring in someone else to be on "your side" that it be 2/2. If that ends up being the case it would be you and whoever you wish to join you for your side, then Merle and Bill for the opposing side. Hannah you are still welcome to join and maybe you could help me mod and keep time, in case I need a break, use restroom, go out for a smoke break (we dont smoke in our house and I will need a break haha) No interrupting at all from anyone when they are on the clock. This has to be strictly enforced. Anything I wish to contribute I would wait til the very end when all your questions are asked, the opposing side has given their answers etc... We would prob want to devote 10 min at the start just for welcoming, introductions, then get right into the debate with your 1st question and total can not run over 20 min per questions for you to ask and the others to give their answers. No more than 4 total to ask/respond to each question. 4 hrs is plenty of time to go thru at least 5 main questions you have, everyone respond and then for closing remarks from me. Figuring up the time in my head (assuming we can stick to the time schedule) there would be time for 2 addl questions Charlie. But start with the 5 main ones, then add 2-3 others and as long as we stay within the time constraints, we can prob get to 2 more. Just have your 7-8 questions sent here no later than 2 wks ahead of time. So, I need to hear from everyone what dates are good for all of you? It can be later in Nov if need be, I just need to know as I am the master scheduler for these special hangouts on our various channels. This would be on my channel and I am fine to have live chat be open for this. I will not really be able to mod the chat if I am the mod for the debate so will need Bill, Merle and others to help with the chat if ThickShades decides to show up and troll. Please let me know asap what dates works for all of you. Oct 27th, Nov 10th.
Dr. Brown, you cannot say that you know with certainty what the King James translators would say in this day and age. The fact is you fail to bring up the mysteries surrounding the sinaiticus and vaticanus codiceis, and the Jesuit influences and involvement. Neither did you bring up the Gnostic influences of those codices. You also fail to mention Wescott and Hort and their influence on the modern translations and also Nestle Aland and their background, history of heretical statements and support of Charles Darwin. Yet you don't mind them or at least you do not seem to mind them translating God's word. Do you actually believe that the King James translators would follow such codices or would believe them to be valid. You say that because the king James translators said that the Greek septuagint was God's word prior to the correction by the apostles, that it must mean that we are allowed to use well known inaccurate translations of the Bible today, and that the translators would support it. This is a backwards way of thinking and is not even logical to suppose that the translators would agree with such a statement. I am not against using a modern translation. But this video and your previous video has some serious inconsistences and you leave out conveniently necessary information about the king James translators for someone to make a decision using sound judgment. I certainly believe that the king James translation is the best one today and the most accurate one, for the record. And my reason for this has a lot to do with the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of which it was translated from.
The KJV translators had no problem following after the Vulgate in some cases or following after Erasmus a Catholic. But you’re not worried about the Jesuit influence there??
@@totalityofscripture1001 Man you need to do your research! Erasmus was far from a Jesuit. That is a ludicrous statement dude, get your facts straight. Did you know that the Roman Catholics of that day accused Erasmus of being subversive? Please tell me where the Latin was used, and I will show you that there it was correctly translated. Please show me
Duane Stewart I didn’t say Erasmus was a Jesuit. I was only saying since he was a Catholic who dedicated the TR to the Pope then he could’ve been influenced by them. The odds are way more likely that this could happen rather than your claim to try to support a young date for the Codices in question. This has been thoroughly refuted. They are both 3rd-4th Century texts. I guess one of the obvious Latin inspired verse would be the Comma Johanneum and the last 6 verses in Revelation. Other examples that are in error Diana (Latin) instead of Artemis and Lucifer (Latin) instead of Helel.
@@totalityofscripture1001 Not true and quite the contrary. It is well known that codex siniaticus was found in a waste bucket at a Catholic monastery by Tischendorf. And it was originally written by a man named Simonedes. Do your research! These are not 3rd and 4th century manuscripts. Tischendorf visited the Pope, and dedicated fhe siniaticus to him!! This is well known! Those codexies are Roman Catholic inspired and they are still inspiring many of the modern versions that they are based off of today. As far as those verses you mentioned regarding the Latin, I know that Lucifer is the correct translation. I will get back to you later with what I found after researching this long ago. I will also look into the other verses you mentioned.
@@totalityofscripture1001 When you have the time, watch this very well researched and irrefutably documentary, showing all sources and quotes where you cannot deny....."Tares Among the Wheat: Sequel to A Lamp in the Dark" on UA-cam ua-cam.com/video/qe3CMDXeG4w/v-deo.html
The KJV is correct in translating pascha as Easter in Acts 12:4. Read this article: www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_02.asp I'm not exactly a King James Onlyist but I agree with the translation of this verse in the King James Bible.
The Greek word in Acts 12:4 is "pascha" which means "passover", not Easter. Chick puts out lies and you should repent of spreading its deceitful propaganda.
The KJV is NOT perfect. Here is some of its errors: KJV: "robbers of churches." Acts 19:37 Greek: HIEROSULOUS, "robbers of temples" 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) KJV: "Easter" Acts 12:4 "Passover" KJV: "Tithes of all I possess" Lk 18:12 Greek: "all I acquire" KJV: "Schoolmaster" Gal 3:24 Greek: "attendant" (the law was the one who brought us to Christ, not taught us about Christ) 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.) 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. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.) KJV: "sweet savour" Lev 6:21; 8:28; 17:6; 23:18 Hebrew: "soothing aroma" (KJV appeals to wrong senses- taste instead of smell in the TR) KJV: "ashes upon his face" 1 Kings 20:38 Hebrew: "bandage over his eyes" (KJV varies from TR by using ashes).
It's impossible that the word is referring to the passover in the verse, and I think the article explain this well. Many times Chick is not really a good source, but sometimes I agree with it.
+Lookslike xD Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. Deuteronomy 4:2 KJV
+Charles Merchant: That verse is why we shouldn't use the KJV. It has verses that were added to the Bible that were never in the original manuscripts, like John 5:4 and most of 1 John 5:7-8.
"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord , thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." -Psalms 12:6-7 KJV
Miguel Lazcano wrong context for this verse. What is being preserved by the context is the poor and the needy. Refer to verse 5 to see this. Don’t feel bad EVERY SINGLE KJVOnlyist makes the same mistake.
Steve to add insult to injury I looked up this verse in the 1611 and the marginal note for clarification (which most KJVOers don’t know the 1611 has) reads as follows...Hebrew “him” ie. Every one of them. So even the 1611 knew this wasn’t speaking of the words but rather the poor and the needy.
@@totalityofscripture1001 Indeed. I have a reprint of the 1611 by Hendrickson and it is full of marginal notes. As an aside, it also contains the Apocryphal books. However, those have been "removed" or "taken away" from the "modern" KJV printings...curious.
Gee, how ethical of you to speak for men who have been dead for hundreds of years, alleging they would essentially put aside their own work. That's a debate tactic, not an honest argument. Once you did that I stopped your video. I will stick with the good-ole King James Version thank you, and you can keep your dozens of so-called better English Bibles and all the confusion it creates. BTW, it doesn't bother or affect me that some people like the inferior and less beautiful newer and so-called "better" Bibles. I will stick with the gold standard of English translations.
It's not the "gold" standard, it wasn't even the original English translation. It's based on an very late copy of the bible that's many centuries older than the dead sea scrolls and is full of translations errors as the scholars who worked on it didn't have a full understanding of Hebrew. Also, please explain how an obsolete version of English that's not spoken anymore is "the gold standard of English translations". It confuses new Christians, they find it incredibly hard to understand and so they should as it wasn't written for them or for you for that matter. It was written for the 16th century English people who made up the Church of England. I do read the KJV but not just that version, I read multiple different translations.
@@acurisur The KJV uses a very precise English, NOT what was commonly "spoken," even when it was produced. It IS the gold standard. No other English translation is as popular, and has had such a profound impact on the English language. The continuous attacks on the KJV is also evidence of how that translation continuously trounces its inferior newly copy-righted translation profiteers.
@@igregmart It uses the English spoken in England during the reign of King James. Don't lecture me please on what was spoken in that time, I'm FROM England and studied English history in great detail, including the reigns of King James and King Henry the VIII who were both influential in the making of that translation. I have to laugh at the notion that it's "the gold standard". You do realise that the KJV wasn't even the first English translation right? William Tyndale's Bible was the first English language Bible to appear in print in 1526. Then came King Henry VIII's Great Bible in 1540. It was this version of the Bible that was read in England during the 15th century. The King James Bible didn't come into existence until 1611 and reused 80% of the New Testament from William Tyndale's Bible. England moved away from this form of English in the 1700s which is why a lot of people choose not to read this version of the Bible. Are you also aware that the translators had a limited understanding of Greek and Hebrew that led to translation errors? Of course you don't because you're KJV only, the most ludicrous idea every conceived in Christianity. If I was going to read just ONE version of the Bible, it wouldn't even be in English. I would read a Hebrew and Greek Bible.
If the king James isn't God's words what is. If the Bible is our then it must be perfect. Unless you're saying we can't really have faith in God's power to preserve his word. In which case it is never complete and always open to changing. And standard is no standard at all. And just because the king James translaters didn't understand they were working in God's preservation is meaningless. Or do you believe all the writers of the New testament knew the were pinning inspired scripture that would become canonized. Your point is meaningless. So once again a standard is a perfect example. so what translation is this standard. Or do we even have one? When you qouted the Bible do you even believe it's God's word or do you do it in doubt?
Errors in the KJV: KJV: "robbers of churches." Acts 19:37 Greek: HIEROSULOUS, "robbers of temples" 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) KJV: "Easter" Acts 12:4 "Passover" KJV: "Tithes of all I possess" Lk 18:12 Greek: "all I acquire" KJV: "Schoolmaster" Gal 3:24 Greek: "attendant" (the law was the one who brought us to Christ, not taught us about Christ) 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.) 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. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.) KJV: "sweet savour" Lev 6:21; 8:28; 17:6; 23:18 Hebrew: "soothing aroma" (KJV appeals to wrong senses- taste instead of smell in the TR) KJV: "ashes upon his face" 1 Kings 20:38 Hebrew: "bandage over his eyes" (KJV varies from TR by using ashes).
You've made the mistake of assuming that for God to preserve his Word he needs to make sure that literally every single thing is exactly the same; every word, every letter, every comma etc. It is literally impossible to translate a word for word perfect translation from ancient Hebrew to our modern languages, some words and phrases simply have no equivalence. Koine Greek doesn't even have punctuation so good luck trying to perfectly translate punctuation when it doesn't even exist in one of the original Biblical languages. The Word of God exploded out of Israel and went to the four corners of the world being translated across multiple languages. The true miracle of God is that despite the New Testament going out in multiple different languages, being transmitted by uneducated or even illiterate people, the doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ were preserved. Anyone who tries to tell you that the core doctrines of Christ are compromised in other Bibles is a liar and trying to deceive you. Anyone who tries to tell you that modern Bibles compromise Christ's divinity is a liar and trying to deceive you. Are you honestly going to sit here and try to tell me that YOU know for a fact that the KJV translators were inspired, but they didn't? Do YOU claim to have some personal revelation from God to support that claim? The Holy Spirit is the standard, He is the one who guides into all Truth and He has guided His people for thousands of years before the King James Version was even written, and He will continue to do so. I trust that God can send the Gospel of Jesus around the world and save souls regardless of how many translations, versions or revisions are used. You don't. You're the one with the trust issue, not me.
Christopher Smith you obviously didn't read my post. I never said the translaters were inspired or brought new Revelation! So do you believe the woman caught in adultery is scripture. And is scripture self indentify and r do council of men decided it.
The original, inspired writings of the Prophets and Apostles is God's Word, not a flawed, 17th century Anglican translation based on later, corrupted manuscripts, at the behest of an ungodly king.
yeoberry well since we don't have the original autographs . That doesn't help us much today does it. what you are saying is God took the time to inspire but not to preserve .
What makes the Holy Bible first printed in 1611 A.D. the perfect , and preserved word of God? The Manuscripts. The Holy Bible first printed in 1611 A.D. Has Hebrew in the Old Testament. Revised Version Bibles have Greek in the Old Testament. Yet, The Holy Scriptures were written by Moses, the Prophets and the Psalmist in Hebrew not Greek. And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, Luke 24:44, 45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? John 5:45-47 The Revised Version Bibles are clearly flawed for that reason alone. The only Revised Version that uses Hebrew Manuscripts in the Old Testament is the New King James Version. But it is flawed like the other Revised Version Bibles. How? Because of derivative copyright laws in order to receive royalties it must be 10% different from the original. So it changes words in the same Hebrew Old Testament so they can get paid, but in doing so they flaw God's word. The Theologians promote oldest and best because they claim the LXX Septuagint was written in 285 B.C. which is older than the Masoretic Hebrew Text in Russia dated to 1008 A.D. But God doesn't leave himself without a witness. - Acts 14:17 In 1946 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. Do the Dead Sea Scrolls have Holy Scripture Manuscripts? Yes. In Greek? Nope. In what language? In Hebrew. Ah So. How old? 408 B.C. The oldest Holy Scriptures in the history of the world. Is the the Hebrew different from the Hebrew Masoretic Text? Nope. It's the same, preserved over a 1,416 year period and matches the Hebrew Masoretic Text down to the word count. Just like God said. 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. Psalms 12:6, 7 Do the revised Bibles have these Oldest and Best Hebrew Manuscripts in their Revised Versions? Nope. Why? They have no Hebrew anywhere in their Bibles, It's all Greek. Old and New Testament from Alexandria. (false witnesses against the real saints Acts 6:8-13). Is there any Bible on the planet Earth in English that has the Hebrew Masoretic Text in it that matches the Oldest and Best Holy Scripture manuscripts found in the Dead Sea Scrolls that are 123 years older than the supposed Greek LXX (Septuagint) date? Yes? In the name of all that is Holy WHO?! The Holy Bible first printed in 1611 A.D. Which by the way is in my very hand as I type with my left hand and hold God's pure and promised preserved word in English in my right hand. in the language of LAWYERS this is a open and shut case, In the language of PREACHERS this is sound doctrine. How is it sound doctrine? Because it is written in the Holy Scriptures - Proverbs 22:20, 21
isn't this a bit "anachronistic", dr. Brown...? taking the words of the KJV translators into our modern era, and suppose that they would be able to even remotely imagine the bible translation situation in our own day...? the "worst" translations they could imagine in THEIR era, is what we should be looking for, not what is the "worst" translation in our day,... would the KJV translators have judged the NIV to be "the word of God" ? and that is not even the "worst" one in our time... it is suspected, to put it mildly, that they would have been shocked that any christian person would have even used that version and even more that any would call it "the word of God" .... they were not able to imagine such a version in their day, and much less something like the Living Translation, and that any would call it a "translation" of the Bible.... (they are turning in their graves as we speak :) )
You're very presumptuous, I'm not even an English speaking and yet I perfectly understand the KJV, and my doctrine is solid because of the perfect word of God the KJV. Now, to modern bible onlyist cults, your authority is not the bible but people like this or your hero James white.
After 15+ years in the KJVO movement I'm now using the new CSB and ESV. God delivered me from the cultic KJV Onlyists.
I have no problem with people only using a KJV/Any other translation, but with KJV-only it just gets to a point of legalism.
I love to read the CSB. I don't mind most translations, in fact my faith isn't solely dependent on scripture, it is 100% dependent on the person of Jesus Christ.
Actually, the KJV is my favorite translation, followed by the NKJV and NASB. What I detest is the cultish exclusiviism that you find in cults. That mindset is very legalistic and judgmental. THE KJV has become a golden calf by those who fail to acknowledge what the very translators themselves acknowledged in the preface to the reader.
Praise God. That’s awesome. When I got out of it I realized for the first time how much more I actually understood from the scriptures. My walk improved dramatically. 99.99% of people simply do not have the capacity to understand the KJV anymore today. The remaining .01% are English scholars.
@@akepot well not a kjv onlyist but thats a bit of a stretch. It isnt that hard to understand, especially if youve grown up with it. Its got its linguistic archaisms but most are obvious in context. The hardesr can be overcome with reference books or digital resources and those definitons memorized. Dont misunderstand what im saying but far easier to follow the kjv archaic language than to follow the hebrew and greek. Not thst the kjv is superior to the original languages just a lot will argue to go back to those languages while saying the early modern english of 1611 is too hard. Moreover its only been in the last five decades that we moved away from the kjv. Before that almost everyone used it and understood it just fine. Unless weve all suddenly gotten dumber in the last fifty years i dont think its so much an archaic language problem as a literacy problem. I dont mean you by the way. Im sure you are very bright, just it wasnt the rifht translation for you. Again not a kjv only person but lets be fair.
There is nothing wrong with reading the KJV. Its KJ only-ism that I have a problem with. I know of someone that left the faith because they were told it was perfect and when they saw it wasn't, they wonder what other lies were they told and no longer believed. A translation is a work of men and nothing man does is perfect. Any English Bible that is Masoretic based will have multiple errors in it. Learning these issues in our Bibles and the explanations for them, should be taught in all God fearing churches. We need to have an answer when witnessing to the lost.
Amen, I can only say! The KJV is an outstanding translation indeed, but perfect? Certainly not! I also got fooled by this KJV onlyism for a very long time
Don't jump into conclusions just because you are ignorant of what's going on with a Bible passage. Kindly watch the following video if you're conflicted about Acts 12:4. ua-cam.com/video/ct42Rde4EQk/v-deo.html and you'll see that there's no error whatsoever!!!
Im happy to hear you escaped the "onlyism".
@@RemoBlissAre you talking about the mistranslation of Easter instead of Passover? One of the many errors in the error strewn KJV.
@@RemoBlissSam Gipp? KJV only cultist? Full of circular reasoning and false teaching. Trying to justify the mistranslation of Easter. Pascha means Passover not Easter. The KJV is wrong. Just as KJV onlyism is a false teaching.
Thanks for your insight! I’m no Bible scholar or expert, I’m just a young adult who loves God and loves reading all my different Bible translations. My comment my be partially wrong but these are my thoughts on this topic:
I’ve gotten attacked by a couple KJV onlyists and it’s so crazy.. one guy literally told me to throw all my Bibles away because they were “corrupt.” Another said they KJV is the only true Word of God that even other languages are “corrupt.” Their arguments make no sense to me..are they saying that only English speakers who can understand old English can be saved? I don’t think God would only save English speakers. Can people who speak Spanish, French, Chinese, etc. not be saved?? This seems to really doubt the power of God because I think the Holy Spirit can work in ALL OF US through whatever Bible translation we read. God spoke to me when I read the NIV and got saved. I also feel close to God through other translations like NLT, HCSB, CSB, etc., and even in the KJV. I’m okay with people being only KJV for themselves if that’s what they feel convicted is true, but it’s horrible how some of them are extremely hateful and just plain mean online. In my opinion it would be more productive for them to share their KJV Bible with people who have never heard of the gospel before, instead of discouraging current believers from reading their own Bibles and condemning them for reading “corrupt” translations. Their way of spreading hateful comments online seems so counterproductive in my opinion. Satan is probably loving it.
A common KJV only argument is that all the other Bibles are “corrupt” because they have “missing verses” but it seems like all of them have the same “missing verses”...if anything it seems like the KJV has added additional verses rather than ALL other translations having “missing” ones. Additionally, all the non-KJV Bibles I’ve seen always have footnotes that say something like “some Bibles say ---- here” so the verses aren’t even “missing.” I’m tired of getting condemned from KJV onlyists. They have to right to determine who is saved and who isn’t..solely based on which Bible translation they use. That’s between each person and God.
In conclusion: There is no perfect Bible translation. You’d have to learn Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic from the original manuscripts that Moses and Paul (and other people) themselves wrote..this is impossible because we don’t have them anymore. Read whatever translation(s) that speak most to you and live out God’s Word in your life. We are so blessed to have so many translations in English and other languages, so why not use them and enjoy them? Pray for the Holy Spirit to guide you (and others) to the truth. There’s no need to condemn each other for these petty things. Instead, we should use this energy to share the Bible with people who have never heard of the Bible!!
As a new believer I almost fell into kjv onlyism. It's a cult and there's a heavy spirit of pride over there. I even heard someone say the kjv is more accurate than the hebrew and greek itself😳 There's no logic with those peeps.
The only "hatred I have seen is from the anti-KJV cultists.
I myself was saved when I read the Living Bible after giving up on the awkward King James bible. The new versions are of God and not of the Devil as Satan doesn't want people saved.
“In January 1604, King James VI ...convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived *problems* of the earlier translations as *detected* by the Puritans.
James gave the translators instructions intended to *guarantee* that the new version would *conform* to the *ecclesiology* and reflect the episcopal *structure* of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained *clergy.* The translation was done by 47 scholars, *all* of whom were members of the Church of England.”
KJO, what's worse:
1) Having less accurate and out-of-date translation that cannot clearly communicate to modern-day people; or
2) Having a more accurate and understandable version(s) that modern-day people can grasp easily?
If God has a problem with translations, as you erroneously believe, then why did God not insist that it had to be read in the original languages? Crazy stuff.
I only use the KJV but I’m not KJV onlyist! There is a huge difference! KJV Only is a tradition of men and a religious spirit that needs to be repented of! I love the KJV it’s my favorite version but I do admit that it’s far from perfect
My question for kjv cultists is simple: I read the ESV. Tell me, exactly, what essential Christian doctrine it has left out? I don’t want to hear about some verses that aren’t there (because they were ADDED to the TR), I’m talking about essential doctrine-which one or ones is gone?
None, there are none. They will not be able to give you an honest answer ever.
They’ll come up with something. There’s no having common sense discussions with some of the onlyists.
Read Gail Riplingers book
@@jamie1682 Gail Riplinger's book is so easily refuted it's laughable
@@jamie1682What? Pathological liar, false teacher and KJV only heretic Gail Riplinger?
when I began to get sort of serious about the Bible/God (1992,3?) I picked up some version (KJ?) not written in Modern English, but I struggled heavily, and soonafter put it down and continued the pursuit of profanity, So in 1997 I picked up a modern English translation and though I did not expect a different outcome, and it helped me grow in the LORD much more....I realized that even now, I almost always get more from the modern translation and I encourage others to try it....you will be much more inspired to learn even greater truth. It is more important than ever: read the Bible in the language that you are most familiar...I think it is a matter of logic that we are more likely to be inspired by the language we grew up speaking. (if you personally think that the KJV more understandable, the next step is to start learning to speak the older English so you can more perfectly spread the news in a more understandable way! This is very important!)
" if the king James is authentic then why use a different bible that may be a translation that has a negative agenda"
That's not logical. That' like saying I don't want to get married because i might get divorced.
Use the King James all you want but don't be dogmatic against us who don't.
Mr Liver - alive in Christ
The KJV is a weird translation concerning homosexuality, it has not only that "abusers of themselves with mankind" but also says that *two men* will be in a bed when Christ returns.
I tell you, in that night there shall be *two men in one bed;* the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. (Luk 17:34 KJV)
"Men" was added here by the translators, it's not in the TR.
@@abnersilva3645 If you do not think the KJV condemns homosexuality, you haven't fully read the King James Version.
The comments are what I expected. KJVO itself is a symptom of a strange hermeneutic that in its attempt to find an "objective perfection" ironically disconnects itself from the world of the text.
Repent from what, exactly?
What nonsense. For starters, my salvation is secured by my faith in Christ. If anyone needs to repent, it's you, for considering that one's salvation is secured by their faith in a specific translation of scripture instead of the living Messiah. Your argument is theologically null and void.
You need to be delivered from your irrational fundamentalism.
+Mr tee:
Erasmus had to find the manuscripts your early 17th century Anglican translation is based on too. Your arguments are self-defeating and shows how unreasonable you are.
More and more I see kjv only-ist as the Pharisees in Jesus's days. They add to God's word things God never said. Thus sayeth the Lord , the King James is my perfect word...… cant seem to find that verse anywhere, even in the kjv.
Dr Brown failed to point out that scholars can not authorize any bible translation because they have no authority.
The Holy Bible is authorized by God in accordance with the scriptures.
Textus Receptus was used for NKJV and Modern English Version.
KJV was first translated in 1611.
It was updated in 1613, 1629, 1664, 1701, 1744 1762, 1769, and 1850.
Because the language changed over time.
1613 and 1769 were likely corrections.
Please send your Holy Spirit to help me obey You, and to do Your will for the rest of my life. In Jesus' name I pray, Amen
Who else loves the King James but isn't KJV Only?
Here's a question for KJV onlyist... If you are truly concerned about absolute 100% accuracy in what God actually said, why don't you learn Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic since those are the languages in which He chose to transmit the word? There is no such thing as a word for word exact translation having the same word count in rendering from one language to another.
It seems very convenient that KJV onlyism exists amongst English speaking groups.
The King James only crowd strongly discourage the study of Hebrew or Greek among among native English speakers. It is partly this anti-intellectualism that led me to abandon the KJO position.
The non English speaking world think its idiotic and ignorant to be KJVO. It makes no sense. I was also in this KJVO trap at one point. Thank God I got set free!
@@BloodBoughtMinistries the non- English speaking world doesn't really need to be any more concerned with the kjv than we are with the Swahili or French version.
Don't jump into conclusions just because you are ignorant of what's going on with a Bible passage. Kindly watch the following video if you're conflicted about Acts 12:4. ua-cam.com/video/ct42Rde4EQk/v-deo.html and you'll see that there's no error whatsoever!!!
What makes the Holy Bible first printed in 1611 A.D. the perfect , and preserved word of God?
The Manuscripts.
The Holy Bible first printed in 1611 A.D. Has Hebrew in the Old Testament.
Revised Version Bibles have Greek in the Old Testament.
Yet,
The Holy Scriptures were written by Moses, the Prophets and the Psalmist in Hebrew not Greek.
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
Luke 24:44, 45
Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
John 5:45-47
The Revised Version Bibles are clearly flawed for that reason alone.
The only Revised Version that uses Hebrew Manuscripts in the Old Testament is the New King James Version.
But it is flawed like the other Revised Version Bibles.
How?
Because of derivative copyright laws in order to receive royalties it must be 10% different from the original.
So it changes words in the same Hebrew Old Testament so they can get paid, but in doing so they flaw God's word.
The Theologians promote oldest and best because they claim the LXX Septuagint was written in 285 B.C. which is older than the Masoretic Hebrew Text in Russia dated to 1008 A.D.
But God doesn't leave himself without a witness. - Acts 14:17
In 1946 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered.
Do the Dead Sea Scrolls have Holy Scripture Manuscripts?
Yes.
In Greek?
Nope.
In what language?
In Hebrew. Ah So.
How old?
408 B.C. The oldest Holy Scriptures in the history of the world.
Is the the Hebrew different from the Hebrew Masoretic Text?
Nope.
It's the same, preserved over a 1,416 year period and matches the Hebrew Masoretic Text down to the word count.
Just like God said.
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.
Psalms 12:6, 7
Do the revised Bibles have these Oldest and Best Hebrew Manuscripts in their Revised Versions?
Nope.
Why?
They have no Hebrew anywhere in their Bibles, It's all Greek. Old and New Testament from Alexandria. (false witnesses against the real saints Acts 6:8-13).
Is there any Bible on the planet Earth in English that has the Hebrew Masoretic Text in it that matches the Oldest and Best Holy Scripture manuscripts found in the Dead Sea Scrolls that are 123 years older than the supposed Greek LXX (Septuagint) date?
Yes?
In the name of all that is Holy WHO?!
The Holy Bible first printed in 1611 A.D. Which by the way is in my very hand as I type with my left hand and hold God's pure and promised preserved word in English in my right hand.
in the language of LAWYERS this is a open and shut case,
In the language of PREACHERS this is sound doctrine.
How is it sound doctrine?
Because it is written in the Holy Scriptures - Proverbs 22:20, 21
Ezekiel 45:21 NLT
"On the fourteenth day of the first month, you must celebrate the Passover. This festival will last for seven days. The bread you eat during that time must be made without yeast.
I heard that Hebrew language had also change and some words cannot be understanding because the original language have been lost. Its that true? Does God name Jehovah was translate right?
J.r to my understanding to translate YHVH to Jehovah is error. But the only Name given to men under heaven whereby we must be saved is JESUS
So JHVH or YHWH or YHVH is how we might write it the hebrew in english. We know that Jah or more properly Yah is used in the bible as a shortened version of Gods name. The Jehovah way of saying it came from latin. Basically, the jews got where they wouldnt say Gods name because it was too sacred but instead would write in the vowels to the hebrew word adonai (lord) above the sacred name (YHWH) so they would know to say adonai instead of YHWH when they read it aloud. When Latin speakers translitersted the hebrew they took the vowels associated with adonai and applied them to the consonants YHVH or YHWH. Which made for Yahovai or some such which then in the process of time and language jumps became jehovah. Thats basically it but check what i say as im going off memory.
For what I received I passed on to you as of [first importance]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time,
The Bible didn’t need the British to improve the Bible.
I read from the New Living Translation because it's a very understandable Contemporary English Bible translation to read from.
I also read from the One Year NLT Praying Through The Bible everyday.
It’s too bad the King James Onlyists can’t go back in time and correct Jesus and the apostles about their use of the Septuagint. They could’ve set them straight and let them know it wasn’t the word of God.
Fabulous content!! I loved this talk!
“Father, I know that I have broken your laws and my sins have separated me from you. I am truly sorry, and now I want to turn away from my past sinful life toward you. Please forgive me, and help me avoid sinning again. I believe that your son, Jesus Christ died for my sins, was resurrected from the dead, is alive, and hears my prayer. I invite Jesus to become the Lord of my life, to rule and reign in my heart from this day forward.
Would it be just right to follow the Ten Commandments, and other common sense thing without fighting over details of each version?
A G please see the dialogue between JESUS and the scribe around Mark 12:28 Also, you *must* be born again: John 3:3-5 = Acts 2:38-39 to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD Our GOD shall call. Once you are born of the Spirit, you have the Promise which includes being led into all Truth. ONE LORD ONE FAITH ✌🏻
Im not a kjv onlysit but original 1611 being "very different" is a stretch. I counted about four meaningful (word) differences. I found word differences in: Genesis 39:16, Numbers 6:14, 2 Chronicals 28:11, Job 39:30
Then i note two meaningful differences between the oxford and the cambridge editions: Joshua 19:2 and Jersmuah 34:16. If anyone has a more comprehensive list of WORD differences betweem any of the editions i would welcome it. Not so much intrested in differences of spelling, punctuatiom, or capitalization.
And can anyone explain the relationship between the blayney edition and the oxford and cambridge editions? Im confused about what came first or is the blayney edition the oxford? Have had a hard time finding this info.
In fairness, the KJV provided a marginal note at Acts 12:4; easter Gr. Passover. Moreover, the base text for KJV was the 1602 Bishops' Bible; which also uses "Easter". I'm not currently sure why they did not change the text given their note. Perhaps we need to also hold all KJV publishers accountable for leaving out the marginal notes.
David yes most KJVOnlyists don’t even know it used to have marginal notes. I point them to the notes for Psalm 12:6-7 when they want to claim that “them” is the words of the Lord instead of plural for “him” meaning the poor and the needy. Also Isaiah 14:12 when they want to say “morning star” is wrong.
@@totalityofscripture1001 I have pointed out that first one a lot. They just ignore it. I know morning star is more literal but doesnt lucifer just mean venus. Literally light bringer but a latin name for venus and thus same thing in the broader sense?
ProvokingThought it does. The Greek is Heosphorus which is another name for Phosphorus. The Greeks believed the evening and morning star were 2 different gods. Both used to describe the planet Venus. Even Jerome didn’t believe the Satan thing and he’s the one who used the word luciferum. We have his commentary on the verse.
@@totalityofscripture1001 thanks. Appreciate the info.
@@totalityofscripture1001 Morgenstern in Luther's
What version do you use? Other versions take so much out that new believers could stumble. The arguments against the kj you are explaining are not that.
What do the more accurate modern translations take out? Don't you mean that the less accurate KJV have added uninspired verses?
@@henrylaurel1188 Luke 4:4, Luke 4:8, John 6:47, Mathew 9:13, Mathew 18:11
That is just a few. Compare what the KJV says to an NIV or modern version and tell me they are not important.
I enjoy discussions like this. When one understands what the Holy Bible truly is, one understands that God chose not to preserve the word at the same level as the original inspired autographs. First, it wasn't necessary. The doctrines of both the Old and New Testaments are such that they maintain integrity regardless of whether or not every word was perfectly preserved down to the last letter. I was raised KJVO, just not to the greatest extreme. I still love and respect the KJV and the amazing work the translators accomplished but the deeper one delves into the KJV, the more one realizes that a Strongs, a really good dictionary and more are needed to understand what it says. The words whose meanings have completely changed over time, the archaic words, and so forth create an additional barrier to truly understanding the Bible. I moved to translations such as the NKJV and MEV, that have that level of familiarity, but are so much easier to understand but am using many others based on the CT as well.
I just bought a copy of the LSV & highly recommend it. All the major translations are the preserved word of God, as we have available to us today. We can prefer the MT or the CT, but either way, we have translations, that when we obey them, we can and will live a life pleasing to God our Father.
Thankful to have such a wealth of textual information available to me as a lay person, not familiar with the original languages, yet I'm able to read and understand the nuance and differences in the discipline of Textual Criticism.
Why’d this happen Forest?
The KJV original edition included the Apocrypha. Are we to believe the KJV is the only correct version of a writing that Protestants don't accept to begin with?
The title page states that the Holy Bible consists of both, the Old and New Testaments.
Thus, the apocrypha is not confused with the text of the Holy Bible.
God ordained the publishing of the Holy Bible. God has not authorized some herd of greedy self appointed scholars to rewrite it.
The haters of the Holy Bible seek to deny its authenticity and authority.
The true title is THE HOLY BIBLE.
Btw, testaments are legal documents and it is illegal to tamper with it.
I'm curious why the KJV is the first English translation to change 2 Thessalonians 2:3 from 'departure' to 'a fallin away?' Every English translation before then translated it as 'departure.'
Most all the translations are good if you live by them
@MyImList Everyone should watch Battle of the Bibles from Dr. Walter Veith, here's the link ua-cam.com/video/tNv-zzpIwBs/v-deo.html
Im not KJV only. But i would probably consider the weakest translation right now as the message bible. If we tell someone what you just said about the message being the word of God there will develop such a huge crisis. I think we do need to be careful what translation we choose to read and teach from. I stay away from NIV and the message for sure. I know there are many other severely flawed versions as well. I haven't studied them all. But KJV and NKJV are probably the best we have available. I know many are leaning towards ESV now. Which I haven't studied that out. But what would you consider the best? As far as most accurate?
The NIV is the favorite punching bag for KJVO. Why would this be?? Every statement I've ever heard about the NIV has been easily proven false, just as every claim for the KJVO is easily put down. Basically people keep parroting and recycling the same old lies. Satan must be enjoying the discourse and division.
Baltic Hammer most of the time the NIV explains the verses in question. My favorite is when they bring up Hosea 11:12 and I say the KJV rendering is from the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic. I know how the KJVOnlyist feels about the LXX being from the evil Alexandria. Or Acts 8:37 when I tell them the 2 oldest Byzantine manuscripts don’t have this verse because their presupposition is that all Byzantine texts agree in every place 100%. 😁
KJVO answer my question "Was there 1599 Geneva Bible?"
This is good. I enjoyed this much better than the kjv specific video.
Amen, Dr Brown,...God's inspired inerrant word are the autographs, God's preserved word is the manuscripts,... not a translation,...KJV onlyism is ignorance of textual criticism and the translation process.
The autographs are the original inspired inerrant documents written by the prophets, apostles, or disciples.
The manuscrpts are handwritten copies of the autographs or other manuscripts.
Dave Hammond can a translation be inspired ?
+Tom Dunn:
We know the KJV wasn't inspired because it has so many errors. The KJV is NOT perfect. Here is some of its errors:
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
"Passover"
4. KJV: "Tithes of all I possess" Lk 18:12
Greek: "all I acquire"
5. KJV: "Schoolmaster" Gal 3:24
Greek: "attendant" (the law was the one who brought us to Christ, not taught us about Christ)
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. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.)
8. KJV: "sweet savour" Lev 6:21; 8:28; 17:6; 23:18
Hebrew: "soothing aroma" (KJV appeals to wrong senses- taste instead of smell in the TR)
9. KJV: "ashes upon his face" 1 Kings 20:38
Hebrew: "bandage over his eyes" (KJV varies from TR by using ashes).
+Mr tee:
You're an unrepentant liar. You're such a hypocrite you tell others to "repent" when you won't do so yourself.
Tom Dunn, Does God stutter?
+Mr tee:
One difference between me and you is that I can actually quote and list your lies. You just spew baseless accusations, with no evidence, break the 9th commandment (Ex. 20:16) and continue in sin. If you were really born again, you would not continue in sin (1 John 3:8).
how does everyone like the ''Tree of Life '' version?
Barbara C My favorite translation thus far
I'll need to check that 1 out. I'm always on the lookout for new versions of the Bible to read. Tree of Life caught my attention but I don't know much about it. I'm told Dr. Brown had a hand in translating it. If so, I'll put it on my list to read later. 😊😊
I’ll try reading the Bible in my language which is Filipino. For a long time, I’ve been reading it only in English.
Amen I pray you found a good translation
When dr white and dr brown walk into a church together one says greek and the other says hebrew . Yep lets agree the only truly inspired perfect word of GOD is the autographs; i agree but also the manuscripts . True.
One Lord One Spirit One faith One Word and thousands of translations is from the Lord .
Brown accepts the Septuagint as an authoritative translation so why does he keep insisting 'aionios' ( which is the Septuagint translation of 'olam' ) means 'eternal when it can easily be shown that 'olam' does not mean 'eternal' ?
I don't accept the LXX as authoritative. What in the world give you that idea? As for olam, sometimes it means eternal and sometimes it doesn't. I've said that many times as well.
@@LFTV What do you think of the late Christian cartoonist Jack T. Chick and his famous Chick Tracts, Jack Chick passed away in 2016 at the age of 92, Chick was a staunch King James Only advocate, see his website www.chick.com , other Christian websites I suggest are www.carm.org by Matt Slick,
GotQuestions.org , and The Interactive Bible, at www.bible.ca
Acts 12:4 NLT
Then he imprisoned him, placing him under the guard of four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring Peter out for public trial after the Passover.
The English Standard Version is not a new translation at all but, simply based on the 1971 edition of the Revised Standard Version. The English Standard Version is 90% word for word of the Revised Standard Version.
The one translation that is pure garbage is that junk that came from Brian Simmons, the NAR translation called the Passion translation.
Funny thing here, let's use "bible logic" against the King James Onlyism position. Whoever does not believe in Jesus Christ makes God the Father a liar (1Jn 5:10). The KJO folks claim that the KJV is a perfect translation even knowing what the Preface says. Therefore they make the KJV translators liars. LOL!
Please enlighten me as a KJV only since you know so much about the KJV. Preface! What does it actually say??? instead of just throwing a vague comment and let it run loose!!!
This is asinine^^^
Here ya go.www.bible-researcher.com/kingjames.html
"Network analysis of Genesis 1:3" by David Morrison:
1382 Wycliffe Bible And God seide, Be maad li3t; and maad is li3t.
1395 Later Wycliffe And God seide, li3t be maad; and li3t was maad.
1530 Tyndale Bible Then God sayd: let there be lyghte and there was lyghte.
1535 Coverdale Bible Than God sayd: let there be light: & there was lyght.
1537 Matthew Bible And God sayde: let there be light, and there was light.
1539 Great Bible And God sayde: let there be made lyght, and there was light made.
1560 Geneva Bible Then God saide, Let there be light: And there was light.
1568 Bishop's Bible And God sayde, let there be light: and there was light.
1609 Douay-Rheims Bible And God said: Be light made And light was made.
1611 King James Version And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1750 Challoner Revision And God said: Be light made. And light was made.
1769 Blayney Revision And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1833 Webster's Bible And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1862 Young's Literal Translation and God saith, 'Let light be;' and light is.
1885 English Revised Version And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1890 Darby Bible And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.
1901 American Standard Version And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1950 Knox Bible Then God said, Let there be light; and the light began.
1952 Revised Standard Version And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
1971 New American Standard Bible Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
1973 New International Version And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
1976 Good News Bible Then God commanded, "Let there be light" - and light appeared.
1982 New King James Version Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
1995 God's Word Translation Then God said, "Let there be light!" So there was light.
1996 New Living Version Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
2011 Common English Bible God said, "Let there be light." And so light appeared.
Conclusion
"The lack of any simple tree-like relationship among these biblical texts makes any attempt to study their phylogeny difficult. My own look at the business of stemmatology suggests that the results here are quite typical of any study of written texts. Part of the problem seems to be that ideas developed in one historical lineage can be transferred to other lineages, and even transferred to earlier parts of those lineages (see my previous post: Time inconsistency in evolutionary networks). So, even though there is a general historical trend through time, that trend is not consistent enough for a tree-based historical analysis to be effective."
1609 Douay-Rheims Bible. Did you check 1582 Rheims NT to ensure the 1609 Douay-Rheims did not introduce variances?
Why do I see the same KjvO's saying the same things on videos like this all over Utube?
I know it was a rhetorical question, but I'll answer it anyway, they are brainwashed. I'm not being sarcastic, really mean it. No matter how much clear evidence you show them, they'll call you a liar or a bunch of others names. I have yet to find one KJ onlyist explain the following error in their Bible. Read the following Acts 7:14 then read Deut 10:22 and Exd 1:5. How many people went?
@@dlbard1 everything I check shows both the LXX and the Masoretic to read 70, and the Greek of NT to read 75. So it seems a case of them just being faithful to what the text says (however inconsistent it might seem). Do you have another explanation? Or a solution? It is an interesting point. Should we try to "fix" such issues or leave them as is when we translate?
Edit: could be that there is a credible variant tho that would sythesize.... didn't dig that deep
What versions were you looking at? Just checked ABP, Westcot & Hort, Swete, Rahlfs, and Brenton. All show no conflict in those passages. They agree with the NT and state 75. Even the DSS 4Q1(Which contains Exd1:5) reads 75. No DSS readings for Deut 10:22
@@dlbard1 ok. Honestly don't know. Just googled LXX interlinear. And used the first one that came up (I'm working on learning Greek but am way away from being even decent with it). Thanks. I wasn't trying to argue or anything was just curious what you meant as I had never checked that particular thing (though I had other things like that) . Good to know.
@@dlbard1 but yeah definitely think that you got a point about the Masoretic from the stand point of it's post Christ put together by openly hostile competing religious group. I've often wondered about psalm 22. I know zero of Hebrew but I do know that the Hebrew is completely missing the verb in the critical "they have pierced my hands and feet". Which is weird seems to me.
I appreciate the video. I used to be KJV only-even went to a school that taught that, I remember asking the teacher if it would ok to make a new translation since they said it was a textual argument. They just got very upset and said that people should just study more....After several years from graduation, I watched a James debate and it got me thinking. I found out many of the things I was taught wouldn't hold up when honestly opened up to criticism. I eventually switched to the ESV and CSB and the Bible seemed to come alive to me--i feel truly blessed being set free from these bad teachings. Please keep putting out more videos like this!
The New Living Translation is based on the most recent scholarship in the theory of translation. The challenge for the translators was to create a text that would make the same impact in the life of modern readers that the original text had for the original readers. In the New Living Translation, this is accomplished by translating entire thoughts (rather than just words) into natural, everyday English. The end result is a translation that is easy to read and understand and that accurately communicates the meaning of the original text.
The Living Bible is a paraphrase of the Old and New Testaments by Kenneth Nathaniel Taylor. Its purpose is to say as exactly as possible what the writers of the Scriptures meant, and to say it simply, expanding where necessary for a clear understanding by the modern reader.
Get your facts straight.
King James was no more authorized to make his own edition than if Donald Trump came out with the Donald Trump Bible. Think about that.
Dr Brown thank you for your many books you've written. I particularly admire your Love for the Jewish people. However I think that your remark about Easter in the King James Bible it's not really accurate. The translators I believe were trying to convey Easter in the book of acts as Wellers Pesach as Easter was a pagan festival. I would also like to know your opinion on the origin of the Septuagint. Was it written later than many scholars believe ? Also simply there are basically two texts the Textus Receptus and the Nestle Allende texts. When I first believed in Jesus I turned up aged 27 at my local church was the King James Bible that I have been given as a two year old child. My minister who is a very good minister said what are you doing with that old thing! So he advised me to buy an NIV which I read for 40 years. In 2011 I discovered a facsimile of the 1611 King James Bible and out of curiosity I started to study it and eventually came to the conclusion that it was the perfect word of God for the English speaking people. As you know Dr Brown Psalm 12 verse seven says that God promises to preserve his word. We all know that God cannot lie, and as there are no original copies where has he preserved it? I think the best thing for all of this is to ask the Lord!
God bless you and yours -Bill - UK
Easter has a pagan origin. Plus it originated way after the scriptures were written, copied, and distributed originally. Peter told us that no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation. Acts 12:4 obviously meant something different than Easter to the early church obviously since there was no such thing as Easter.
Agree 100 percent! I use Bible hub to compare ALL translations and this has been extremely beneficial
The Bible Itself , God's Word of Scripture that is God Breathed is Perfect but Translations isn't Perfect.
Obviously Translations is written by People that might make Typographical Errors and Is Re-edited , Making Correct the words of the Bible to Better Reflect the Original MS of Greek and Hebrew.
I primarily read the NIV but I also have other translations as well I don't really care for the ESV it follows the masoretic text to the T even when there's an error , at first Samuel chapter 13 verse 1 Saul's age and his Reign are clearly and error
That was a very good argument and analysis of the evidence that I haven't heard before. I'm going to disagree with Dr. Brown on a point - the KJ translators' statements can only be applied to the known translations at the time they wrote it - they would have no clue of the blatantly heretical versions that would be in print by the 21st century, including ones like The Message, which Dr. Brown included in his comment. The "it's all good" philosophy applied to Bible translation is the road to hell paved by demons. Contemplate the meaning of "a little leaven leavens the whole lump". It means a little compromise, filth or sin corrupts the entire thing.
"The Message" isn't a translation. It's a paraphrase.
"The Message: *The Bible in Contemporary Language* was created and translated by Eugene H. Peterson and published in segments from 1993 to 2002. *It is an idiomatic translation of the original languages* of the Bible. *The Message was translated by Peterson from the original languages.* It is a highly idiomatic translation, using contemporary slang from the US rather than a more neutral International English, and it falls on the extreme dynamic end of the dynamic and formal equivalence spectrum."
- It claims to be and is recognized as a translation of "The Bible" (not a "commentary" as your other reply asserts).
"1-3 God, my shepherd! I don’t need a thing. You have bedded me down in
lush meadows, you find me quiet pools to drink from. True to your word,
you let me catch my breath and send me in the right direction. 4 Even
when the way goes through Death Valley, I’m not afraid when you walk at
my side. Your trusty shepherd’s crook makes me feel secure."-Psalm 23?
No more "paths of righteousness". No more of "Your rod and Your staff they comfort me" - which are God's discipline and guidance. The rendering is neither dynamic equivalence nor commentary. It's completely inane garbage - omitting the truth of God's word for a single man's pathetic lack of understanding, and I'm being kind to refrain from saying it is a deliberate false teaching.
+Troy H:
You quoted wikipedia. On the same wikipedia page it says: "Translation type: Idiomatic/Dynamic equivalence/Paraphrase".
You implicitly ascribe those words to the version itself which it isn't. It's from wikipedia. You lied.
Why do you KJV-onlyists lie so often?
+Mr tee:
Yet more lies from you!
1. You claim the KJV is "inerrant" when it clearly translated "pascha" wrongly as "Easter" (Acts 12:4). I've listed at least 9 errors in the KJV.
2. People 400 years ago did not have a good grasp of Hebrew. It was uncommon to find Hebrew scholars then.
3. The KJV translators didn't use Vaticanus and Sinaticus because it didn't have access to them. Erasmus would have used them if he could have.
4. You talk about a "uninspiring new generation of Christians. We all know they're phony." We've proven that YOU are a phony, lying constantly.
5. Apparently the sin of lying, breaking the 9th commandment (Ex. 20:16) is nothing in your mind because you are almost constantly committing that sin.
6. You've been told to repent over and over again and yet you continue spewing your lies.
+Mr tee: If we'd started to make the list from your first lie on the other page, we'd probably be into the hundreds by now. Here's just a partial list of your own going lies:
"Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood." (Rev. 22:15)
1. You can't show that I don't agree with Leviticus 20 but you make the false accusation anyway.
2. You lie that I refuse to affirm the Law of God. You refuse to obey it!
3. You lie that not playing your stupid games proves someone is not a Christian.
4. You lie that it's "amusing" that someone doesn't play your stupid games.
5. You lie that I've negated Leviticus 20. You can't provide any evidence of that whatsoever but you continue to lie.
6. You spew empty insults, like "scumbag" in violation of the Lord Jesus' command not to do so in Matthew 5:22. How can you claim to be a believer when you won't obey the Word of God?
7. You lied that I refuse to condemn sodomites. You're an unrepentant slanderer who continues in the sin of breaking the 9th commandment (Ex. 20:16) by bearing false witness.
8. You lied that we Bible-believers are omitting the resurrection in Mark.
9. You spew profanities like "damn", "ass", etc., showing the damnation that is in your heart. Out of your unclean heart come unclean words.
10. You're so completely ignorant you absurdly say that the Talmud is a product of Christendom.
11. You lie that we Bible-believers are in favor of removing parts of the Bible..
12. The Lord Jesus commanded to not judge but you break His Word and judge people, telling them, "you're going to burn in Hell". You can't possibly know who is going to burn in hell. But the Word of God says that all liars go to hell and you are unrepentant for your continual lies.
13. You've never repented of your lie that I said something about Anderson.
14. You've lied about what the question was. The question was never what is Jesus is called in Greek. You're trying to change the question in order to cover up your lie and your ignorance.
15. You lied that there is a doctrinal perversion Proverbs 29.
The KJV is wrong about Prov. 29:11: "A fool gives full vent to his spirit,
but a wise man quietly holds it back.." (Proverbs 29:11, ESV)
16. No one saying "NO BIBLE IS GOOD IN ENGLISH". You are just lying. The Bible says that all liars go to hell. Repent of your lies and stop spewing your KJV-only nonsense.
17. You do exactly what you condemn others for, thus being the very definition of a hypocrite. Read Matthew 23 as applied to you, Woe to you hypocrite!
18 You claim the KJV is "inerrant" when it clearly translated "pascha" wrongly as "Easter" (Acts 12:4). I've listed at least 9 errors in the KJV.
19. People 400 years ago did not have a good grasp of Hebrew. It was uncommon to find Hebrew scholars then. Your claim otherwise was a lie.
20. The KJV translators didn't use Vaticanus and Sinaticus because it didn't have access to them. Erasmus would have used them if he could have. Your claim that the they didn't use them for some good reason is a lie.
21. You talk about a "uninspiring new generation of Christians. We all know they're phony." We've proven that YOU are a phony, lying constantly. You hypocritically accuse others of exactly what you do.
22. You accuse others of being soft on sin when you are nearly constantly committing the sin of lying, breaking the 9th commandment (Ex. 20:16).
23. You accuse others of not telling others to repent when you've been told to repent over and over again and yet you continue spewing your lies.
LoL..Yup, Dr. Brown, spot on. This is why I use a copy of the original 1611 for study/research on these matters.
If you really wanted to know what the Word of God says, you'd study Hebrew and Greek, not a flawed early 17th century, Anglican translation based on later manuscripts.
+Bradley:
The Lord Jesus commanded us not to spew empty insults (Matthew 5:22) like you've just done. You've broken His Word. How can you claim to believe in Jesus when you won't obey His commands? Until you repent, that's the only issue you need to deal with. You need to examine yourself as to whether you are really "in the faith" (2 Cor. 13:5).
Easter or Passover?
When Tyndale later translated the Pentateuch (Genesis - Deuteronomy) from the Hebrew, he used the word "Passover" throughout, so why "Easter" in the New Testament? Probably because the Greek word for Passover, "Πάσχα" (Pascha) does not have an actual meaning in Greek. Instead, it is a transliteration from the Hebrew "פֶּסַח" "Pesach." In Hebrew, the word literally means "Passover," so in the Old Testament, Tyndale was translating the word's actual meaning. In the Greek, however, the word had no meaning and was simply the proper name of a Holiday. By that time, most Greeks used the word to refer to the now separate holiday known in English as "Easter." Thus, ignorant of the roots of the word at the time he was translating the New Testament, Tyndale used "Easter" to translate "Pascha." It is a quite understandable error!
Id dont want Dr Browns name on my bible,nor Benny Hinn ,nor Billy Graham, nor Joel Olsteen, nor Donald Trump, nor Joe biden, i dont want King James either, he didnt write it, I call it the 1611, its a good translation, but not the only one.
Yes, but the KJV only people would probably have a reply to this video , and try to explain away what Dr.Brown said ,
What about the late Jack T. Chick and his Chick Tracts ? Jack Chick was strongly King James Only
I don understand why anyone argues with The King James Version, I mean, come on now. The Apostle Paul carried it with him EVERYWHERE... 😆
lol. Right at the beginning when asking people to think it failed. Lol. Especially KJV onlyism followers.
2 Peter
Chapter 2
1But 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.
2And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
3And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
4For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
5And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
6And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
7And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
8(For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)
9The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
10But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
11Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
12But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;
13And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;
14Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:
15Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
16But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet.
17These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.
18For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
19While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
20For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
Dr. Brown does an excellent job of dealing with the controversy associated with bible translation.I was once a kjv only person however after considering other versions and taking some Greek in bible school I realized that although kjv is a good translation it is a translation. Jesus as I understood it spoke in Aramiac and the new testament was written in Greek so I ask myself the question how could an English translation be " more inspired" than the original. Kjv came on the scene some 1500-1600 years after most of the recorded events of the bible took place.Based on anything I know concerning the history of King James and the translators of his day he was not interested in creating an God- Inspired version.It is information like we see in this clip that gives us a balanced view as to how we should look at the various translation. Truth is constant. How we see and interpret that truth can be the challenge.Good interview
2 Peter
Chapter 3
1This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
14Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
KJVO are VERY MEAN people!!! It’s like talking to a brick wall lol. I love the KJV. And even preach from it often. But to say the only true word of God is in English language only and is in 1611 England English is insane!! What about Spanish speaking people? Russian? Etc. 😂
"KJ3" by Jay Green, Sr. is really good and corrects some difficult passages. "Young's Literal Translation" is good also. Catholic Bible is terribly watered down. Thank you!
1. Is there currently any Bible in any language that is the 100% complete and inerrant Word of God? If no, is there any way for a modern human to access the 100% complete and inerrant Word of God? If no, why do you suppose God failed to preserve his word?
2. Since we're not sure about the Johanneum Comma (and several other passages) (I say we're not sure because I haven't heard or read anyone who will unequivocally say I John 5:7 is not original), why would we abandon the reliable texts (no modern scholar I've heard or read calls the KJV unreliable) passed down by our Christian forefathers based on some recently discovered manuscripts? What if we find older manuscripts that remove the deity of Christ from the Biblical text? Would we call them unreliable, even if they're proven to be very old?
3. If these old, but recently discovered, Greek manuscripts are more accurate than the TR, why do you think God allowed them to be hidden from the world for so long, especially since the Bible is his means of communicating his good news to the world?
1. Does a typo in your bible mean the word of God is not preserved? Does there exist any single copy printed or otherwise without a typo or scribal error?
2. If I take the KJV and take a verse that simply has "but of the Son he saith, though art my son.... " And Change it to "but of the Son, the one true God, Jehovah, conequal and co eternal with the Father, he saith, thou art my son..." Have I made Gods word more reliable? Have I improved upon it?
3. If there are less words in those old manuscripts how has Gods word not been communicated. The added words post the originals are not part of the communication after all. Put it another way, if my great great grandfather passed a puzzle down to his son and his son to his son and so on to me, and if in all that a handful of extra pieces were added by way of carelessness that do not fit when carefully examined, has my ancestor still not successfully given me the puzzle?
Note: those Alexandria texts may be flawed. May be very flawed. Time will tell. Point is it's a complex situation and the TR clearly has problems. And transmission clearly isn't a monostream.
ProvokingThought 1. No, it would not mean preservation was lost. If the meaning is preserved, then it’s preserved.
2. No, adding a statement (whether true or not) to something that was communicated perverts what was communicated.
3. The number of words doesn’t matter. If I ask your name in English, I would usually say, “what is your name?” (4 words). If I ask in Spanish, I would usually say, “como te llamas?” (3 words). The meaning is retained with the same number of words. I could also ask “cual es su nombre?” (4 words). The meaning is retained there too.
God promised to preserve his words to all generations. If the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are correct, then we didn’t have the preserved words of God available to us for about 1,500 years. That’s how we can know for a fact that they’re perversions of the text.
@@troydrury12 interesting. Thanks
@@troydrury12 but see your reply to 1 and 2 seem to be contradictory. A typo or scribal error can and does one includes
word alterations, deletions, and additions. So in 1. You say some error of sense (whether alteration, deletion, or addition) does not change the meaning overall and thus we have preservation still. But in 2 you say that the same category of error makes it a perversion (granted my example was purposeful so intent is relevant to the discussion). And originally you seem to balk at the idea of no single copy of the innerant word available anywhere in the world (more ok that below) but are ok with the general meaning being what matters.
I will possibly grant you your response to my number 3.
But back to 1 if you have KJV's with typos and you think the KJV is inerrant how does that work exactly?
Does the innerant KJV exist as an ideal? Is there some copy that does not have error?
If it exists as an ideal or some such how is this different than a conservative but non KJV only view of preservation?
ProvokingThought first, a typo is not in the same category as your second example. In your second example, you perverted the original text by elaborating (even though the elaboration may have been true). To illustrate, I’ll provide an example of both. Let’s say I wrote an original sentence stating, “my wife is 5’ 3” tall” and you copied it to read, “my wiffe (misspelled) is five foot, three inches tall.” In this case, the sentence has retained the original meaning despite a typo and minor textual variation. If, however, you translated it to read “my wife is a 5’ 3” tall nurse, who likes to cook,” you have perverted what I actually said, even if the details you added may happen to be true.
I don’t balk at the idea of a single, inerrant copy of God’s Word. In fact, I have a copy of the KJV right beside me. I’m KJV only, but I’m not some Ruckmanite claiming that the KJV is superior to the original. I do, however, think the KJV is a perfect English translation. This is proven by the fact that it’s without error and matches the TR that was passed down through the ages. I reject all modern translations because they contain errors. If there was one that didn’t, I would say it was also a good (but not perfect) translation. Nothing in modern English could approach the perfection of the KJV because we have lost the ability to delineate between the second person singular and plural in modern English. This change to English would obscure the clear meaning of some verses. For example, John 3:7 states, “Marvel not that I said unto thee (Nicodemus), Ye (everyone) must be born again.” If you replace “ye” and “thee” with a simple “you,” the deep meaning is lost.
The reason I think the KJV could still be inerrant with typos is as described above. Facsimiles of the original 1611 text are available online that read the same as a modern KJV-Compare them for yourself. They’re harder to read due to modern spelling changes, but they read the same (yes, they contain print errors and typos). Some of the print errors change the meaning of a sentence, but they were easily identified and corrected by comparing to the original document produced by the translators and the underlying Hebrew and Greek. There are also minor differences between the Oxford and Cambridge texts, but not a single one of those differences changes the meaning of any verse. Print errors and typos in the 1611 edition of the KJV have no bearing on the fact that the underlying Hebrew and Greek are inerrant and that the 1769 edition has been perfected and is error free. However, you can still find typos in modern KJV Bibles because some publishers have added errors to the text due to computer and print press issues.
I never stated that I was okay with the retaining only general meaning. I said the SAME meaning. If I wrote, “Jesus was a first century Jew and God in the flesh,” and you copied it to read, “Jesus was a Jewish man, who lived in the first century, and was God in the flesh,” your copy is exactly true to the meaning. If you copied it to read, “Jesus was a first century Jew thought to be God in the flesh,” that would be a perversion of the original, even though some might say that the same general meaning was conveyed.
Inerrancy is not just an ideal. I believe the KJV is the perfect Word of God in English. That doesn’t mean that no variation could be accepted. For example, where the KJV uses the term “God forbid” in the New Testament, the literal translation of the Greek word used would read something like, “never let it be so.” I think “God forbid” is a great translation, but I wouldn’t say that translating it as “never let it happen” would be inaccurate.
The NLT was built off a paraphrase the living bible but the current edition is actually very good.... Honestly there is much to many "SEARCH BAR" scholars wasting their time bible shaming over stupid things.
Hebrew bible? They dont have the new testement? Are you into Judism or noahide? Kabbalah?
People do not need the bible to get into heaven. So weather you use KJV or any other translation, it does not matter. Yeshua (Jesus) wrote his Law into the dust of the earth and so it is in your inner parts. It is in your heart and in your mind. Jeremiah 31: 33
Remember when Yeshua (Jesus) was writing in the dust of the earth? He was putting his Law in the earth, our bodies are made from the dust of the earth. This is how he did it. He eve even test it by saying, "You who are without sin, cast the first stone."
So how do I say that people do not need the bible to get into heaven.
Matthew 25:31-46King James Version (KJV)
31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
It should be 100% clear that those people do not know who Yeshua (Jesus) is at that judgment and they also do not know what they even did to get into heaven. You can read it over and over and you will always get the same thing, They do not know Yeshua's (Jesus') teachings. That is why they ask him the questions.
Here it is in another translation
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
People get in without knowing him, or knowing his teachings. So people do not need the bible to get into heaven. Why? The Law of Yeshua (Jesus) is already in their inner parts, from the foundations of the earth. Where Yeshua (Jesus) wrote them on that day.
Mr tee It is not for every person to understand. If someone understands, it is for them to understand, if they do not understand, it is not for them to understand. It is just like anything else that some people see and understand and some people do not understand.
I clearly stated it for anyone with an eye to see and the mind to perceive, if you do not understand, it does not matter to me. I was not shown this by any man or woman. I share what I know, if someone does not understand, I think to myself, "It is a sign that it is not revealed to them". If you pray and meditate on it, you might understand. If you are perceptive, you might perceive.
Perhaps it is your culture, religion or level of education that makes it hard for you to understand. This is not an insult. It is a fact that each person has different levels of understanding. Some are meant to understand some thing and some are not.
To keep it simple, every person will be judged by what they know in their mind and what they obey in their heart. If someone knows more, then more will be expected of them. If they know less, then less is expected of them. But the general population has a basic level of understanding of what is right and what is wrong. What is in their heart and mind. That is what they will be judged by. That is that Law that God has Written in their inner most parts.
Jeremiah 31:33English Standard Version (ESV)
33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
So how do you think "I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts." How will "Write it on their hearts" happen? Does a God go write it on every heart across the earth? or Does he bend down and write it in the earth? The same thing he made Adam from, which s what everyone comes from. Either you understand how a God does things, or you do not.
Mr tee You make my point. Yes, everyone has it. That is what everyone is judged by. As I said, for those who do not know by teaching, the base Law is inside them now. That base Law is where the Judgment begins. Jesus explains that when he talks about the judgment where the sheep and the goats are separated.
Even if they do not know him or heard his teachings, they will be judged guilty by those Law written into the earth, or they will be exonerated by that Law written into the earth. You say it seems a bit disjointed from the situation that was happening at the time. If you go back and read it carefully, you see he is writing a Law, then he test it by saying, "You who are without sin, cast the first stone."
You see, they must obey Moses' Law and stone her. Unless a new Law has been written that is over all of Moses' Law. Now pay attention. Moses' Law was written in stone, which is hard and unyielding or as it were, without mercy. A Law written in the dust of the earth is flexible and can be manipulated to each situation.
If you can not see the difference between a stone tablet and some dust, you go crack your heat on a stone tablet and I will sprinkle dust on my heat. We will see who fares better. Likewise, because Jesus wrote his Law in the dust of the earth, it is inside everyone and each person has the ability to be pliable to each situation and yield to that Law inside them. Thus each person has the ability to do the right things at the right times and thus at that judgment, be exonerated by their actions.
By keeping that base Law, anyone who is willing, is able to follow Jesus and never have met him or heard his teachings. So what is that Law? He explains it in that situation. Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone. The other part of that Law is, that if you have no accusers, he will not judge you guilty.
John 8
1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”
This is in keeping with what Jesus said about if you have an offering to offer, if your brother has something against you, go and make it right, then come back and offer your offering and it will be accepted. You can see that whoever has a charge against you, that charge is standing in the way of you being acceptable. If there is no charge, you are acceptable.
I tell you the truth, I go my way, and do all I can, to honestly use the secrets I have been shown to get people into heaven. Others use what ever they understand to do the same. I can not help it if I see things most people do not see. I also follow Yeshua in what he said, "What is whispered in your ear, shout from the rooftop." If the Wisdom, knowledge and Understanding I am given, is a stumbling block to some, it is not by my doing. It is by the Holy Spirit. Still, I will not stop telling what I know, when I am inspired to tell it. On that day, it will be proven I was teaching the truth.
Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns." That was Peter he said that to. Peter later lied and called down curses on himself to fend off questions. Then later Peter was sinning and the Spirit of Christ corrected him through Paul. How easy it is for the flesh to blind people, even someone as respected as Peter. Yet Jesus was merciful and pliable to Peter and worked it out with him, as the Spirit of Christ continued to do.
Salvation is not written in stone. It is written in the earth and it is pliable. Pliable by us too, because if we work it out for someone to be saved, we are just like Jesus. If you do not see the wisdom in what I know and share, it is not for you. It is for others who will read it and those will rejoice that they have been shown something rarely taught.
Mr tee it is interesting that you do not know the difference between an Old Covenant and a New Covenant, is the difference in the Law or Agreement. The agreement is the Law. In their Law, it is a Law of Don't Touch and Don't Eat, our's is not a Law of Don't Touch, Don't Eat. Their's is a Law of things being withheld from them. In our's "Nothing is withheld from me." Under their Law, they go to Abraham's Bosom. Under our Law we go to Heaven. Even Jesus said, "In Your own Law it says..." Jesus refers to their scripture as Old Wine and the New Covenant as the New Wine. He refers to people of Moses' Law as Old Wine-skins and His followers as New Wine-skins.
A person being acceptable is what makes their offering clean. This is why it was said "You say to make a vow by the bread on the table. What is greater, the bread on the table or the table that makes the bread holy?." Jesus is making the point that the offering is acceptable, because the person is acceptable. If the person comes unrepentant, the offering is unacceptable, because the person is unacceptable. If however the person thinks they are repentant, yet have not made right the wrongs they did, they are lying to themselves and are in fact unacceptable.
Their is no punishment for those who are acceptable. So the Torah of punishment, is the Torah of Moses and that Torah is Old Wine. Jesus is the Torah of the New Covenant in the New Covenant is pliable each person's situation. For those who are in Yeshua (Jesus) their is no Law/Teaching/Torah of punishment. Moses' Law is Stone and Yeshua's Law is dust to be blown about by the wind of the Holy Spirit. Random sins are not Continual Willful Sinning. As it is written, "If we sin, he is faithful and just and will forgive us of our sins." And for Willful sinning it says, "If we (meaning believers on Yeshua) continue to willfully sin, their remains no more sacrifice for sin, but a fearful looking for of judgment."
This is why Jesus would tell people to Stop Sinning and live right. The disciples did the same thing. You seem to be able to study scripture, but do not understand the underlying secrets. You remind me of the disciples who had to ask Jesus what his parable meant. That frustrated Jesus to the point that he says something to them about their inability to understand his parables.
Mr tee you are having a hard time with reading comprehension. I never said he did away with Adultery. I said that the new Law is pliable for each person and the situation. I also said that Jesus said to her, to stop sinning. Just as Jesus told other people to stop sinning or to go and sin no more. Like the man he healed at the pool/spring. So you are confused about what I say. You are also projecting your idea of what I mean, into the conversation. This means the Holy Spirit is hiding from you, what I have written or you are stubborn in your ways of thinking and have no interest in learning.
You are wrong and my responding to you is over. Anyone else who reads this line of post, if they have eyes to see, they will see you are wrong and making things up I did not say or imply. They will also see i am telling the truth concerning Jesus writing on the ground to put his Law in the Earth, so as to get in in our bodies, that are made form the earth.
+Mr tee:
Just another of your continual stream of lies. I never said Jesus didn't keep the Law. You've broken the 9th commandment (Ex. 20:16) again.
You have no reason to be dealing with these issues. You're a racist hater, too cowardly and dishonest to admit that you're a racist, continually lying, spewing nonsense and profane insults, hypocritically doing exactly what you condemn in other, and amazingly despite all that rotten fruit coming from your sick heart, you imagine yourself to be a believer in the Lord you habitually disobey.
All older KJV Bibles included a preface page which read "In honor of our high and mighty prince James". This is absolute pure Blasphemy !! There is only ONE 'high & mighty Prince' and it's NOT James. That is, unless you are talking about the "Prince of this world" ( Satan ) to which the KJV is truly dedicated....
My favorite version is the ESV which is the adopted version of my church for scripture readings during worship. But there is nothing wrong with the KJV Holy Bible and many other versions like the NIV. Dedicating a work to the person who authorized the KJV translation is not blasphemy (why it's officially called the Authorized Version). Even in the gospel of Luke, Luke in the verses 1:1-3 dedicates the letter (gospel message) to his dear friend Theophilus. I do not presume anything wrong with Luke's gospel message just because of him honoring his friend.
That's doing the same thing as onlyest, using traditions of man to measure the truth and accuracy of the translation. The letter to King James is just a tradition of the culture and time period that it was made, its not effecting the truth of the Gospel one bit. One of the greatest introductions that all kJV bibles should have is the Translators To The Reader which shows the mindset and opinions of those of the day.
Focusing on traditional things which have zero bearing on salvation and core doctrines is a waste of time. Preaching to the choir traditions of man only causes the choir to fight and destroys fellowship.
So Peter was given the order by God to baptize, while Paul wasn't. Do they mistranslate those 2 different things as well?
2 Peter
Chapter 1
1Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
2Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
3According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
4Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
5And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
6And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
7And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
8For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
10Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
11For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
12Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth.
13Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance;
14Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.
15Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.
16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
God's inspired inerrant word are the autographs, God's preserved word is the manuscripts and all translations claim to be the exact words from GOD fully inspired. blessed be mans intellectual ability of textual criticism and the translation process.
The autographs are the original inspired inerrant documents written by the prophets, apostles, or disciples.
The manuscrpts are handwritten copies of the autographs or other manuscripts.
These statements are truth therefore one original ,hundreds of copies and thousands of translations is the end result for us all.
+Bradley:
You dare scoff at the Word of God, sounding just like the mockers we are not supposed to associate with (Psalm 1).
The Lord Jesus commanded us not to spew empty insults (Matthew 5:22) like you've just done. You've broken His Word. How can you claim to believe in Jesus when you won't obey His commands?
Did i claim we had the original autographs?
GOD might have them but do we?
Jeff david i heard paul prefered the word of GOD givin in the common peoples tongue of his era.
Paul also prefered people do as he did . Use common language for the people that you are witnessing to.
Thanks Dr Brown! Prayerfully making my exodus from KJV onlyism and agree with everything said EXCEPT it seems obvious to me that IN ENGLISH “Easter” originally meant “Passover fulfilled in Christ.” Wish Dr Brown could help lead a path all the way from KJV only by explaining his take on God’s promised preservation of His words and dealing some with the text tradition issue. Many blow holes in KJVO but it’s hard to find clear answers to these problems that keep many clinging to it. God bless you and your work!
I think the biggest clarification to be made is that the meaning/interpretation is what has been preserved. Then making the distinction between these 2 Greek words...Logos and graphé. This is an excerpt from another discussion where I explained these 2 words. I hope this helps.
...That’s right it started when the holy men of God SPOKE not when it was recorded into Scripture. These prophecies of Scripture will come to pass whether they are written down or not. The ultimate power is contained in the “Logos” but the Scripture “graphe” can have the power as well because it is describing the Logos. If all the Bibles were destroyed would our faith be dead or would it continue in the spoken form?
Logos verses graphe
1124. graphé ►
Strong's Concordance
graphé: a writing, scripture
Short Definition: a writing, passage of scripture, the scriptures
Definition: (a) a writing, (b) a passage of scripture; plur: the scriptures.
3056. logos ►
Strong's Concordance
logos: a word (as embodying an idea), a statement, a speech
Short Definition: a word, speech, divine utterance, analogy
Definition: a word, speech, divine utterance, analogy.
I believe it all comes down to the understanding of logos verses graphe. In John 1 logos is used as Christ. Logos is embodied in Christ. It isn’t contained or restrained to the page. Its essence is on the air, in the speech, in the thought and therefore spiritual. Logos is eternal in this manner and is why the Spirit through John described Christ as the Word. In Timothy graphe (Scripture) is the written. The graphe describes and conveys the written form of logos but the graphe is limited to the written form and logos is not. Before the manuscript existed the logos was there. It was from the beginning. For example Moses is credited for writing Genesis but it existed in the oral tradition/speech (logos) for many years before that and had the power of God nonetheless. It survived the Flood because logos is immaterial. Another example is the verse about all the things that Jesus did couldn’t be contained in all the books. Why? Because the logos isn’t only contained in the graphe. It can’t be. Graphe is dependent on logos for its power but logos has power apart from graphe. It becomes alive and sharper than a sword by describing the eternal truth of the logos.
This spoken word form is how the Apostles went out and preached. When they went out they didn’t have the written gospels. Before Paul wrote Galatians he had gone there and spoke the words of Christ and those believers in Galatia believed what he said before they had any Scripture. How many places do you think Paul went to where he didn’t write a follow up letter? Many. Look at the maps of his missionary trips and see how many places he went where there’s no written letter to those places. He converted believers everywhere he went as did the other Apostles and disciples. Most of church history exists among peoples who couldn’t even read but yet they believed in the Logos/Word nonetheless.
If your following Dr Brown instead of the Holy Bible you are in a ditch with a blind man.
Joe Ricci Thanks! Can you help lead me out of it?
Acts 4:13 Bible College,
I only trust the Holy Bible because that is the only book the Holy Ghost has ever used for teaching me.
What I do is as follows, after an unbeliever presents a corrupt verse out of a modern phony bible I simply compare the fake bible verse to the truth as stated in the Holy Bible. The truth always exposes the lies found in modern versions.
Acts 4:13 Bible College
So when you have a question notify me and I’ll get back to you about your question.
9:42 Septuagint-only-ism 🤣
The LXX is my main go-to source for the OT for about a year now.
@@dlbard1 Can you read Greek?
The correct word is Easter.
Easter is not the Feast of Passover.
Easter is not the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
Herod referred to Easter not Passover because he was attacking the followers of Jesus Christ not the Jews.
Acts 12:1-3
Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.
And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.
And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
In fourteenth day of the fist month is passover.
The feast of unleavened bread lasted from the fourteenth to the 21st day of the first month.
Acts 12:4-5
And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him.
Peter was taken during the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
So it is made obvious that Herod waited until after Easter to politically maximize his attack on the church as was pleasing to the Jews of his day.
If the King James Bible was good for the Apostle Paul, it is good enough for me!
Er I don't think the KJV was available in Paul's time.
Amen!!!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I hope that was sarcasm.
Im from Finland and read KJV, NKJV and also some Bible translations in my own language. I think KJV (King James Version) is simply awesome! Excellent! Super! People should be very careful to NEVER disqualify it nor laugh at it! For years and years I have recommended KJV very much as a very excellent Bible translation into English. English is not my native language and still I dont have any problem with language of KJV whatsoever!
Its sounds so funny for me when some American's talk as if KJV language is an obstacle because its so OLD and hard to read. Im like "what???? Even I can understand it easily!" I think the TRUE REASON and THE BIGGEST REASON that some American christians talk like that about KJV is not the difficulty of the language. Its something else. I guess the true reason is probably that they want to be "trendy", "relevant" and not labelled as "old school". They care so much what their friends think of them! I think that people who read KJV and preach from it should be shown honor because of it rather that laughed at.
I dont understand people who say: "It really does not matter what Bible translation you read." They say: "They are all translations anyways".... Come on! How ignorant is that? I cannot understand why english speaking people would choose NIV or NLT for example? WHY???? WHAT IS THE REASON? If people would really really care a least bit about the Word of God and respect its divine inspiration... then they surely would want to have in their hands some translation(s) that GOD KNOWS are translated with absolute fear of God! I dont think they would ever choose their personal Bible based on "its trendy & easy-to-read language and I dont want to be labelled as hillbilly" ! If thats the most important thing to us, then God help us!
In Finland we have a translation called KR1992 ("Church-Bible 1992"). Its translated with a principle called "dynamic equivalence". That means its "translators" tried to get the "thought" of each verse out off the original manuscripts as they understood it with their own natural mind. So... Rather than trying to translate the message exactly as it is word-to-word (as much as possible.) they are giving their own human intepretation (of what they think God was thinking) as a "translation".
The result is what you could expect it to be: NOT REALLY A TRANSLATION. Result: So much is lost. And so much is added. So much is re-defined. So much is misunderstood. So much is twisted. Its because the "filter" is WORSE rather than BETTER.
Im convinced these "dynamic equivalence"-translations of Bible are made by people who dont grasp what means "HOLY Bible". Its just "bible" with little "b" to them.
Here just an example in one verse: (Compare:)
Deut.32:8 KJV
"When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel."
Deut.32:8 ERV (easy-to-read version)
"God Most High separated the people on earth and gave each nation its land. He set up borders for all people. He made as many nations as there are angels."
Deut.32:8 Finnish KR1992 translated into english:
"When the Most High divided lands to nations, when he spread men across the circle of the earth, he commanded the habitations of nations and gave each of them its own god."
You see?
"but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word." (Isaiah 66:2 KJV)
"that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord." (Deut.8:3 NKJV)
If some translators are confident they can translate it "thought-to-thought" (dynamic equivalence) that means they must be very confident also that they understand every single thing that God thought and wanted to communicate through every single verse (every thought of God in each verse). How unrealistic it is to even think that way.
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah.55:8 NKJV)
If we understand even a little glimpse (of what God really meant&thought) its simply because the Holy Spirit has taught us! Its God's grace! God's word is majestic!
"The entirety of Your word is truth," (ps.119:160 NKJV)
Its the Holy Spirit's job to teach us all things. Its not the translator's job to put their own interpretation into the translation. Translator's job should be to translate as faithfully as possible in total dependency to God. Only One who can make the letter alive to us is the Holy Spirit! Until then... no matter if we had the best translations - Bible would still be dead&locked to us! Spirit quickens! He teaches! He feeds us with the BREAD OF LIFE! He opens our ears to hear the Word. Holy Spirit helps us and teaches us! (John chapters 14-16)
Jesus said "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:" ...
When I was 17 years old I got a new Bible translation instead of KR1992 and it really made a BIG difference in my life then! Could it be that Holy Spirit approves some translations more than some others? Could it be that He has something to say about this issue to us if we would just listen?
I believe that even the translator's of the "donald duck"-cartoon are more faithful towards the original author than SOME of the Bible translators are toward God in translating His holy words!
Do they fear God to take hold of this principle while producing a new translation:
"18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues 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." (Rev 22)
Another important question is about the manuscripts used (But lets leave that for now.)
LET US PRAY, AND LEAN ON GOD ALONE (not to men) EVEN IN THIS MATTER AND HE WILL SHOW US THE RIGHT WAY!
Proverbs 3
5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
God bless you!
@@kingjesuscomes probabky wont see this but the deut. 32 passage divided up according the the sons of god/angels vs children of israel is about different source texts. Dead sea scrolls and or LXX vs Masoretic? Check specifics. Cant remember for sure.
Praise the Lord have you noticed that the book of Acts 2 38 and Matthew 28:19 has the same message (in the name of the)
Peter is teaching you how to rightly divide the word in spirit and truth and put Jesus first in your life.
I noted also that Dr Brown doesn’t understand that the King James translator instructions insured the prophetic fulfillment of...
Psalms 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
"Words" is feminine, "them" is masculine. Grammar must agree. The "them" is therefore the poor and needy. God will preserve his word but this passage doesn't speak of that specifically.
That passage says God will preserve the poor and needy from this generation forevermore, or however it goes. I do not recall specifically.
And if we say "this generation" refers to 1611or some other date post the closing of the canon that would be quite the difficulty. It would mean new inspiration or purification or perhaps at a stretch proliferation from one language (Hebrew in this case) to another (English). That is it might mean any or all of those but not preservation.
In any event the KJV only position simply does not teach preservation at all. It is a text that like all editions and translations and indeed (especially) even copies whether written or printed that is somewhat unique to itself, and novel in arrival (1611) and thus demonstrates whatever method God used for preservation it was not through a single edition or translation.
All of which is easily understood. For what men were inspired after the apostles? None. Could you or I write a perfect copy of our KJV? Not at all. We are human and would err for we are not carried along by the Spirit to pen the words as God breathed them.
In the main most KJV only folks seem to mean purification, as if God had to rework it , as if he could not get it right. It's all rather odd when one thinks deeply on the KJV only doctrine.
That being said, if that is your view, well have it as you will. You are after all reading Gods word and that is the most important point.
Edit: of course I refer to the hebrew words not the English words themselves that are translations of the Hebrew.
@@provokingthought9964 Yeah.
wolf instead lion
Are you up for a debate
Is God the author of confusion Charlie or is it Satan? Why would you want to read something "only sorta pure" and "could cause confusion" and think that is truly from God? If we do a hangout, it will have to be a debate format just on the topic of bible translations/KJV. You can ask your questions for NIV, MSG or whatever translation you wish, or just specifically on the KJV and we will answer and give facts as to those versions/KJV you bring up in your questions. I would say we start with 5 questions of your choice. You need to figure out what 5 questions you wish to ask and stick with them and then once you determine what 5 you need to send that list here to all of us 2 wks before the debate, so those answering you has time to study and have an answer for you. If time permits, you could add another 2-3 and we could do those if time doesnt run out. Plan on a 4 hr hangout in order to cover at least 5 of your main concerns/questions.
Looks like Sat 8 am PST would be best for you with your work schedule. I would send link to join 30 min ahead of time so all can connect and we start right at 8 am PST. I cant do any earlier due to others in my home getting ready for work, waking up etc...Plan for a 4 hr hangout so you have time to ask your questions/us to answer and you get to work. I want everyone to have time to prepare for this, so maybe the 27th Oct or Nov 10 would be good? I will be out of town on Nov 2-3. If we go with the 27th you need to submit your questions to this email group no later than this Sat Oct 13th.
This would need to be done the way Bill set it up on his channel when he was the mod for Ryan and Mathias debate. I would be the mod for this one. I would be impartial, keep track of everyone's time and keep the peace and not be "in the debate". Each question would be allowed 5 min to ask and explain your position and then Bill, Merle and Hannah would each have 5 min to respond. Since Hannah is KJV only herself, she would be on the opposing side from you. None of us wishes you to feel ganged up on, or outnumbered. If you wish to bring in someone else that isnt KJV only, you need to let me know by this Sat. I need their channel name and email address to send email to them. I'd prefer if you bring in someone else to be on "your side" that it be 2/2. If that ends up being the case it would be you and whoever you wish to join you for your side, then Merle and Bill for the opposing side. Hannah you are still welcome to join and maybe you could help me mod and keep time, in case I need a break, use restroom, go out for a smoke break (we dont smoke in our house and I will need a break haha)
No interrupting at all from anyone when they are on the clock. This has to be strictly enforced. Anything I wish to contribute I would wait til the very end when all your questions are asked, the opposing side has given their answers etc... We would prob want to devote 10 min at the start just for welcoming, introductions, then get right into the debate with your 1st question and total can not run over 20 min per questions for you to ask and the others to give their answers. No more than 4 total to ask/respond to each question. 4 hrs is plenty of time to go thru at least 5 main questions you have, everyone respond and then for closing remarks from me.
Figuring up the time in my head (assuming we can stick to the time schedule) there would be time for 2 addl questions Charlie. But start with the 5 main ones, then add 2-3 others and as long as we stay within the time constraints, we can prob get to 2 more. Just have your 7-8 questions sent here no later than 2 wks ahead of time. So, I need to hear from everyone what dates are good for all of you? It can be later in Nov if need be, I just need to know as I am the master scheduler for these special hangouts on our various channels. This would be on my channel and I am fine to have live chat be open for this. I will not really be able to mod the chat if I am the mod for the debate so will need Bill, Merle and others to help with the chat if ThickShades decides to show up and troll. Please let me know asap what dates works for all of you. Oct 27th, Nov 10th.
haha
Dr. Brown, you cannot say that you know with certainty what the King James translators would say in this day and age. The fact is you fail to bring up the mysteries surrounding the sinaiticus and vaticanus codiceis, and the Jesuit influences and involvement. Neither did you bring up the Gnostic influences of those codices.
You also fail to mention Wescott and Hort and their influence on the modern translations and also Nestle Aland and their background, history of heretical statements and support of Charles Darwin. Yet you don't mind them or at least you do not seem to mind them translating God's word.
Do you actually believe that the King James translators would follow such codices or would believe them to be valid.
You say that because the king James translators said that the Greek septuagint was God's word prior to the correction by the apostles, that it must mean that we are allowed to use well known inaccurate translations of the Bible today, and that the translators would support it. This is a backwards way of thinking and is not even logical to suppose that the translators would agree with such a statement.
I am not against using a modern translation. But this video and your previous video has some serious inconsistences and you leave out conveniently necessary information about the king James translators for someone to make a decision using sound judgment. I certainly believe that the king James translation is the best one today and the most accurate one, for the record. And my reason for this has a lot to do with the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of which it was translated from.
The KJV translators had no problem following after the Vulgate in some cases or following after Erasmus a Catholic. But you’re not worried about the Jesuit influence there??
@@totalityofscripture1001 Man you need to do your research! Erasmus was far from a Jesuit. That is a ludicrous statement dude, get your facts straight. Did you know that the Roman Catholics of that day accused Erasmus of being subversive? Please tell me where the Latin was used, and I will show you that there it was correctly translated. Please show me
Duane Stewart I didn’t say Erasmus was a Jesuit. I was only saying since he was a Catholic who dedicated the TR to the Pope then he could’ve been influenced by them. The odds are way more likely that this could happen rather than your claim to try to support a young date for the Codices in question. This has been thoroughly refuted. They are both 3rd-4th Century texts.
I guess one of the obvious Latin inspired verse would be the Comma Johanneum and the last 6 verses in Revelation. Other examples that are in error Diana (Latin) instead of Artemis and Lucifer (Latin) instead of Helel.
@@totalityofscripture1001 Not true and quite the contrary. It is well known that codex siniaticus was found in a waste bucket at a Catholic monastery by Tischendorf. And it was originally written by a man named Simonedes. Do your research! These are not 3rd and 4th century manuscripts. Tischendorf visited the Pope, and dedicated fhe siniaticus to him!! This is well known! Those codexies are Roman Catholic inspired and they are still inspiring many of the modern versions that they are based off of today.
As far as those verses you mentioned regarding the Latin, I know that Lucifer is the correct translation. I will get back to you later with what I found after researching this long ago. I will also look into the other verses you mentioned.
@@totalityofscripture1001 When you have the time, watch this very well researched and irrefutably documentary, showing all sources and quotes where you cannot deny....."Tares Among the Wheat: Sequel to A Lamp in the Dark" on UA-cam
ua-cam.com/video/qe3CMDXeG4w/v-deo.html
Jewdizer
if is says Bible it is the word of God
just dont use the currupt niv or paraphrased translations, they are as bad as the qeen james version haha
The NIV is not corrupt. You're wrong and you should stop spreading your lies.
dont make up nonsense.
The King James Bible is not perfect but it is by far the best version of the Bible in its principles of translation.
No, it's not. It even got "Easter" wrong in Acts 12:4.
The KJV is correct in translating pascha as Easter in Acts 12:4. Read this article:
www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_02.asp
I'm not exactly a King James Onlyist but I agree with the translation of this verse in the King James Bible.
The Greek word in Acts 12:4 is "pascha" which means "passover", not Easter.
Chick puts out lies and you should repent of spreading its deceitful propaganda.
The KJV is NOT perfect. Here is some of its errors:
KJV:
"robbers of churches." Acts 19:37
Greek: HIEROSULOUS, "robbers of temples"
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)
KJV: "Easter" Acts 12:4
"Passover"
KJV: "Tithes of all I possess" Lk 18:12
Greek: "all I acquire"
KJV: "Schoolmaster" Gal 3:24
Greek: "attendant" (the law was the one who brought us to Christ, not taught us about Christ)
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.)
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. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.)
KJV: "sweet savour" Lev 6:21; 8:28; 17:6; 23:18
Hebrew: "soothing aroma" (KJV appeals to wrong senses- taste instead of smell in the TR)
KJV: "ashes upon his face" 1 Kings 20:38
Hebrew: "bandage over his eyes" (KJV varies from TR by using ashes).
It's impossible that the word is referring to the passover in the verse, and I think the article explain this well.
Many times Chick is not really a good source, but sometimes I agree with it.
The KJV exposes a lot of your actions.....
So the KJV condemns the action of showing the thoughts of its translators? Chapter and verse, please!
The ESV is the best.
+Lookslike xD
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
Deuteronomy 4:2 KJV
+Charles Merchant:
That verse is why we shouldn't use the KJV. It has verses that were added to the Bible that were never in the original manuscripts, like John 5:4 and most of 1 John 5:7-8.
+yeoberry
Your comment is froward.
This scripture is explicit.
Do NOT add to nor take away from His Word.
The ESV is abominable.
"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord , thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
-Psalms 12:6-7 KJV
Miguel Lazcano wrong context for this verse. What is being preserved by the context is the poor and the needy. Refer to verse 5 to see this. Don’t feel bad EVERY SINGLE KJVOnlyist makes the same mistake.
@@totalityofscripture1001
100% correct. 👍
Steve to add insult to injury I looked up this verse in the 1611 and the marginal note for clarification (which most KJVOers don’t know the 1611 has) reads as follows...Hebrew “him” ie. Every one of them. So even the 1611 knew this wasn’t speaking of the words but rather the poor and the needy.
@@totalityofscripture1001
Indeed. I have a reprint of the 1611 by Hendrickson and it is full of marginal notes. As an aside, it also contains the Apocryphal books. However, those have been "removed" or "taken away" from the "modern" KJV printings...curious.
Steve ask someone who thinks they hold in their hand a 1611 AKJV for one of those marginal notes and they’ll not have a clue 9 out of 9 times. 😁
Gee, how ethical of you to speak for men who have been dead for hundreds of years, alleging they would essentially put aside their own work. That's a debate tactic, not an honest argument. Once you did that I stopped your video. I will stick with the good-ole King James Version thank you, and you can keep your dozens of so-called better English Bibles and all the confusion it creates. BTW, it doesn't bother or affect me that some people like the inferior and less beautiful newer and so-called "better" Bibles. I will stick with the gold standard of English translations.
It's not the "gold" standard, it wasn't even the original English translation. It's based on an very late copy of the bible that's many centuries older than the dead sea scrolls and is full of translations errors as the scholars who worked on it didn't have a full understanding of Hebrew. Also, please explain how an obsolete version of English that's not spoken anymore is "the gold standard of English translations". It confuses new Christians, they find it incredibly hard to understand and so they should as it wasn't written for them or for you for that matter. It was written for the 16th century English people who made up the Church of England.
I do read the KJV but not just that version, I read multiple different translations.
@@acurisur The KJV uses a very precise English, NOT what was commonly "spoken," even when it was produced. It IS the gold standard. No other English translation is as popular, and has had such a profound impact on the English language. The continuous attacks on the KJV is also evidence of how that translation continuously trounces its inferior newly copy-righted translation profiteers.
@@igregmart It uses the English spoken in England during the reign of King James. Don't lecture me please on what was spoken in that time, I'm FROM England and studied English history in great detail, including the reigns of King James and King Henry the VIII who were both influential in the making of that translation.
I have to laugh at the notion that it's "the gold standard". You do realise that the KJV wasn't even the first English translation right? William Tyndale's Bible was the first English language Bible to appear in print in 1526. Then came King Henry VIII's Great Bible in 1540. It was this version of the Bible that was read in England during the 15th century. The King James Bible didn't come into existence until 1611 and reused 80% of the New Testament from William Tyndale's Bible. England moved away from this form of English in the 1700s which is why a lot of people choose not to read this version of the Bible.
Are you also aware that the translators had a limited understanding of Greek and Hebrew that led to translation errors? Of course you don't because you're KJV only, the most ludicrous idea every conceived in Christianity. If I was going to read just ONE version of the Bible, it wouldn't even be in English. I would read a Hebrew and Greek Bible.
If the king James isn't God's words what is. If the Bible is our then it must be perfect. Unless you're saying we can't really have faith in God's power to preserve his word. In which case it is never complete and always open to changing. And standard is no standard at all. And just because the king James translaters didn't understand they were working in God's preservation is meaningless. Or do you believe all the writers of the New testament knew the were pinning inspired scripture that would become canonized. Your point is meaningless. So once again a standard is a perfect example. so what translation is this standard. Or do we even have one? When you qouted the Bible do you even believe it's God's word or do you do it in doubt?
Errors in the KJV:
KJV:
"robbers of churches." Acts 19:37
Greek: HIEROSULOUS, "robbers of temples"
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)
KJV: "Easter" Acts 12:4
"Passover"
KJV: "Tithes of all I possess" Lk 18:12
Greek: "all I acquire"
KJV: "Schoolmaster" Gal 3:24
Greek: "attendant" (the law was the one who brought us to Christ, not taught us about Christ)
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.)
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. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.)
KJV: "sweet savour" Lev 6:21; 8:28; 17:6; 23:18
Hebrew: "soothing aroma" (KJV appeals to wrong senses- taste instead of smell in the TR)
KJV: "ashes upon his face" 1 Kings 20:38
Hebrew: "bandage over his eyes" (KJV varies from TR by using ashes).
You've made the mistake of assuming that for God to preserve his Word he needs to make sure that literally every single thing is exactly the same; every word, every letter, every comma etc. It is literally impossible to translate a word for word perfect translation from ancient Hebrew to our modern languages, some words and phrases simply have no equivalence. Koine Greek doesn't even have punctuation so good luck trying to perfectly translate punctuation when it doesn't even exist in one of the original Biblical languages.
The Word of God exploded out of Israel and went to the four corners of the world being translated across multiple languages. The true miracle of God is that despite the New Testament going out in multiple different languages, being transmitted by uneducated or even illiterate people, the doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ were preserved. Anyone who tries to tell you that the core doctrines of Christ are compromised in other Bibles is a liar and trying to deceive you. Anyone who tries to tell you that modern Bibles compromise Christ's divinity is a liar and trying to deceive you.
Are you honestly going to sit here and try to tell me that YOU know for a fact that the KJV translators were inspired, but they didn't? Do YOU claim to have some personal revelation from God to support that claim? The Holy Spirit is the standard, He is the one who guides into all Truth and He has guided His people for thousands of years before the King James Version was even written, and He will continue to do so.
I trust that God can send the Gospel of Jesus around the world and save souls regardless of how many translations, versions or revisions are used. You don't. You're the one with the trust issue, not me.
Christopher Smith you obviously didn't read my post. I never said the translaters were inspired or brought new Revelation! So do you believe the woman caught in adultery is scripture. And is scripture self indentify and r do council of men decided it.
The original, inspired writings of the Prophets and Apostles is God's Word, not a flawed, 17th century Anglican translation based on later, corrupted manuscripts, at the behest of an ungodly king.
yeoberry well since we don't have the original autographs . That doesn't help us much today does it. what you are saying is God took the time to inspire but not to preserve .
What makes the Holy Bible first printed in 1611 A.D. the perfect , and preserved word of God?
The Manuscripts.
The Holy Bible first printed in 1611 A.D. Has Hebrew in the Old Testament.
Revised Version Bibles have Greek in the Old Testament.
Yet,
The Holy Scriptures were written by Moses, the Prophets and the Psalmist in Hebrew not Greek.
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
Luke 24:44, 45
Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
John 5:45-47
The Revised Version Bibles are clearly flawed for that reason alone.
The only Revised Version that uses Hebrew Manuscripts in the Old Testament is the New King James Version.
But it is flawed like the other Revised Version Bibles.
How?
Because of derivative copyright laws in order to receive royalties it must be 10% different from the original.
So it changes words in the same Hebrew Old Testament so they can get paid, but in doing so they flaw God's word.
The Theologians promote oldest and best because they claim the LXX Septuagint was written in 285 B.C. which is older than the Masoretic Hebrew Text in Russia dated to 1008 A.D.
But God doesn't leave himself without a witness. - Acts 14:17
In 1946 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered.
Do the Dead Sea Scrolls have Holy Scripture Manuscripts?
Yes.
In Greek?
Nope.
In what language?
In Hebrew. Ah So.
How old?
408 B.C. The oldest Holy Scriptures in the history of the world.
Is the the Hebrew different from the Hebrew Masoretic Text?
Nope.
It's the same, preserved over a 1,416 year period and matches the Hebrew Masoretic Text down to the word count.
Just like God said.
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.
Psalms 12:6, 7
Do the revised Bibles have these Oldest and Best Hebrew Manuscripts in their Revised Versions?
Nope.
Why?
They have no Hebrew anywhere in their Bibles, It's all Greek. Old and New Testament from Alexandria. (false witnesses against the real saints Acts 6:8-13).
Is there any Bible on the planet Earth in English that has the Hebrew Masoretic Text in it that matches the Oldest and Best Holy Scripture manuscripts found in the Dead Sea Scrolls that are 123 years older than the supposed Greek LXX (Septuagint) date?
Yes?
In the name of all that is Holy WHO?!
The Holy Bible first printed in 1611 A.D. Which by the way is in my very hand as I type with my left hand and hold God's pure and promised preserved word in English in my right hand.
in the language of LAWYERS this is a open and shut case,
In the language of PREACHERS this is sound doctrine.
How is it sound doctrine?
Because it is written in the Holy Scriptures - Proverbs 22:20, 21
isn't this a bit "anachronistic", dr. Brown...? taking the words of the KJV translators into our modern era, and suppose that they would be able to even remotely imagine the bible translation situation in our own day...? the "worst" translations they could imagine in THEIR era, is what we should be looking for, not what is the "worst" translation in our day,... would the KJV translators have judged the NIV to be "the word of God" ? and that is not even the "worst" one in our time... it is suspected, to put it mildly, that they would have been shocked that any christian person would have even used that version and even more that any would call it "the word of God" .... they were not able to imagine such a version in their day, and much less something like the Living Translation, and that any would call it a "translation" of the Bible.... (they are turning in their graves as we speak :) )
You're very presumptuous, I'm not even an English speaking and yet I perfectly understand the KJV, and my doctrine is solid because of the perfect word of God the KJV. Now, to modern bible onlyist cults, your authority is not the bible but people like this or your hero James white.