The problem with the modern day translations is simple: they stem the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus Scholars have designated these manuscripts as Alexandrian Basic history shows Alexandria, Egypt as the breeding ground for heresies such as Arianism and Gnosticism The modern day Bibles simply are translations... From a corrupt source Not my opinion these are statements by respected Bible scholars such as Dean John Burgon. Who said the two aforementioned manuscripts are worthless, and hopelessly corrupt. That's why these problems occur in these types of Bibles a. Verses are missing such as the John 7:53-8-11, Acts 8:37 just to name a few off the top of my head b. Blatantly attack the deity of Christ (1 Timothy 3:16, Philippians 2:5-8) c. The enemy's name is removed (Isaiah 14:12 and replaced by Jesus Christ aka the morningstar Revelation 22:16) d. The best verse for the Godhead 1 John 5:7 was cut off when there are over 30 manuscripts that proves the validity as per the text as written in the KJV Yet you're telling me those Bible translations are trust worthy? I beg to differ
I like the approach the NASB (1977), NASB (1995) and the LSB takes by putting the verse in the main text, but with brackets, as people won't always look at the footnotes in their Bibles. I wish the ESV, NIV, CSB, NLT, etc took this approach.
I heard codex vaticanus and sinataticus disagree with each other over 3000 times in just the 4 gospels alone. I’m not trying to argue this but I was just wondering what you think brother. Also some say these manuscripts or others from Alexandria have gnostic influence. What is your thoughts on this? Thank you God bless!
That is a great question. Here is a response I sent to someone else who asked a very similar question. There are 3,036 textual differences between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the Gospels: Matthew: 656 Mark: 597 Luke: 791 John: 1022 70-80% of these differences are due to the presence or absence of the movable nu. The movable nu is a grammatical feature in Greek where the letter ν is added to the end of certain words (e.g., verbs or nouns) when the following word begins with a vowel or to avoid hiatus (a gap between vowels). This is an orthographic or stylistic difference that does not impact meaning in any way. Here is an example: Vaticanus: λέγειν (with movable nu) Sinaiticus: λέγει (without movable nu) The next largest portion of differences is spelling differences such as: Vaticanus: Ζαρε (Zare) Sinaiticus: Ζαρα (Zara) Here again, there is absolutely no impact to meaning. This is also seen in English versions like the KJV where you will see Boaz and Booz. Thirdly, we find order differences such as: Vaticanus: Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Jesus Christ) Sinaiticus: Χριστός Ἰησοῦς (Christ Jesus) Like the other examples, this type of difference has no impact on meaning or whatsoever. The remaining differences are omissions or additions of phrases or clauses. Since Vaticanus aligns closely with the Alexandrian Family of manuscripts and Vaticanus is closely related to the Western Family of manuscripts, we should expect some variation in the same way we see differences in Byzantine manuscript families. In summary, the vast majority of these 3,036 differences in the Gospels are non-impactful in any way to the text. The substantive differences are common between various manuscript families across both all lines (Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western, etc.). If you have questions about a particular variant, I will be happy to address it.
Defending corrupt versions of the Bible does not help anyone. one can only conclude that there's an agenda. Like money or a doctrine of your specific denomination.
I think the KJV is good but my favorite is NASB and NLT i usually use my top 5 and choose the one that pops out the most. I think we’re truly blessed to have so many translations. I love comparing verses with other Translations
I love the Bible which includes most versions. If I could only have one, it would be between NASB 95 and NKJV. But, in my church circles, I have to preach out of the KJV. Not complaining about that. I love the KJV. I just have a hard time with the KJV only extremist. That is why I appreciate pastor Burris and these videos. I would like some insight in to how to look some of this information up. What books and resources to get. Maybe text critical resources for those of us who cannot read the Biblical languages. I am trying to learn the Biblical languages but I have a long way to go.
I can understand for a lot of people, that the KJV is their preference. But to say that a person is gonna go to Hell because they aren’t reading the KJV is insane.
If you prefer the KJV then I have no issue with that at all. I would disagree with those who say that it is the only true word of God. Honestly, I don't particularly care which version Ronald Reagan thought was best. Not sure why I should.@@biblehighlighter
Just because I am a child of the 70s and 80s doesn't mean I am enamored by everything from those decades. I distrust all politicians regardless of party. I especially don't care if politicians endorse a particular translation. I do not believe the KJV is somehow more pure than some other translations. I was already familiar with both the NASB and NIV in the late 70s when I was just a kid.@@biblehighlighter
No offense, but I have come to learn that the KJV is not the "Pure Word of God" whatever that is supposed to mean. The KJV is great translation but I believe there are better.@@biblehighlighter
@biblehighlighter I would say the same about those who hold to your particular belief. There's way too much information to hold to a KJV Only position and one would have to be willfully ignorant to not see it. There is corruption in the KJV. Therefore, we are at an impasse. This conversation is only going to in circles and I see no need to keep it up. You will not sway me and I'm certain I won't sway you so I bid you a good day.
I am aware of what you claim and don't find the argument persuasive. I've already pointed out that neither of us is going to persuade the other so this exchange really serves no purpose. No doctrine has been changed no matter how irrefutable you say that claim is. I've wasted enough time with folks in the KJV Only camp to know that continuing to respond is pointless. Your ad hominem responses won't goad me into responding any further. @@biblehighlighter
Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus - Not sure if this is the B in reference but they are both early 4th century and do not have Matthew 18:11. However one thing you mentioned and I think is important the King James Scholars either did not have access to these manuscripts going back this far or the reference points they had have been lost to history. Interesting to me though is in studing this topic of which I am still very new and uneducated on I am surprised at how many other apocryphal and non-canon books are present in these versions. While the authors of these books may be in question the lineage is equally as strong. Which is a topic for further study on my part.
Yes, the two that you mentioned at the beginning of your comment are א and B. I can give you the seven manuscripts that Erasmus worked from if you want. They were all present in Basil, Switzerland where he worked from. He moved there thinking there would be a vast library of manuscripts. There were seven. They arrived there in 1434 or 1435. They were brought by a person from Constantinople who came for a council. Technically, he referenced an eighth, but only by letter to a friend at the Vatican whom he asked to check in Vaticanus to see if 1 John 5:7 was in it. For his third edition, he had a manuscript from Ireland that was produced by a monk between Erasmus’ 2nd and 3rd editions that did contain 1 John 5:7. That manuscript was handmade to pressure Erasmus to include 1 John 5:7 in his 3rd edition - which he reluctantly did. Again, I can send you a list of those manuscripts of you wish to have them.
I wish I had the memory and gifts to understand things from a textual basis, what I do have is an ability to look at things in context. When I read the entire passage it doesn't change the meaning of what Matthew wrote either way, he tells the effort a shepherd will expend to find that one lost sheep. It concludes that the Father is not willing that any should perish. I do know something about the English language and I would make the argument that the verse doesn't fit with everything around it. I think we often forget that the chapters and verses are not inspired and often come at the wrong place. There is also such a danger in taking a verse on its own without considering the rest of the passage. Something I was always taught is when you see wherefore ask what it's therefore. This verse starts, "for", that's a conclusion or summation to what came before. I'm on dangerous ground saying this, but I don't see how it fits. Frankly, this is what I miss. I'm not trying to steal your thunder, I just so wish I was around pastors and teachers on this level I could discuss these things with. I'm also trying to figure out just what God has for me in this journey. At almost 65 I feel like I have something to contribute, but not sure what or how. Love your channel.
@@biblehighlighter I'm not disparaging videos like this. Myself, I am a KJV preferred not KJVO. There is nothing wrong with Textual Criticism, in fact it is very important. I was trying to make the point that if you know English you can see that it is a problem. On the other hand, this verse and the Johanin Comma are tempests in teapots. If Satan can get us fighting each other it distracts us from the real work we have been called to do.
@@biblehighlighterI spent some time researching this verse. This verse wasn't used by the bishops at the Nicene Council and yet they had no problem establishing the trinity. It's always dangerous to rely on a single verse to establish a doctrine. Even your post doesn't quote any bishop until 150 years after the doctrine of the trinity was firmly established. That's my point, even if I concede the point and remove the verse, I can use any translation to show the trinity and the divinity of Jesus. Philippians 2 and John 1 take care of that. In fact the entire book of John establishes the divinity of Jesus.
@@biblehighlighter I'm not going to continue hijacking this video. I couldn't find my Bancroft Theology so I looked up the Trinity in Lockyear. What I didn't find was 1 John 5:7, but I see far too many Scriptures for a simple post. Ephesians alone establishes the Trinity. Not to mention Matthew 28. My point is that it's an unnecessary argument. No legitimate doctrine rests on one single verse.
If all Scripture is God-breathed (which it is), then what one is the correct "version?" Only one can be inspired. I think it's amazing that preachers can pound the pulpit for the inspiration of the Bible, and then toy with other translations which are interpreted by a committee somewhere (man's thoughts) and call it "God's Word." Ridiculous reasoning.
This is not an exemplary method of comparing and contrasting due to this issue is not the English but the Greek. In that the methods that the scholars use to delineate which pieces of evidence belong in the text that is translated into English is not circumspect and thereby can be considered as potentially flawed. So, for instance if the verse that is in Matthew in the KJV is in the evidence in Matthew then it seem pertinent to translate it into the English. And whether some verses are duplicate is not a sufficient reason to exclude it from a translation it simply has to do with what is in the evidence available.
Very well documented examination of the Matthew 18:11 KJV enigma. Please consider the following as merely speculative: 1. If Matthew 18:11 of the King James Bible was good enough for a Galilean tax collector from Capernaum, then could that have been good enough for a Hellenic physician from Antioch? 2. All of the ancient sources for the chronological ordering of the gospels, including Irenaeus of Lyons and Clement of Alexandria, place Matthew first before Luke, whether Luke came before or after Mark. 3. Based entirely upon the premise of Matthew's priority, that there exists what is known as the Lukan Omission indicates that Luke reworked Matthew's gospel by removing from it and replacing it with new material. Luke also reworked old material to provide additional perspectives that he learned from his sources as in his infancy narrative. 4. If Luke could subtract, add and rework Matthew's gospel, Matthew 18:11 may very well have been in the manuscript Luke was working from but missing from others. Also, the message of Matthew 18:11/Luke 19:10 may very well have been prominent in the oral proclamations of the gospel by the twelve apostles that preceded the composition of the written gospels. 5. Therefore, if Matthew 18:11 of the King James Bible was good enough for Matthew the Apostle, then it was good enough for Luke the Evangelist.
1. Yes, but just to clarify: 'annakimborahpa' is a transliteration of Korean into English that means 'the father of Anna & Kimborah'. In many Asian cultures, people are identified not by their legal name but by their familial relationship to others. 2. Regarding Irenaeus (c. 130 - c. 202 AD): He (A) was from Smyrna in Asia Minor, (B) knew Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna who was a disciple of John, the beloved disciple & apostle of Jesus, (C) became bishop of Lyons in what later became France, and (D) was martyred according to ancient tradition. 3. Here's a direct quote from Irenaeus' Against Heresies [composed c. 180], Book III, Chapter One, Number One: "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. MATTHEW ALSO ISSUED A WRITTEN GOSPEL AMONG THE HEBREWS IN THEIR OWN DIALECT, WHILE PETER AND PAUL WERE PREACHING AT ROME, AND LAYING THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE CHURCH. AFTER THEIR DEPARTURE, MARK, THE DISCIPLE AND INTERPRETER OF PETER, DID ALSO HAND DOWN TO US IN WRITING WHAT HAD BEEN PREACHED BY PETER. LUKE ALSO, THE COMPANION OF PAUL, DID RECORD IN A BOOK THE GOSPEL PREACHED BY HIM. AFTERWARDS, JOHN, THE DISCIPLE OF THE LORD, WHO ALSO HAD LEANED UPON HIS BREAST, DID HIMSELF PUBLISH A GOSPEL DURING HIS RESIDENCE AT EPHESUS IN ASIA." [Quoting from the new advent org website, fathers/0103301.htm] 4. Regarding Clement and others including Papias, bishop of Hierapolis [c. 60 - c.130 AD], whose preserved fragments are the earliest known writings about gospel authorship, I recommend the Faith Because of Reason youtube video 'The Synoptic Problem Part 3: The External Evidence for Matthean Priority.' FBOR's research and textual analysis brings him to the conclusion that Mark was derived from Matthew and Luke. By the way, FBOR is from an Arminian background, but that theological position has no direct bearing or influence on his scholarship. He's entirely objective in my opinion. 5. I can agree with FBOR's conclusion that Luke was in existence before Mark was written, but that is because (A) Mark was the secretary to Peter who was head of the apostles in Rome, the capitol of the empire, and (B) Mark was writing down what he had heard from Peter, so the early Church placed Mark as canonically second in gospel order. Despite their differences over which gospel came second, Mark or Luke, all of the early sources are in agreement that of the two eyewitness gospel authors, Matthew was first and John was fourth in chronological order.
@@annakimborahpa Well done, thanks for the sources. Correct me if I am wrong, but it almost sounds like the order is Matthew, Mark, Luke and then John as it is in our current Bibles.
1. You're welcome and yes, that is the order from Irenaeus. However, Faith Because Of Reason puts Luke before Mark because of (1) Clement's and others' testimony and (2) textual analysis that indicates Mark borrows from both Matthew and Luke. I speculate that the early Church put Mark before Luke in the canonical order of books because: A. Mark was secretary to Peter who was appointed by Jesus to be the leader of the twelve apostles. B. Peter was the first apostle to give a sermon on the day of Pentecost in Acts Chapter Two, and Mark was writing down what was probably the most ancient ORAL tradition of the preached gospel through Peter. C. While Luke's may have been in circulation before Mark's was written, it did not have the same authoritative apostolic weight since Luke's came through Paul. Paul in his letters at times refers to Peter as Cephas, a transliteration into Greek of the Aramaic word Kephas meaning 'Rock'. Jesus gave Simon (Peter) this name when Simon was first introduced to Jesus by Simon's brother Andrew at the beginning of Jesus' public ministry in John 1:42. Also, Paul was a later apostle, appointed after the resurrection, so he was not an eyewitness to Jesus' public ministry as Peter was. 2. With the four gospels completed and placed together by the end of the first century, there emerges a remarkable picture of Jesus. The three synoptic gospels each put an an emphasis on a particular aspect of Jesus' humanity: A. Matthew: Jesus as the Divine Teacher. B. Mark: Jesus as the Divine Miracle Worker C. Luke: Jesus as the Divinely Loving and Kind Savior 3. John's gospel captures Jesus's divinity most clearly by demonstrating His pre-existence with the Father. 4. So (A) with the three synoptics you have what Jesus taught, did and felt in His humanity and (B) with John you have Jesus' unmistakable divinity, so that (C) the totality of the four gospels display Jesus' two natures, human and divine in One Person.
The things that strike me about people playing devil's advocate when it comes to defending other non-KJV versions or giving the benefit of the doubt on omitted, abbreviated, or footnoted passages is this: why are the only verses in question usually salvation related, or key verses related to salvation or things Jesus said or useful things that help a Christian in some way? We're not talking about omitting arbitrary verses on whether it was, "This bible version said the grass is green, the other version said it's blue." No. It's, "This version says Jesus is God, this false version says Jesus is Satan." or how about, "This version deletes the passage about how casting out a certain kind of devil requires prayer and fasting, while the true version leave the verse intact." Or even more so, leaving out ENTIRE passages altogether such as the attempted stoning of the adulterous woman which has been such an important topic for several sermons and probably a talking point that leads to salvation for many? Is a version that omits something like that divinely inspired and God-approved? I dare think not. I strongly ask everyone who supports a non-KJV-only stance to please reconsider that there really has to be a definitive version of God's word, and we can't shuffle through 200 English translations when most of us struggle to even read parts of the ones we already have to get the truth. We need to have in our possession the true, authentic, uncorrupted, untainted, righteous word of God, and I believe wholeheartedly that it is preserved in the KJV as far as the English-speaking world is concerned. How it's preserved or intended for other languages, I don't have an answer for that. But please put away your cognitive dissonance and accept the truth that God is not the author of confusion, and every new version that comes out only adds to that confusion, and that comes from the devil and straight from the pits of Hell.
Thank you for showing the strength God has given you in order to stand. In a fallen world it's no mystery why the more liberal followers of corrupt translations are forming a division between the authorized translation and all others. The devil likes to place identifier labels on those that he wants to disparage, ie KJV onlyer. I helps them gain strength in their decisions to follow falsehoods while justifying their verbal persecution of the Christian who chooses a different way. I've been preaching and doing pastor work for 30 or so years and to date I've never seen or heard a "kjvonly" Christian hurling verbal abuse at folk who believe differently, this would be counter productive. I simply tell them when they make an issue out of it, "you do you and I do me", we'll be one day naked and alone before our Lord. Eternity is a long time to be wrong. Ephesians 6:10
They don't want a final authority. When they started to rely on "the oldest and best manuscripts," and started trusting their own intellect and that of others instead of the Holy Bible, it gave them options to form their own opinions and start asking the same question that the serpent asked in the garden; "yeah, hath God said" You are so right, too. The contested passages are so critical to salvation and His deity, but that is seemingly overlooked. Also, the blind trust in the Codex Siniatucus and Vaticanus is mind-boggling to me. Guys like Mike Winger laughing at the mere thought of a Bible believer even questioning things that came out of the Egyptian "school of thought." As if the Greek Philosophy and the Allegorical interpretation of the scripture that came out of Alexandria isn't something that we should question. It does make sense though, because that "school of thought" allows the reader to determine in their own mind what they think the Scriptures say. We are most definitely in the Laodicean church age. Note to all who are angry with me right now: I am literally new to believing that the King James Bible is THE word of God and that when anything whatsoever is in conflict with that book.....I go with the book. And that goes far beyond Bible translations. I have been a saved man for decades, and I was a staunch anti KJVO just like most of you, but praise be to my Lord for bringing me back to the book of my youth that cut me to the quick and brought me to my knees before my blessed Saviour. I love all of you, and if you grow in the faith with your version, then I do not wish to hinder you. I simply want you to know that the pure and true word of God actually exists and can be read from cover to cover without having a degree in ancient languages.
I really want to see a comprehensive history of the KJVO movement. I would be willing to help with the research. I wonder how qualified the loud proponents of KJVO are to be leaders in the church.
If you watch the "Responding to Comments" parts 1 and 2, I actually go into detail about the history. Private message me on either Facebook or Twitter/X and I will send you a great series that goes into excellent detail on the history of the KJVO movement.
The King James Bible is a justifiably beloved translation that was the best possible at the time of its writing (but still less complete than some modern translations due to certain manuscripts just not having been discovered yet at the time). However, the KJO moment seems to have gone from nostalgic loyalty to a near-heresy and weird form of idolatry where the worst of the group could be said to be worshiping the King James Bible itself rather than God.
verse 11 is just another verse that corresponds to 15:24, "He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” These two verses are mirror images of each other with their meaning. He came to reconcile the divorced bride, Israel (who lost their identity and marital status to God), so His death could complete the law of marriage from Deut 24:1-4, so God could remarry Israel and it not be a sin against Torah.
Yet he preached to gentiles and his disciples carried the gospel all over the world..Jesus said "go ye into all the world" they did and were all martared except John.
@lyndahumerick5181 that's correct, but He was only there for the lost sheep of Israel. The responsibility to make disciples of the Nations was given to His disciples. They were to make disciples by sharing the Torah to those that did not have it and that a relationship with the Jewish Messiah was the only way to be accepted by the Father.
@@biblehighlighter I tried to listen to both sides. Bought several books on the history of the Bible and its translations. I'll never in a million years be able to figure it out by myself. Both sides make sense, so I just read versions in plain English like the NLT because I just can't get through the KJV. It's very frustrating to read old English writings. Even in High School I hated Shakespeare. Anyway, thanks for the feedback.
@@biblehighlighter Yes, you so right about everything you wrote. I have several KJV and sometimes I do compare them; but the archaic language is what gets me. I have a KJB with the archaic words defined on the bottom. The words are easy to understand, as they are defined; but we don't talk like that, so I just need an accurate Bible that speaks to me like you would speak to me. Thanks for your feedback once again!
Been enjoying your videos brother. 1 John 5:7 seems pretty obvious after some research, but I’d love your thoughts on acts 8:37, and the longer ending of mark.
@@madsaez I was kjvo for 10 years man. It’s a sham. Footnotes don’t give you the “option” To doubt God. They are transparent. I used to cover my eyes and ears and say “lah lah lah” but at the end of the day, you can’t ignore the fact that there are textual variants.
@@maxxiongyou are right. Funny how these KJVO people conveniently leave that out. There is a shorter reading of Mark as well, so that blows that 666 conspiracy out of the water. Here it is in the NLT. New Living Translation Mark 16:8 The women fled from the tomb, trembling and bewildered, and they said nothing to anyone because they were too frightened. [The most ancient manuscripts of Mark conclude with verse 16:8. Later manuscripts add one or both of the following endings.] [Shorter Ending of Mark] Then they briefly reported all this to Peter and his companions. Afterward Jesus himself sent them out from east to west with the sacred and unfailing message of salvation that gives eternal life. Amen."
@@madsaezthe number of verses is irrelevant. When those manuscripts were written, there were no chapter and verse divisions. Those were not added until the 12th century AD to the Vulgate, and in 1551 to a Greek New Testament.
Rev. 22:19 seems to be teaching works. If you could lose your salvation by adding or removing from the word of God. That's a work that we do or don't do, and we're save through Christ, not works. Thoughts on this ?
Something I noticed Pastor Jonathan. Even Matthew 18:11 and Luke 19:10 do not read exactly the same. There is a slight variation between the 2 verses. Blessings!!
The important thing to note here is that your argument is true even if Matthew 18.11 is authentic. The point remains: if someone were deliberately attempting to suppress this verse, that person would have done the same in Luke. Furthermore, what heretic, ancient or modern, would want to remove this verse? Corruptions would need be systematic and purposeful, not inconsistent and arbitrary. There's simply no plausible explanation for its deletion other than a scribal accident.
Fact: One bible KJV includes it. Modern bibles do not. Conclusion: One is true. One is false. The enemy of your soul only needs to add drops of doubt to spoil it all. And he has done just that. James White stated in an interview if a discovery of a manuscript is made and it is proven authentic and that it introduces new doctrine that will require him to forsake his current doctrine he must accept it. Think. About. That. The implications are profound.
@@AGSunday First up, your "fact" is wrong. Matthew 18.11 is in the NKJV, MEV, pre-2020 NASB, LSB, HCSB, and various less-prominent modern translations. Your conclusion is also flawed. Just because one translation is true in one case doesn't mean that it's always true. The Douay-Rheims version contains Matthew 18.11, so it is as "true" or "false" as the KJV in that spot. But the D-R also contains longer readings from the Vulgate, especially in Acts, that are omitted from the KJV despite their long history of acceptance by Western Christians. Conclusion: One is true (on a case by case basis), and one is false (on a case by case basis). So even if the KJV is right in Matthew 18.11, it could be wrong in, say, Acts 15.34, which is completely missing in versions such as the ESV and half-missing in the KJV. This verse is interesting in that the KJV could be wrong either way: by including any of it or by cutting out part of it. - D-R: But it seemed good unto Silas to remain there; and Judas alone departed to Jerusalem. - KJV: Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still. - ESV: [KJV reading placed in a footnote] And by dismissing James White's view, you're saying that no objectively true evidence could make you give up a false doctrine. Think about the implications of that. You'd rather be a heretic than be corrected by the Bible.
As a dyslexic, KJV is nearly impossible to comprehend. The wording is a scrambled mess and extremely distraction. Without the NIV, I would have never read, comprehend and/or focused on my acts not my words.
That is so interesting. I was clinically diagnosed with dyslexia in my youth, and I struggled mightily with reading, but it is 10 times easier for me to read my KJV than my NASB or any of the others. I also rely on memory more than others, and I have found that the memorization of Scripture comes easy with the KJV and is very difficult for me with any other version. I guess everyone is different.
I didn't know who you were before these past few videos you've put out. I think the work you're doing here is so important. But better yet, it's easy to follow and filled with grace. Thank you pastor.
Yup, that's why I find it hilarious when KJV-Onlyists claim that they've looked at the sources Riplinger cited in her book and supposedly "confirmed" that her citations are accurate. I know right from the get-go that they're full of rubbish when they say that, because of the two different Westcotts that she conflates (W.W Westcott and B.F. Westcott). A quick Google Image search is all that's needed. The two men looked completely different.
Reading for THOUGHT CONTENT, I must say it certainly looks like a non-sequitur with respect for the surrounding context. On the other hand, it certainly looks like there's a case for it being more properly placed after verse 14 (the story about the 99 sheep, and finding the 1 that was lost). This verse probably crept in when one scribe noticed it appeared in Luke, but was missing in Matthew, and so thought it ought was ommitted by mistake, and though it should be included. I mean, we have truth here with or without it. Seems like you're looking for an issue here that isn't that critical.
Luke 9:56 Luke 9:56 King James Version (KJV) 56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. Luke 9:56 New International Version (NIV) 56 Then he and his disciples went to another village. It is definitely a longer verse in the KJV. However, why is that the case? Well, simply this was in the Greek texts that the KJV translators used when they translated Luke and it’s not in the Greek text utilized by the NIV translators. The longer rendering is in the Majority Text, the family of manuscripts that the TR is related to. Luke 9: 56 For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives but to save them." And they went to another village. Also the in the English translation of the Latin Vulgate. Luke 9:56 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition 56 The Son of man came not to destroy souls, but to save. And they went into another town. So textual support there seems to be more going for the longer rendering than the shorter one. Matthew 18:11 (KJV) 11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. As your meme correctly points out, it’s not in the NIV in MT. 18:11. However, it is wrong implying it’s omitted from the text. I would direct you to Luke 19:10. Luke 19:10 (NIV) 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” It’s not unreasonable to see how a scribe either intentionally or unintentionally included it in the copy of Matthew to harmonize it with Luke. However, as you can see, nothing has been taken out or lost. There are places in the KJV/TR that don’t contain words and phrases that translations based on the Critical Text do contain. So there’s textual variation on both sides. I think at the end of the day. The KJV and the vast majority of English translations produced by Protestant Evangelical scholars preach the same God, the same Jesus Christ, and the same Gospel.
@@Exegesis1611yeah. I know he’s broken the IFB 11th commandment “thou shalt wear suit and tie”… but since that’s not actually in the Bible, I’m happy he’s not living by some extra-biblical standard.
@@Exegesis1611 false dichotomy. IFB folks think there are only 2 options. Since I left KJVO we have not went down that road either. There are more styles of worship than IFB or mega church worldly. We have 3 things that attract people to our church - the word, prayer, and sacraments (Lord’s supper and baptism).
It scared me to death. Why does the English Bible have so many visions of the word? I read my Cambodia Bible, which has only one vision, which is alignment with the KJV. One version, one harmony much simplified , less confusion
That’s a fair question. Have you ever thought of how much easier it would be if we didn’t have but one version like the Muslims have with the Quran? Then, there would be no discussion about which version is best. But how do we know the Muslim’s Quran is the true one? We just have to believe it by faith. But we have evidence for knowing the Bible has been preserved. We know it because it was rapidly copied and distributed around the world so as to make sure that it could never be corrupted or changed and the original intent of the writers changed. Yes, we have too many modern versions of the Bible in English. But having only one would be a dangerous thing.
Who were the scribes on a magical carpet ride that added the verse? You have any names, dates, riots, protests, or any historical documentation? Did the same scribe(s) also add Matthew 17:21 with 99.5% of all existing Greek manuscripts reading as the KJV? Matthew 18:11 has 98.5% Greek support. And how can a scribe or two add a verse and it appears geographically all throughout Christendom thousands of miles apart without a magical carpet ride? Just because the verse appears somewhere else is a fallacy on an argument for theft is theft. Try telling a wounded veteran who lost one leg overseas that he is ok for he still has one leg left. Prayers go out for you, blessings.
Another problem with a scribe adding it in Matthew because it was already in Luke, is that the wording doesn’t match. He can’t have just copy and pasted. Luke has “seek and save” Matthew has “save” The fact that it is in the majority text is brushed off, but I do look forward majority text advocacy in the Revelation 22:19 video.
ALSO.. it is pointless for the modern translations to omit verses for the sake of brevity... since in the book of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes... several verses ..pretty much state the same as others and there is NO omission going on there..... WHY NOT?.
Amazing work, I mainly read Spanish translations but when it comes to English I read NKJV, ESV, NASB, and of course the beautiful translation of the KJV
Just curious. I do not speak Spanish but I'm curious about Spanish translations to recommend to other people incarnate that situation arises. What is the most literal Spanish translations? Thanks
@@chrisjohnson9542RVR1960 is the I use personally and I highly recommend it. Version my father recieved as a gift from somebody, and me and him have been reading it ever since. It's also the most used spanish version. I would stay away from newer versions. Even of the RVR itself like 2015 and things. Why, this video is a good example. God bless.
@@chrisjohnson9542the Reina Valera Revisada 1960(RVR1960) is the most popular and some people consider it the Spanish translations equal to the KJV. I myself read this version but it is definitely not equal to the KJV, the closest to the KJV is the 1569 Biblia del Oso translated by Casiadoro De Reina. Depending on which denomination people will go to the RVR1960, I now prefer the NBLA(Nueva Biblia de Las Americas) it’s an amazing, accurate and beautiful modern translations. This translation I would make it almost equivalent to the English NASB(1995) I would definitely recommend NBLA but like I said most will go to the RVR1960.
I just checked my Catholic Bible - RSV 2nd edition by Ignatius Press which is considered to be a pretty traditional translation and to my surprise Matthew 18:11 was missing . Now I have to wonder if there are other omissions or add-ons to God's Holy Word. 😥 Any recommendations for a better Catholic translation would be appreciated.
I am not a big fan of the NLT, but it is still a faithful translation. I have recommended it to some people with learning disabilities. It is an easier read, but it is a dynamic equivalence translation meaning it is not necessarily going to tell you what the author said, but rather what the author meant. I prefer a more formal equivalent translation.
Excellent. You have done your homework and you are tearing down false flags. I never was an IFB, but when I was a new christian student I leaned TR, mainly because I found the bible translation issue confusing and believed the safe course was to stick with the tried and true. James White really broke the confusion and helped me see that the TR is kind of a straw man crutch. Now I have even more confidence in my bible, not less. Keep up the good work.
simply stated... I understand the argument for the omission of certain verses in the modern translations... due to their duplication... or perhaps those verses that were omitted were Not in certain manuscripts... and I agree we perhaps do not need the same verses always repeated.. but... why NOT?...so what if it takes up an extra line or two?.. and if these modern translations ARE going to take it upon themselves to edit our reading material... why did they at the same time while editting... leave the verse count the same... instead of ONLY omitting Matthew 18:11... why did they just not number Matthew 18:12 as verse 11 in their rendition?.. the very fact that the modern trnslators.. kept the verse count the same .. implies to me that the translators.. were trying to deceive it's readers.. becasuse if the verse count was off... it would be WAY more noticeable when reading passages out loud in a group among peope using different translations wouldn't it.. for example... Jim read Matt 18:11 to the group.. and Jim reads “What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? someone would raise their hand and say my KJV bible says.. For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. that would be MUCH MORE noticeable... it's deceit... a "sleight of hand"... that is what the modern translators are guilty of... if nothing else.. if one checks out the Douay Rheims bible in the book of Psalms for instance there are whole verses omitted.. and the verse 11 is just titled verse 12 for instance.. so at the end of the Psalm the Catholic bible is one less verse than the protestant bibles.. that is how the modern translation protestant bibles should be..
Not sound reasoning. Just by the very fact that the entire conversation is being had is proof of itself that no one is hiding anything. Burris made that clear in his discussion. Both sides make there point and it is up to US to decide who the voice of reason is. If you research why the passage is still included many translations clearly state in footnotes why. Nothing is hidden. Many will say: “because the verse division generally accepted in Bible translations was already established in the 16th century, the omission of these verses now creates gaps in the verse numbering in most Bibles. The verses are Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; and Romans 16:24. In this revised edition, those omitted verses are indicated by a study note at the location of the omission.”. That of course is only one example. There are others. Just the fact that you can speak your opinion here in this forum and we can read so many books, essays and watch videos like this “for and against” a certain reading or manuscript shows nothing can be hidden. They certainly can try. People have done so since the beginning of written or even spoken history. But the discussion is being had. That in itself is proof. You can choose what “version” you would like to use. None have been burned. We have a large variety of “master Hebrew texts” and “master Greek texts”. More translations than one person could hope to read in a life time. All of this is out there to be examined by anyone with the time and ability to do so.
During the Reformation Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament (1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith) and parts of two others (Daniel and Esther), even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history. So, what about this change to the bible? Dose this corrupt the bible?
Thanks for the video. It seems that KJV-only proponents either do not realize that the oldest manuscripts have minor variances (that thus need to have best judgment decisions made re: whether they were in the original inspired text), and/or they don't have much regard for the ability or motives of textual critics. Perhaps two aspects of the grand Satanic conspiracy are: a) keeping God's Word out of the (modern) language of the common people (remember how much the Catholic church was against allowing translations into English), and b) keeping Christians so distracted with fighting over which is the best English translation - even though most all English translations make it clear that man is a sinner and needs salvation through faith in Christ and His substitutionary death and resurrection on our behalf - that our efforts in sharing this good news with a needy world become diminished.
Have you done a video on Acts 16:31? KJV says, And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. --Acts 16:31 (KJV) ASV says: And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house. --Acts 16:31 (ASV) My point is this. Both the Hebrew-based "Messiah", and the Greek-based "Christ", mean "anointed", "oiled". Other Scriptures show that Paul (and maybe Peter) always preached "Jesus is Messiah", to Jews. They knew all about the much-awaited Messiah! But to the pagan Greek jailor, he knew a "Lord" would be a god. But the only "oily" people he knew of were the naked wrestlers in the arena. If Paul had actually said "Christ" to this man, the jailor would have thought, "I ask you how to be saved, and you tell me which wrestler to support!" ........ Kurios Iesous Xristos! :--}>
6:10 What is the point in saying it only appears hundreds of years after the 1st century if we don’t have any manuscripts before then? Couldn’t you say it doesn’t appear without verse 11 until hundreds of years after the 1st century? Also, you showed the dates with the verse being there and absent and they are both the same century?
Because we actually do have papyri fragments that date to within 30 years of the time that the originals were written. We have fragments of John that some date to the First Century. The point is that there are great inconsistencies with this verse. This is a telltale sign of a variant that is not viable and therefore not original.
@@pastorburris Verse 10 doesn't appear until hundreds of years after the 1st century. You can't get rid of any verse that doesn't appear until the 3rd or 4th century.
She should no longer be a relevant voice, but she is. I refer to her because her book is still being used in arguments even though she has largely been discredited.
@pastorburris true. Sadly even though many of the more scholarly KJVO have debunked the woman who has a degree in home decorating. She is still used as a source by the more fringe group. Heard her on a radio debate with Dr White. As soon as she implied the GA meant God and Riplinger. I was done with her.
Removing one passage that declares a particular doctrine, even though the doctrine does exist in some remaining passages, does NOT mean the modern version is uncorrupted. Why should we assume corrupters are stupid. Slow, piece by piece corruption is more effective. Modern versions are tainted by more recent "discoveries" {the 1800's}, namely the Vaticanus (from the Vatican), and Sinaiticus (found in a trash can). What is the biggest difference between the KJV and the modern versions? The modern versions contain the word of God, in part. The KJV IS the Word of God for all English speaking people.
Codex Sinaiticus was not found in a trash can. That myth is easily refuted. Y reading Constantin von Tischendorf’s own writing. Seriously, Google it. I challenge that there is absolutely nothing that would change your mind about your KJVO position, because it is not based on history or fact. It is based on your faith in a particular version. There is absolutely no Greek text that reads like Revelation 16:5 prior to Beza’s textual emendation, but I guarantee you would argue for it’s inclusion in the text. Then, you would argue for the KJV’s reading of Ephesian’s 3:9 by using the exact opposite logic. You cannot argue consistently and be KJVO. The argument that you would use to support one verse must be abandoned to support another.
If the KJV IS the word of God in English, then what about other languages? Foreign bibles make different textual decisions as well. The bible read by persecuted Chinese Christians is based on the 1881 text. I am actually a bit skeptical of the critical text as well, but it's for the same reason that I am against KJVO: I believe that the word of God is preserved and available the same way today as it was during the reformation and before then. I prefer TR readings without being absolutist. (KJVO violates both "preserved" and "available". CT violates "available") Are you a KJV Onlyist or just a TR person? There are more gracious ways to defend the TR than attributing ill motives to translators of modern versions. And if you really are into the TR, at least use the NKJV.
@@mresab1997 Who told you the NKJV is a majority text or CT translation. Sure there are a few isolated places where the NKJV may have a non-TR reading, but these are very rare. Most of the differences between the NKJV and KJV are related to translation rather than meaning. When this happens it has nothing to do with Alexandrian manuscripts, and it is unfair to call these Alexandrian translations. We have a larger corpus of ancient Greek texts now so the meaning of certain words are clearer. For example, in 1 Thess 5:22, KJV reads "appearance" and NKJV reads "form", as do many modern translations. The Wycliff translation actually agrees with modern translations here. If your gripe with modern translations is only the textual basis, then KJV onlyists should team up together and make a minimal update to the KJV so that the archaic words and meanings are replaced with modern words.
Look at Acts 8:37, in The King James Bible. Now:Look for that same Scripture in the New International Version...or, as I call it, The New International Perversion! Guess what? Acts 8:37, in earlier printings of the NIV, COMPLETELY ELIMINATED IT! Later printings later put it back in...but put it at the bottom of the page, stating that:"Most texts don't have this Verse of Scripture in it"! That's only ONE reason, why I'll never use the NIV, or even allow one in my Apartment!!!!!
Acts 8.37 is not in the oldest Greek manuscripts from the 300s-400s AD, nor is it in the majority of Greek manuscripts. Its best support in Greek is Codex Laudianus from the 500s. If it is authentic, then it was scrubbed from most Greek copies and preserved mostly in Latin translations. More likely, it was an early tradition that serves to offer a response to the eunuch's (rhetorical?) question in verse 36.
I personally prefer versions that include all the passages but have footnotes explaining the situation... I would love to find a side by side with one side having all the passages and the other side without... and footnotes with explanation at the bottom...
Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins. KJV Now NIV Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. Removing how we have redemption "through His blood" minimizes the importance of the cross. I'm beginning to understand why your church moved on without you. The problem with people who have a little knowledge is that they seem to forget it's a little knowledge. Praying you'll get back to preaching the Word instead of sowing discord.
The old “bloodless Bible comment”. I love this comment. I will do a video on it. I look forward to teaching you the error of your statement. I pray you are willing to learn.
There was a time when I would have listened to you preach, but those days are over. I pray that somewhere down the line you find some humility. @@pastorburris
As a Pentecostal I enjoyed this video. Many of the older saints in our ranks hold KJV only. One thing I learned recently is NLT and NIV are dynamic translations. I'm personally NKJV and NLT.
Thank you for sharing Jonathan, just watched this video and have many more to go thank you again for the time you are taking to share. You packed a lot of information into this video but there was one thing you did not mention - Is the Word of God supernatural? We are told His Word is eternal, fixed in the heavens. Its author God. Which means plainly the responsibility to preserve and protect His Word belongs to the author. So I am asking you and every person on this board - Do you believe this to be true? The Word of God is either supernatural or it is not? Let me end with a quote from Gleason Archer author of A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Revised and Expanded on page 25: "....IT WOULD TAKE NOTHING SHORT OF A MIRACLE TO INSURE THE INERRANCY OF A COPY OF AN ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT" Do you believe?
2 Timothy 3:16 tells us that all scripture is breathed out by God. Therefore, it is not merely a product of man. However, 2 Peter 1:21 tells us He used human agency to deliver it to mankind. It is supernatural in that it is the word of God. It is not conceived in the minds of men.
This is the problem. You jumped to a horrible conclusion. I have dozens of videos on this subject. I teach people how to defend the Bible - including the KJV. You should do more research before making comments like this again. The New World Translation, What a Real Corruption of the Bible Looks Like ua-cam.com/video/FfyPbhqF0Xo/v-deo.html
It makes no difference whether a verse was in the original or added later. If you have the faith and believe it , it's the word of God. If you have the faith and don't believe it , it's not the word of God. And if you don't have the faith, it doesn't matter what you believe. Christians no longer have the faith. They don't hear the Spirit.
Excuse me? Do you realize what you just said? Once faith doesn’t make it true or false. By your standard, the Quran is the word of God because Muslim’s believe it to be so. Christians believe the Bible is the word of God, but that is not what makes it so. Your statement is illogical. If you were trying to make a point, you didn’t.
@@pastorburris Muslims are unbelievers, they can't have faith in God. They lie and pretend to believe, like most Christians. When you rely on your reasoning, you walk by sight not by faith. To walk by faith is to become a little child, depending only on the Father's guiding Holy Spirit. Wolves in sheep's clothing wrote the new translations, in the spirit of their father, and they all "smell" like snake excrement. Older translations which were done by men who had the Spirit, had not made any perfect translations, but translations that can be used by the Spirit. You sound like someone who used to have faith but had it destroyed through education. Knowledge puffs up, and God resists the proud. I pray that you find your way back.
@pastorburris Faith is the evidence of things not seen, which is pretty much everything because of how little we can humanly see. Our faith is the proof of our testimony. Our faith is the gift of the Holy Spirit, by which we are to test all things. The Spirit can not give you faith to believe a lie because God can't lie. God did not give you faith in the power of the Spirit to believe that NIV is also the word of God. You came to that opinion on your own.
Who wrote the Holy Writ? Answer: the Holy Spirit. What if, someone with the Holy Spirit said that the NIV is written specifically by men without the Spirit, but rather by unregenerate men with familiar spirits of this world, and are written to keep those who love not the Truth in their strong Lover of Self, Self Determinist, first birth nature and delusions? How do you judge this situation?
Excellent! ............ As I seem to recall, I think maybe some commentaries suggest such verses, or phrases, were directly added in by scribes, skipping the marginal note stage, to make them agree with other synoptic passages. My observation is that often the additions are true. Though some, like Acts 16:31, do flat-out contradict other Scriptures! The question is, were they in the original manuscripts. Also, a scholar has to assign weights to variant readings. But present this to other scholars. ............ BTW, KJV includes these verses: [Jesus said ...] A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all [men] know that ye are my DISCIPLES, if ye have love one to another. --John 13:34-35 (KJV) [I used capitals for emphasis.] These verses are also in ESV, RSV, ASV, NIV, NKJV, NAS, AMP, DARBY. YOUNG'S, NLT, and GNB. (Some based on TR, others based on other Greek editions.) For those of us who write comments, this is Christ's own TEST of our credibility. ............ Kurios Iesous Xristos! :--}>
Please watch this video. I’m afraid you are parroting things you have been told, but not looked up for yourself. Are Alexandrian Manuscripts Corrupt? Answering the Alexandrian vs Antioch Two Schools Argument ua-cam.com/video/WYExFw2rTFM/v-deo.html
IF alexandrian text was the original word of God,why it did not came out during the 1600?and let us remember the first christians was the believers of antioch (the book of acts)not in alexandria.alexandria was even mention in the new testament...
Wow! You really need to see this video that comes out tomorrow. Defining Textual Criticism Terms, Alexandrian vs Byzantine, Majority Text, TR, Critical Text ua-cam.com/video/bUvdMyltki0/v-deo.html
If I may. An author suggested an understanding of these "missing verses". He mentioned how we don't live in the 300s or 400s. Buying a Bible wasn't about comparing version to version, leather cover and gold-edged pages vs a plainer, less expensive print. These texts were done by hand. ‣ Often Bible "sales" were, for the most part, the marketing of a single book such as Matthew or Mark. And the price was often quite high. The Suggestion involved a copyist adding a verse from Luke as "value-added". ‣ Now, from the copyist's point-of-view, it's all scripture! However, when Mark is "beefed up" with all kinds of verses from Matthew and Luke, the character of Mark's gospel changes. It's supposed to be the fastest paced Gospel. But adding a bonus verse HERE and another one THERE slows Mark's narrative, which was not his intention. ‣ But the Scribe never saw it as "adding to Scripture", because what was taken from another Gospel *_was_* Scripture. With the lack of a printing press in those days no one walked into a Bible Society book store only to walk out fifteen minutes later with an entire box of give-away Bibles for street ministry. Copying a Bible was a long, slow and painstaking task. ‣ It has been said to me that purchasing a New Testament could cost the customer an entire year's salary. That may not be exactly correct, but it's not like an ESV New Testament for 3.99$.
And I did wish to add: the phrase "missing verse" is a line that grinds my gears. Reason simply being that it biases the listener/reader. If a recension has a verse in it that other copies do not, then it's not "missing" but rather "absent". Absent is a neutral term. "Missing" has a boat-load of implications. "Missing" due to neglect; missing due to sabotage; and so forth. I personally prefer reading the Septuagint's account of Esther. And gosh darn it if I don't come across countless commentators that must throw in the expression "Additions to Esther". Well, guess what? "Subtractions from Esther" when referring to the Hebrew text is *_just as valid._* The Greek text is "longer". The Hebrew is "shorter". Let's work our way past such expressions. 🙂
@@pastorburris Forgive me brother if it seemed like I was trying to correct you. That wasn't my intention. Modern computer-assisted research on manuscripts along with ages of the fragments or pages has helped a great deal, such as you mentioned in the video. _Crossway's_ NT is the work of many, many hours of cross referencing texts. The research seems to conclude that indeed verses appeared in other Gospels from a certain key point in time. They're not there before, but they certainly do appear afterwards. These additions are definitely there. No question, no contest. But the "Why" is what always bothered me. The standard explanation is that Scribes added verses into the text "from memory". This *_may_* be possible. But it suggests an incredible sloppiness on the part of the scribes. I never agreed with the reasoning. When I came across a scholar's text that suggested something less accusational, I felt I could stand behind that new point-of-view. Scribes gave to people who were giving up a substantial sum of money for a pile of paper and ink a few "bonus" verses from elsewhere. The notion that scribes "inserted from memory" is like the evolutionist's "billions of years". We hear it so often and tuck it into our hearts as genuine due to repetition. It's the view that stands out from the repetition that causes me to think and to consider any alternatives. How that insertion was done was probably as a "note" in the side column, as how it appears. I'm merely suggesting that the theory of the scribe's *_intent_* or *_lack of integrity_* is open for debate.
... by defending Wescott/hort, you most likely supported the Catholic INQUISITION. Hort dabbled in the occult, doubted the infallible word of God, and was a supporter of darwinism. Oh, and they also created their own forged Greek text .I'll stick with the King James bible, not these modern-day versions that got to twist, add, and remove God's word. .... see youtube channel "Truth is Christ" proves God's Holy Word is the King James bible.
You really started the year out with the most nonsensical comment imaginable. This is called a slippery slope fallacy. You know absolutely nothing about what you are commenting on. I have several videos demonstrating Brandon at Truth is Christ’s use of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy and Confirmation Bias to fabricate his claims. And you are wrong about Westcott and Hort. This is what happens when you don’t check your sources. Are KJVO Gail Riplinger and Jack Chick Right About Westcott’s Affinity for Ghosts and Spirits? ua-cam.com/video/ZtgtiEEV36o/v-deo.html
In Revelation 22 v19, the word "book" is changed to the word "scroll".... WHY???..... A scroll is a letter written and rolled up .. A book is a book....
Walk with the KJV Authorized and you will not be lied to. Let us ask the Lord Lord about the KJV AUTHORIZED . I'm going to dance with the one who brung me.
Here you go. Please point out the problem. Galatians 2:16 (KJV 1900): 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Galatians 2:16 (LSB): 16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. Galatians 2:16 (NASB 2020): 16 nevertheless, knowing that a person is not justified by works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the Law; since by works of the Law no flesh will be justified. Galatians 2:16 (ESV): 16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. Galatians 2:16 (NKJV): 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. Galatians 2:16 (NIV): 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
@@pastorburris KJV - we are justified (by the faith of Jesus Christ) NASB & ESV - we are justified (through faith in Jesus Christ) NKJ & NIV - we are justified (by faith in Jesus Christ). There is a big difference in by the faith of Jesus Christ against through faith in Jesus Christ, and by faith in Jesus Christ. For me, the KJV is correct, because Jesus' faith is greater than our faith. It was His faith that justifies us. Our faith wavers but not Christ's.
Please address the underlying Greek and show how the difference in translation is unfaithful to the text. Your interpretation is impacting your translation, not the other way around. What did Paul write? What prepositions are used? What is their case? Please defend your position.
@@pastorburris my bible used to be NKJ, and we have NIV and ESV too, and i made it a point to memorize verses in NKJ. But when i read the KJV that i saw the big difference. Sir, i am just sharing my experiences in reading the Bible. We are both believers in Christ and the Scripture. One passage that really caught my attention was when i read Gal. 1;8,9, that in today's time period, we ought to preach the gospel that Paul preaches, because preaching another gospel not according to Paul's gospel will be accursed. This simply means there are several gospels. The Bible in the book of revelation even talks about the everlasting gospel. I am not familiar with the Greek translation, as we Filipinos are used in using the English language. Although there are pastors here that study the Bible in Greek, specially those who have gone to Bible school.
I appreciate your experiences, but experiences are not facts. Please address the questions in my comments above. Your experiences should not be a basis for absolutes like King James Onlyism. People in India pray to a man who was killed on a motorcycle accident because their experience is that praying to him brings good luck. That’s a true story by the way. Just because you feel like it reads differently doesn’t mean it’s a wrong translation. The questions o asked above matter.
So you believe the earlier translations are better because the later translation amended text. Would you also believe the same is true with the original greek text manuscripts? Well no. Your argument would crumble.
@@pastorburris yeah actually my point is no sound doctrine church building who teaches salvation by grace through faith and baptism by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ will use the NIV.
Doctrinally sound churches that use the NIV? What if their “sound doctrine” doesn’t line up with yours? I know of solid conservative Baptist churches that use it for a portion of not all of their services. They also allow it in their hymn books. If you are IFB, then the KJV is a fundamental so anything contrary would not be “sound doctrine” to you. I don’t want to waste my time if I don’t know where the endzone is.
NASB includes the verse in brackets and a text note saying oldest manuscripts do not include it.
Honestly, I think that's the best way to handle this verse.
@@pastorburris I agree. I believe it is the responsible way to deal with any variant reading.
The problem with the modern day translations is simple: they stem the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus
Scholars have designated these manuscripts as Alexandrian
Basic history shows Alexandria, Egypt as the breeding ground for heresies such as Arianism and Gnosticism
The modern day Bibles simply are translations... From a corrupt source
Not my opinion these are statements by respected Bible scholars such as Dean John Burgon.
Who said the two aforementioned manuscripts are worthless, and hopelessly corrupt.
That's why these problems occur in these types of Bibles
a. Verses are missing such as the John 7:53-8-11, Acts 8:37 just to name a few off the top of my head
b. Blatantly attack the deity of Christ (1 Timothy 3:16, Philippians 2:5-8)
c. The enemy's name is removed (Isaiah 14:12 and replaced by Jesus Christ aka the morningstar Revelation 22:16)
d. The best verse for the Godhead 1 John 5:7 was cut off when there are over 30 manuscripts that proves the validity as per the text as written in the KJV
Yet you're telling me those Bible translations are trust worthy? I beg to differ
I like the approach the NASB (1977), NASB (1995) and the LSB takes by putting the verse in the main text, but with brackets, as people won't always look at the footnotes in their Bibles. I wish the ESV, NIV, CSB, NLT, etc took this approach.
I heard codex vaticanus and sinataticus disagree with each other over 3000 times in just the 4 gospels alone. I’m not trying to argue this but I was just wondering what you think brother. Also some say these manuscripts or others from Alexandria have gnostic influence. What is your thoughts on this? Thank you God bless!
That is a great question. Here is a response I sent to someone else who asked a very similar question.
There are 3,036 textual differences between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the Gospels:
Matthew: 656
Mark: 597
Luke: 791
John: 1022
70-80% of these differences are due to the presence or absence of the movable nu. The movable nu is a grammatical feature in Greek where the letter ν is added to the end of certain words (e.g., verbs or nouns) when the following word begins with a vowel or to avoid hiatus (a gap between vowels). This is an orthographic or stylistic difference that does not impact meaning in any way.
Here is an example:
Vaticanus: λέγειν (with movable nu)
Sinaiticus: λέγει (without movable nu)
The next largest portion of differences is spelling differences such as:
Vaticanus: Ζαρε (Zare)
Sinaiticus: Ζαρα (Zara)
Here again, there is absolutely no impact to meaning. This is also seen in English versions like the KJV where you will see Boaz and Booz.
Thirdly, we find order differences such as:
Vaticanus: Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Jesus Christ)
Sinaiticus: Χριστός Ἰησοῦς (Christ Jesus)
Like the other examples, this type of difference has no impact on meaning or whatsoever.
The remaining differences are omissions or additions of phrases or clauses. Since Vaticanus aligns closely with the Alexandrian Family of manuscripts and Vaticanus is closely related to the Western Family of manuscripts, we should expect some variation in the same way we see differences in Byzantine manuscript families.
In summary, the vast majority of these 3,036 differences in the Gospels are non-impactful in any way to the text. The substantive differences are common between various manuscript families across both all lines (Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western, etc.). If you have questions about a particular variant, I will be happy to address it.
Defending corrupt versions of the Bible does not help anyone. one can only conclude that there's an agenda. Like money or a doctrine of your specific denomination.
Mike, that agenda you mentioned is on page 45 in the NA/27.
What corrupt versions? Are you deceived by the KJV only heresy?
I think the KJV is good but my favorite is NASB and NLT i usually use my top 5 and choose the one that pops out the most. I think we’re truly blessed to have so many translations. I love comparing verses with other Translations
I love the Bible which includes most versions. If I could only have one, it would be between NASB 95 and NKJV. But, in my church circles, I have to preach out of the KJV. Not complaining about that. I love the KJV. I just have a hard time with the KJV only extremist. That is why I appreciate pastor Burris and these videos. I would like some insight in to how to look some of this information up. What books and resources to get. Maybe text critical resources for those of us who cannot read the Biblical languages. I am trying to learn the Biblical languages but I have a long way to go.
I can understand for a lot of people, that the KJV is their preference. But to say that a person is gonna go to Hell because they aren’t reading the KJV is insane.
"The King James Only Controversy" by James White is a good resource on the subject.
I appreciate your diligence in addressing these issues, especially since you are being personally attacked.
If you prefer the KJV then I have no issue with that at all. I would disagree with those who say that it is the only true word of God. Honestly, I don't particularly care which version Ronald Reagan thought was best. Not sure why I should.@@biblehighlighter
Just because I am a child of the 70s and 80s doesn't mean I am enamored by everything from those decades. I distrust all politicians regardless of party. I especially don't care if politicians endorse a particular translation. I do not believe the KJV is somehow more pure than some other translations. I was already familiar with both the NASB and NIV in the late 70s when I was just a kid.@@biblehighlighter
No offense, but I have come to learn that the KJV is not the "Pure Word of God" whatever that is supposed to mean. The KJV is great translation but I believe there are better.@@biblehighlighter
@biblehighlighter I would say the same about those who hold to your particular belief. There's way too much information to hold to a KJV Only position and one would have to be willfully ignorant to not see it. There is corruption in the KJV. Therefore, we are at an impasse. This conversation is only going to in circles and I see no need to keep it up. You will not sway me and I'm certain I won't sway you so I bid you a good day.
I am aware of what you claim and don't find the argument persuasive. I've already pointed out that neither of us is going to persuade the other so this exchange really serves no purpose. No doctrine has been changed no matter how irrefutable you say that claim is. I've wasted enough time with folks in the KJV Only camp to know that continuing to respond is pointless. Your ad hominem responses won't goad me into responding any further.
@@biblehighlighter
Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus - Not sure if this is the B in reference but they are both early 4th century and do not have Matthew 18:11. However one thing you mentioned and I think is important the King James Scholars either did not have access to these manuscripts going back this far or the reference points they had have been lost to history. Interesting to me though is in studing this topic of which I am still very new and uneducated on I am surprised at how many other apocryphal and non-canon books are present in these versions. While the authors of these books may be in question the lineage is equally as strong. Which is a topic for further study on my part.
Yes, the two that you mentioned at the beginning of your comment are א and B.
I can give you the seven manuscripts that Erasmus worked from if you want. They were all present in Basil, Switzerland where he worked from. He moved there thinking there would be a vast library of manuscripts. There were seven. They arrived there in 1434 or 1435. They were brought by a person from Constantinople who came for a council. Technically, he referenced an eighth, but only by letter to a friend at the Vatican whom he asked to check in Vaticanus to see if 1 John 5:7 was in it. For his third edition, he had a manuscript from Ireland that was produced by a monk between Erasmus’ 2nd and 3rd editions that did contain 1 John 5:7. That manuscript was handmade to pressure Erasmus to include 1 John 5:7 in his 3rd edition - which he reluctantly did.
Again, I can send you a list of those manuscripts of you wish to have them.
I wish I had the memory and gifts to understand things from a textual basis, what I do have is an ability to look at things in context. When I read the entire passage it doesn't change the meaning of what Matthew wrote either way, he tells the effort a shepherd will expend to find that one lost sheep. It concludes that the Father is not willing that any should perish. I do know something about the English language and I would make the argument that the verse doesn't fit with everything around it. I think we often forget that the chapters and verses are not inspired and often come at the wrong place. There is also such a danger in taking a verse on its own without considering the rest of the passage. Something I was always taught is when you see wherefore ask what it's therefore. This verse starts, "for", that's a conclusion or summation to what came before. I'm on dangerous ground saying this, but I don't see how it fits.
Frankly, this is what I miss. I'm not trying to steal your thunder, I just so wish I was around pastors and teachers on this level I could discuss these things with. I'm also trying to figure out just what God has for me in this journey. At almost 65 I feel like I have something to contribute, but not sure what or how. Love your channel.
@@biblehighlighter I'm not disparaging videos like this. Myself, I am a KJV preferred not KJVO. There is nothing wrong with Textual Criticism, in fact it is very important. I was trying to make the point that if you know English you can see that it is a problem. On the other hand, this verse and the Johanin Comma are tempests in teapots. If Satan can get us fighting each other it distracts us from the real work we have been called to do.
@@biblehighlighterI spent some time researching this verse. This verse wasn't used by the bishops at the Nicene Council and yet they had no problem establishing the trinity. It's always dangerous to rely on a single verse to establish a doctrine. Even your post doesn't quote any bishop until 150 years after the doctrine of the trinity was firmly established. That's my point, even if I concede the point and remove the verse, I can use any translation to show the trinity and the divinity of Jesus. Philippians 2 and John 1 take care of that. In fact the entire book of John establishes the divinity of Jesus.
@@biblehighlighter I'm not going to continue hijacking this video. I couldn't find my Bancroft Theology so I looked up the Trinity in Lockyear. What I didn't find was 1 John 5:7, but I see far too many Scriptures for a simple post. Ephesians alone establishes the Trinity. Not to mention Matthew 28. My point is that it's an unnecessary argument. No legitimate doctrine rests on one single verse.
Most churches don't study this type of subject. Even non kjv onlyist don't even know.
@@mresab1997 what you ask him??
If all Scripture is God-breathed
(which it is), then what one is the correct "version?"
Only one can be inspired.
I think it's amazing that preachers can pound the pulpit for the inspiration of the Bible, and then toy with other translations which are interpreted by a committee somewhere (man's thoughts) and call it "God's Word."
Ridiculous reasoning.
@@LondonFogg the scrolls would be the actual inspired. The church translates them to languages for across the world.
@@mresab1997 so you dont believe the scrolls we have arent enough??
@@mresab1997 what does then?? What would be your standard for the bible to be properly translated from??
God bless brother. KEEP GOING ON. I like the message on your shirt: "servant (slave) of Christ Jesus."
This is not an exemplary method of comparing and contrasting due to this issue is not the English but the Greek. In that the methods that the scholars use to delineate which pieces of evidence belong in the text that is translated into English is not circumspect and thereby can be considered as potentially flawed. So, for instance if the verse that is in Matthew in the KJV is in the evidence in Matthew then it seem pertinent to translate it into the English. And whether some verses are duplicate is not a sufficient reason to exclude it from a translation it simply has to do with what is in the evidence available.
Very well documented examination of the Matthew 18:11 KJV enigma. Please consider the following as merely speculative:
1. If Matthew 18:11 of the King James Bible was good enough for a Galilean tax collector from Capernaum, then could that have been good enough for a Hellenic physician from Antioch?
2. All of the ancient sources for the chronological ordering of the gospels, including Irenaeus of Lyons and Clement of Alexandria, place Matthew first before Luke, whether Luke came before or after Mark.
3. Based entirely upon the premise of Matthew's priority, that there exists what is known as the Lukan Omission indicates that Luke reworked Matthew's gospel by removing from it and replacing it with new material. Luke also reworked old material to provide additional perspectives that he learned from his sources as in his infancy narrative.
4. If Luke could subtract, add and rework Matthew's gospel, Matthew 18:11 may very well have been in the manuscript Luke was working from but missing from others. Also, the message of Matthew 18:11/Luke 19:10 may very well have been prominent in the oral proclamations of the gospel by the twelve apostles that preceded the composition of the written gospels.
5. Therefore, if Matthew 18:11 of the King James Bible was good enough for Matthew the Apostle, then it was good enough for Luke the Evangelist.
Anna Kim, Do you have the sources or link for Irenaeus or Clement that puts Matthew before Luke?
1. Yes, but just to clarify: 'annakimborahpa' is a transliteration of Korean into English that means 'the father of Anna & Kimborah'. In many Asian cultures, people are identified not by their legal name but by their familial relationship to others.
2. Regarding Irenaeus (c. 130 - c. 202 AD): He (A) was from Smyrna in Asia Minor, (B) knew Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna who was a disciple of John, the beloved disciple & apostle of Jesus, (C) became bishop of Lyons in what later became France, and (D) was martyred according to ancient tradition.
3. Here's a direct quote from Irenaeus' Against Heresies [composed c. 180], Book III, Chapter One, Number One:
"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. MATTHEW ALSO ISSUED A WRITTEN GOSPEL AMONG THE HEBREWS IN THEIR OWN DIALECT, WHILE PETER AND PAUL WERE PREACHING AT ROME, AND LAYING THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE CHURCH. AFTER THEIR DEPARTURE, MARK, THE DISCIPLE AND INTERPRETER OF PETER, DID ALSO HAND DOWN TO US IN WRITING WHAT HAD BEEN PREACHED BY PETER. LUKE ALSO, THE COMPANION OF PAUL, DID RECORD IN A BOOK THE GOSPEL PREACHED BY HIM. AFTERWARDS, JOHN, THE DISCIPLE OF THE LORD, WHO ALSO HAD LEANED UPON HIS BREAST, DID HIMSELF PUBLISH A GOSPEL DURING HIS RESIDENCE AT EPHESUS IN ASIA."
[Quoting from the new advent org website, fathers/0103301.htm]
4. Regarding Clement and others including Papias, bishop of Hierapolis [c. 60 - c.130 AD], whose preserved fragments are the earliest known writings about gospel authorship, I recommend the Faith Because of Reason youtube video 'The Synoptic Problem Part 3: The External Evidence for Matthean Priority.' FBOR's research and textual analysis brings him to the conclusion that Mark was derived from Matthew and Luke. By the way, FBOR is from an Arminian background, but that theological position has no direct bearing or influence on his scholarship. He's entirely objective in my opinion.
5. I can agree with FBOR's conclusion that Luke was in existence before Mark was written, but that is because (A) Mark was the secretary to Peter who was head of the apostles in Rome, the capitol of the empire, and (B) Mark was writing down what he had heard from Peter, so the early Church placed Mark as canonically second in gospel order. Despite their differences over which gospel came second, Mark or Luke, all of the early sources are in agreement that of the two eyewitness gospel authors, Matthew was first and John was fourth in chronological order.
@@annakimborahpa Well done, thanks for the sources. Correct me if I am wrong, but it almost sounds like the order is Matthew, Mark, Luke and then John as it is in our current Bibles.
1. You're welcome and yes, that is the order from Irenaeus. However, Faith Because Of Reason puts Luke before Mark because of (1) Clement's and others' testimony and (2) textual analysis that indicates Mark borrows from both Matthew and Luke. I speculate that the early Church put Mark before Luke in the canonical order of books because:
A. Mark was secretary to Peter who was appointed by Jesus to be the leader of the twelve apostles.
B. Peter was the first apostle to give a sermon on the day of Pentecost in Acts Chapter Two, and Mark was writing down what was probably the most ancient ORAL tradition of the preached gospel through Peter.
C. While Luke's may have been in circulation before Mark's was written, it did not have the same authoritative apostolic weight since Luke's came through Paul. Paul in his letters at times refers to Peter as Cephas, a transliteration into Greek of the Aramaic word Kephas meaning 'Rock'. Jesus gave Simon (Peter) this name when Simon was first introduced to Jesus by Simon's brother Andrew at the beginning of Jesus' public ministry in John 1:42. Also, Paul was a later apostle, appointed after the resurrection, so he was not an eyewitness to Jesus' public ministry as Peter was.
2. With the four gospels completed and placed together by the end of the first century, there emerges a remarkable picture of Jesus. The three synoptic gospels each put an an emphasis on a particular aspect of Jesus' humanity:
A. Matthew: Jesus as the Divine Teacher.
B. Mark: Jesus as the Divine Miracle Worker
C. Luke: Jesus as the Divinely Loving and Kind Savior
3. John's gospel captures Jesus's divinity most clearly by demonstrating His pre-existence with the Father.
4. So (A) with the three synoptics you have what Jesus taught, did and felt in His humanity and (B) with John you have Jesus' unmistakable divinity, so that (C) the totality of the four gospels display Jesus' two natures, human and divine in One Person.
The things that strike me about people playing devil's advocate when it comes to defending other non-KJV versions or giving the benefit of the doubt on omitted, abbreviated, or footnoted passages is this: why are the only verses in question usually salvation related, or key verses related to salvation or things Jesus said or useful things that help a Christian in some way? We're not talking about omitting arbitrary verses on whether it was, "This bible version said the grass is green, the other version said it's blue." No. It's, "This version says Jesus is God, this false version says Jesus is Satan." or how about, "This version deletes the passage about how casting out a certain kind of devil requires prayer and fasting, while the true version leave the verse intact." Or even more so, leaving out ENTIRE passages altogether such as the attempted stoning of the adulterous woman which has been such an important topic for several sermons and probably a talking point that leads to salvation for many? Is a version that omits something like that divinely inspired and God-approved? I dare think not. I strongly ask everyone who supports a non-KJV-only stance to please reconsider that there really has to be a definitive version of God's word, and we can't shuffle through 200 English translations when most of us struggle to even read parts of the ones we already have to get the truth. We need to have in our possession the true, authentic, uncorrupted, untainted, righteous word of God, and I believe wholeheartedly that it is preserved in the KJV as far as the English-speaking world is concerned. How it's preserved or intended for other languages, I don't have an answer for that. But please put away your cognitive dissonance and accept the truth that God is not the author of confusion, and every new version that comes out only adds to that confusion, and that comes from the devil and straight from the pits of Hell.
Thank you for showing the strength God has given you in order to stand. In a fallen world it's no mystery why the more liberal followers of corrupt translations are forming a division between the authorized translation and all others. The devil likes to place identifier labels on those that he wants to disparage, ie KJV onlyer. I helps them gain strength in their decisions to follow falsehoods while justifying their verbal persecution of the Christian who chooses a different way. I've been preaching and doing pastor work for 30 or so years and to date I've never seen or heard a "kjvonly" Christian hurling verbal abuse at folk who believe differently, this would be counter productive. I simply tell them when they make an issue out of it, "you do you and I do me", we'll be one day naked and alone before our Lord. Eternity is a long time to be wrong. Ephesians 6:10
They don't want a final authority. When they started to rely on "the oldest and best manuscripts," and started trusting their own intellect and that of others instead of the Holy Bible, it gave them options to form their own opinions and start asking the same question that the serpent asked in the garden; "yeah, hath God said"
You are so right, too. The contested passages are so critical to salvation and His deity, but that is seemingly overlooked. Also, the blind trust in the Codex Siniatucus and Vaticanus is mind-boggling to me. Guys like Mike Winger laughing at the mere thought of a Bible believer even questioning things that came out of the Egyptian "school of thought." As if the Greek Philosophy and the Allegorical interpretation of the scripture that came out of Alexandria isn't something that we should question. It does make sense though, because that "school of thought" allows the reader to determine in their own mind what they think the Scriptures say. We are most definitely in the Laodicean church age.
Note to all who are angry with me right now: I am literally new to believing that the King James Bible is THE word of God and that when anything whatsoever is in conflict with that book.....I go with the book. And that goes far beyond Bible translations. I have been a saved man for decades, and I was a staunch anti KJVO just like most of you, but praise be to my Lord for bringing me back to the book of my youth that cut me to the quick and brought me to my knees before my blessed Saviour. I love all of you, and if you grow in the faith with your version, then I do not wish to hinder you. I simply want you to know that the pure and true word of God actually exists and can be read from cover to cover without having a degree in ancient languages.
@@flman9684 Amen brother, a kind answer indeed
I really want to see a comprehensive history of the KJVO movement. I would be willing to help with the research. I wonder how qualified the loud proponents of KJVO are to be leaders in the church.
If you watch the "Responding to Comments" parts 1 and 2, I actually go into detail about the history. Private message me on either Facebook or Twitter/X and I will send you a great series that goes into excellent detail on the history of the KJVO movement.
The King James Bible is a justifiably beloved translation that was the best possible at the time of its writing (but still less complete than some modern translations due to certain manuscripts just not having been discovered yet at the time). However, the KJO moment seems to have gone from nostalgic loyalty to a near-heresy and weird form of idolatry where the worst of the group could be said to be worshiping the King James Bible itself rather than God.
Recently, I interacted with someone online who was a KJVonlyist, anti-trinitarian, and recommending Riplinger.
verse 11 is just another verse that corresponds to 15:24, "He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” These two verses are mirror images of each other with their meaning. He came to reconcile the divorced bride, Israel (who lost their identity and marital status to God), so His death could complete the law of marriage from Deut 24:1-4, so God could remarry Israel and it not be a sin against Torah.
Yet he preached to gentiles and his disciples carried the gospel all over the world..Jesus said "go ye into all the world" they did and were all martared except John.
@lyndahumerick5181 that's correct, but He was only there for the lost sheep of Israel. The responsibility to make disciples of the Nations was given to His disciples. They were to make disciples by sharing the Torah to those that did not have it and that a relationship with the Jewish Messiah was the only way to be accepted by the Father.
Thank you for clarifying this topic. I have been so confused about it.
@@biblehighlighter I tried to listen to both sides. Bought several books on the history of the Bible and its translations. I'll never in a million years be able to figure it out by myself. Both sides make sense, so I just read versions in plain English like the NLT because I just can't get through the KJV. It's very frustrating to read old English writings. Even in High School I hated Shakespeare. Anyway, thanks for the feedback.
@@biblehighlighter Yes, you so right about everything you wrote. I have several KJV and sometimes I do compare them; but the archaic language is what gets me. I have a KJB with the archaic words defined on the bottom. The words are easy to understand, as they are defined; but we don't talk like that, so I just need an accurate Bible that speaks to me like you would speak to me. Thanks for your feedback once again!
Been enjoying your videos brother. 1 John 5:7 seems pretty obvious after some research, but I’d love your thoughts on acts 8:37, and the longer ending of mark.
@@madsaez I was kjvo for 10 years man. It’s a sham.
Footnotes don’t give you the “option”
To doubt God. They are transparent. I used to cover my eyes and ears and say “lah lah lah” but at the end of the day, you can’t ignore the fact that there are textual variants.
@@madsaez There are more verses under dispute in Mark than the last 12 so your number is just wrong.
@@maxxiongyou are right. Funny how these KJVO people conveniently leave that out. There is a shorter reading of Mark as well, so that blows that 666 conspiracy out of the water. Here it is in the NLT. New Living Translation Mark 16:8 The women fled from the tomb, trembling and bewildered, and they said nothing to anyone because they were too frightened. [The most ancient manuscripts of Mark conclude with verse 16:8. Later manuscripts add one or both of the following endings.] [Shorter Ending of Mark] Then they briefly reported all this to Peter and his companions. Afterward Jesus himself sent them out from east to west with the sacred and unfailing message of salvation that gives eternal life. Amen."
And the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) would be interesting too.
@@madsaezthe number of verses is irrelevant. When those manuscripts were written, there were no chapter and verse divisions. Those were not added until the 12th century AD to the Vulgate, and in 1551 to a Greek New Testament.
Rev. 22:19 seems to be teaching works. If you could lose your salvation by adding or removing from the word of God. That's a work that we do or don't do, and we're save through Christ, not works. Thoughts on this ?
That is an interesting variant that we can address. Thank you for the suggestion.
Something I noticed Pastor Jonathan. Even Matthew 18:11 and Luke 19:10 do not read exactly the same. There is a slight variation between the 2 verses. Blessings!!
The important thing to note here is that your argument is true even if Matthew 18.11 is authentic. The point remains: if someone were deliberately attempting to suppress this verse, that person would have done the same in Luke. Furthermore, what heretic, ancient or modern, would want to remove this verse? Corruptions would need be systematic and purposeful, not inconsistent and arbitrary. There's simply no plausible explanation for its deletion other than a scribal accident.
Fact: One bible KJV includes it. Modern bibles do not. Conclusion: One is true. One is false. The enemy of your soul only needs to add drops of doubt to spoil it all. And he has done just that. James White stated in an interview if a discovery of a manuscript is made and it is proven authentic and that it introduces new doctrine that will require him to forsake his current doctrine he must accept it. Think. About. That. The implications are profound.
@@AGSunday First up, your "fact" is wrong. Matthew 18.11 is in the NKJV, MEV, pre-2020 NASB, LSB, HCSB, and various less-prominent modern translations.
Your conclusion is also flawed. Just because one translation is true in one case doesn't mean that it's always true. The Douay-Rheims version contains Matthew 18.11, so it is as "true" or "false" as the KJV in that spot. But the D-R also contains longer readings from the Vulgate, especially in Acts, that are omitted from the KJV despite their long history of acceptance by Western Christians. Conclusion: One is true (on a case by case basis), and one is false (on a case by case basis).
So even if the KJV is right in Matthew 18.11, it could be wrong in, say, Acts 15.34, which is completely missing in versions such as the ESV and half-missing in the KJV. This verse is interesting in that the KJV could be wrong either way: by including any of it or by cutting out part of it.
- D-R: But it seemed good unto Silas to remain there; and Judas alone departed to Jerusalem.
- KJV: Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.
- ESV: [KJV reading placed in a footnote]
And by dismissing James White's view, you're saying that no objectively true evidence could make you give up a false doctrine. Think about the implications of that. You'd rather be a heretic than be corrected by the Bible.
"God and Riplinger." That's enough for any fundamentalist baptist NOT to read that book.
Unfortunately a lot do. I read it 20 years. I still see the arguments today.
Gail Riplinger is the Kamala Harris of false theologians.
As a dyslexic, KJV is nearly impossible to comprehend. The wording is a scrambled mess and extremely distraction. Without the NIV, I would have never read, comprehend and/or focused on my acts not my words.
That is so interesting. I was clinically diagnosed with dyslexia in my youth, and I struggled mightily with reading, but it is 10 times easier for me to read my KJV than my NASB or any of the others. I also rely on memory more than others, and I have found that the memorization of Scripture comes easy with the KJV and is very difficult for me with any other version. I guess everyone is different.
How come? I am not a native English speaker and have ADHD, nontheless I find the KJV easy to read.
Yet, you maybe a rocket scientist and can't comprehend 6th grade english.
I didn't know who you were before these past few videos you've put out. I think the work you're doing here is so important. But better yet, it's easy to follow and filled with grace. Thank you pastor.
Riplinger confused Westcott and Hort with other men with the same last name? A video on this would be interesting.
Yup, that's why I find it hilarious when KJV-Onlyists claim that they've looked at the sources Riplinger cited in her book and supposedly "confirmed" that her citations are accurate. I know right from the get-go that they're full of rubbish when they say that, because of the two different Westcotts that she conflates (W.W Westcott and B.F. Westcott). A quick Google Image search is all that's needed. The two men looked completely different.
@curtthegamer934 Thanks for the reply I just googled it.
Good and thorough clarification. Nice T-shirt too. You should sell those through your channel.
Reading for THOUGHT CONTENT, I must say it certainly looks like a non-sequitur with respect for the surrounding context.
On the other hand, it certainly looks like there's a case for it being more properly placed after verse 14 (the story about the 99 sheep,
and finding the 1 that was lost).
This verse probably crept in when one scribe noticed it appeared in Luke, but was missing in Matthew, and so thought it ought was ommitted by mistake, and though it should be included. I mean, we have truth here with or without it. Seems like you're looking for an issue here that isn't that critical.
This verse of course is in the TR and it is in the Robinson-Pierpoint Majority Text as well. Its not in the Critical Text NA/UBS
Luke 9:56
Luke 9:56 King James Version (KJV)
56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.
Luke 9:56 New International Version (NIV)
56 Then he and his disciples went to another village.
It is definitely a longer verse in the KJV. However, why is that the case? Well, simply this was in the Greek texts that the KJV translators used when they translated Luke and it’s not in the Greek text utilized by the NIV translators.
The longer rendering is in the Majority Text, the family of manuscripts that the TR is related to.
Luke 9: 56 For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives but to save them." And they went to another village.
Also the in the English translation of the Latin Vulgate.
Luke 9:56
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
56 The Son of man came not to destroy souls, but to save. And they went into another town.
So textual support there seems to be more going for the longer rendering than the shorter one.
Matthew 18:11 (KJV)
11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
As your meme correctly points out, it’s not in the NIV in MT. 18:11. However, it is wrong implying it’s omitted from the text. I would direct you to Luke 19:10.
Luke 19:10 (NIV)
10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”
It’s not unreasonable to see how a scribe either intentionally or unintentionally included it in the copy of Matthew to harmonize it with Luke. However, as you can see, nothing has been taken out or lost.
There are places in the KJV/TR that don’t contain words and phrases that translations based on the Critical Text do contain. So there’s textual variation on both sides.
I think at the end of the day. The KJV and the vast majority of English translations produced by Protestant Evangelical scholars preach the same God, the same Jesus Christ, and the same Gospel.
Love the shirt. Doulos.
@@Exegesis1611yeah. I know he’s broken the IFB 11th commandment “thou shalt wear suit and tie”… but since that’s not actually in the Bible, I’m happy he’s not living by some extra-biblical standard.
@@Exegesis1611 might it be that once you don’t accept one false standard, there is no reason to accept the others?
@@Exegesis1611 false dichotomy. IFB folks think there are only 2 options. Since I left KJVO we have not went down that road either. There are more styles of worship than IFB or mega church worldly. We have 3 things that attract people to our church - the word, prayer, and sacraments (Lord’s supper and baptism).
@@Exegesis1611 small church 50-60
I’m curious what your stance is on Landmarkism (Baptist successionism) and if you ever plan to make a video about it.
Good Job
It scared me to death. Why does the English Bible have so many visions of the word? I read my Cambodia Bible, which has only one vision, which is alignment with the KJV. One version, one harmony much simplified , less confusion
That’s a fair question. Have you ever thought of how much easier it would be if we didn’t have but one version like the Muslims have with the Quran? Then, there would be no discussion about which version is best. But how do we know the Muslim’s Quran is the true one? We just have to believe it by faith. But we have evidence for knowing the Bible has been preserved. We know it because it was rapidly copied and distributed around the world so as to make sure that it could never be corrupted or changed and the original intent of the writers changed. Yes, we have too many modern versions of the Bible in English. But having only one would be a dangerous thing.
Who were the scribes on a magical carpet ride that added the verse? You have any names, dates, riots, protests, or any historical documentation? Did the same scribe(s) also add Matthew 17:21 with 99.5% of all existing Greek manuscripts reading as the KJV? Matthew 18:11 has 98.5% Greek support.
And how can a scribe or two add a verse and it appears geographically all throughout Christendom thousands of miles apart without a magical carpet ride?
Just because the verse appears somewhere else is a fallacy on an argument for theft is theft. Try telling a wounded veteran who lost one leg overseas that he is ok for he still has one leg left.
Prayers go out for you, blessings.
Another problem with a scribe adding it in Matthew because it was already in Luke, is that the wording doesn’t match. He can’t have just copy and pasted. Luke has “seek and save” Matthew has “save” The fact that it is in the majority text is brushed off, but I do look forward majority text advocacy in the Revelation 22:19 video.
ALSO.. it is pointless for the modern translations to omit verses for the sake of brevity... since in the book of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes... several verses ..pretty much state the same as others and there is NO omission going on there..... WHY NOT?.
Amazing work, I mainly read Spanish translations but when it comes to English I read NKJV, ESV, NASB, and of course the beautiful translation of the KJV
Just curious. I do not speak Spanish but I'm curious about Spanish translations to recommend to other people incarnate that situation arises. What is the most literal Spanish translations? Thanks
@@chrisjohnson9542RVR1960 is the I use personally and I highly recommend it. Version my father recieved as a gift from somebody, and me and him have been reading it ever since. It's also the most used spanish version. I would stay away from newer versions. Even of the RVR itself like 2015 and things. Why, this video is a good example. God bless.
@@chrisjohnson9542the Reina Valera Revisada 1960(RVR1960) is the most popular and some people consider it the Spanish translations equal to the KJV. I myself read this version but it is definitely not equal to the KJV, the closest to the KJV is the 1569 Biblia del Oso translated by Casiadoro De Reina. Depending on which denomination people will go to the RVR1960, I now prefer the NBLA(Nueva Biblia de Las Americas) it’s an amazing, accurate and beautiful modern translations. This translation I would make it almost equivalent to the English NASB(1995)
I would definitely recommend NBLA but like I said most will go to the RVR1960.
@@jonathanhernandez7957what about nueva traducción viviente I think it is equal to the new living translation
I just checked my Catholic Bible - RSV 2nd edition by Ignatius Press which is considered to be a pretty traditional translation and to my surprise Matthew 18:11 was missing . Now I have to wonder if there are other omissions or add-ons to God's Holy Word. 😥 Any recommendations for a better Catholic translation would be appreciated.
If your worried about missing verses try a TR/ Byzantine/Majority text bible. Your main options would be KJV, NKJV, MEV, MSB, and WEB.
Stick with the KJV
There's a WEB: Catholic Edition
act 8:37 also was removed.
is it ok like nlt?
I am not a big fan of the NLT, but it is still a faithful translation. I have recommended it to some people with learning disabilities. It is an easier read, but it is a dynamic equivalence translation meaning it is not necessarily going to tell you what the author said, but rather what the author meant. I prefer a more formal equivalent translation.
No older manuscripts didt not have those. No the TR added those verses.
You are absolutely awesome dude. Thank the Lord for what He's using you for!
Thank you. Great video.
Nice work!
Excellent. You have done your homework and you are tearing down false flags. I never was an IFB, but when I was a new christian student I leaned TR, mainly because I found the bible translation issue confusing and believed the safe course was to stick with the tried and true. James White really broke the confusion and helped me see that the TR is kind of a straw man crutch. Now I have even more confidence in my bible, not less. Keep up the good work.
Well done!
simply stated... I understand the argument for the omission of certain verses in the modern translations... due to their duplication... or perhaps those verses that were omitted were Not in certain manuscripts... and I agree we perhaps do not need the same verses always repeated.. but...
why NOT?...so what if it takes up an extra line or two?.. and if these modern translations ARE going to take it upon themselves to edit our reading material... why did they at the same time while editting... leave the verse count the same... instead of ONLY omitting Matthew 18:11... why did they just not number Matthew 18:12 as verse 11 in their rendition?..
the very fact that the modern trnslators.. kept the verse count the same .. implies to me that the translators.. were trying to deceive it's readers.. becasuse if the verse count was off... it would be WAY more noticeable when reading passages out loud in a group among peope using different translations wouldn't it..
for example... Jim read Matt 18:11 to the group.. and Jim reads
“What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off?
someone would raise their hand and say my KJV bible says..
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
that would be MUCH MORE noticeable... it's deceit... a "sleight of hand"...
that is what the modern translators are guilty of... if nothing else..
if one checks out the Douay Rheims bible in the book of Psalms for instance there are whole verses omitted.. and the verse 11 is just titled verse 12 for instance.. so at the end of the Psalm the Catholic bible is one less verse than the protestant bibles.. that is how the modern translation protestant bibles should be..
Not sound reasoning. Just by the very fact that the entire conversation is being had is proof of itself that no one is hiding anything. Burris made that clear in his discussion. Both sides make there point and it is up to US to decide who the voice of reason is. If you research why the passage is still included many translations clearly state in footnotes why. Nothing is hidden. Many will say:
“because the verse division generally accepted in Bible translations was already established in the 16th century, the omission of these verses now creates gaps in the verse numbering in most Bibles. The verses are Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; and Romans 16:24. In this revised edition, those omitted verses are indicated by a study note at the location of the omission.”.
That of course is only one example. There are others. Just the fact that you can speak your opinion here in this forum and we can read so many books, essays and watch videos like this “for and against” a certain reading or manuscript shows nothing can be hidden. They certainly can try. People have done so since the beginning of written or even spoken history. But the discussion is being had. That in itself is proof. You can choose what “version” you would like to use. None have been burned. We have a large variety of “master Hebrew texts” and “master Greek texts”. More translations than one person could hope to read in a life time. All of this is out there to be examined by anyone with the time and ability to do so.
Great job!
During the Reformation Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament (1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith) and parts of two others (Daniel and Esther), even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history. So, what about this change to the bible? Dose this corrupt the bible?
Did not Jesus say the Holy SPIRIT will lead and teach us all the Father has shown the Son.
Respectfully, what does this have to do with Matthew 18:11 and different translations?
So clear and well presented! Thank you brother.
Note: MT 18:11 IS in Jerome's 400AD Latin translation of Matthew. Translated from 300s AD texts. That's very early. I believe it is authentic!
Thanks for the video. It seems that KJV-only proponents either do not realize that the oldest manuscripts have minor variances (that thus need to have best judgment decisions made re: whether they were in the original inspired text), and/or they don't have much regard for the ability or motives of textual critics.
Perhaps two aspects of the grand Satanic conspiracy are:
a) keeping God's Word out of the (modern) language of the common people (remember how much the Catholic church was against allowing translations into English), and
b) keeping Christians so distracted with fighting over which is the best English translation - even though most all English translations make it clear that man is a sinner and needs salvation through faith in Christ and His substitutionary death and resurrection on our behalf - that our efforts in sharing this good news with a needy world become diminished.
Have you done a video on Acts 16:31?
KJV says,
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
--Acts 16:31 (KJV)
ASV says:
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house.
--Acts 16:31 (ASV)
My point is this. Both the Hebrew-based "Messiah", and the Greek-based "Christ", mean "anointed", "oiled".
Other Scriptures show that Paul (and maybe Peter) always preached "Jesus is Messiah", to Jews. They knew all about the much-awaited Messiah!
But to the pagan Greek jailor, he knew a "Lord" would be a god. But the only "oily" people he knew of were the naked wrestlers in the arena.
If Paul had actually said "Christ" to this man, the jailor would have thought, "I ask you how to be saved, and you tell me which wrestler to support!"
........
Kurios Iesous Xristos!
:--}>
Context: the next verse suggest that Paul actually preached the gospel to them after answering the question.
6:10 What is the point in saying it only appears hundreds of years after the 1st century if we don’t have any manuscripts before then? Couldn’t you say it doesn’t appear without verse 11 until hundreds of years after the 1st century? Also, you showed the dates with the verse being there and absent and they are both the same century?
Because we actually do have papyri fragments that date to within 30 years of the time that the originals were written. We have fragments of John that some date to the First Century.
The point is that there are great inconsistencies with this verse. This is a telltale sign of a variant that is not viable and therefore not original.
@@pastorburris Verse 10 doesn't appear until hundreds of years after the 1st century. You can't get rid of any verse that doesn't appear until the 3rd or 4th century.
This verse does not have a consistently clear lineage in the manuscript tradition. If it did, it would be like Luke 19:10 - unquestionable.
@@pastorburris Can you guide me to the consistently clear lineage of the text without the verse through history?
The unabridged version of old AMPLIFIED JEREMIAH 8 v1to 7 us today,all new versions,have key words removed.todays salvation no true repentance.
Please forgive me JEREMIAH 8 v1to 22.
Gal Riplinger is not the best choice for KJVO to use as a citation.
She should no longer be a relevant voice, but she is. I refer to her because her book is still being used in arguments even though she has largely been discredited.
@pastorburris true. Sadly even though many of the more scholarly KJVO have debunked the woman who has a degree in home decorating. She is still used as a source by the more fringe group. Heard her on a radio debate with Dr White. As soon as she implied the GA meant God and Riplinger. I was done with her.
Removing one passage that declares a particular doctrine, even though the doctrine does exist in some remaining passages, does NOT mean the modern version is uncorrupted. Why should we assume corrupters are stupid. Slow, piece by piece corruption is more effective. Modern versions are tainted by more recent "discoveries" {the 1800's}, namely the Vaticanus (from the Vatican), and Sinaiticus (found in a trash can). What is the biggest difference between the KJV and the modern versions? The modern versions contain the word of God, in part. The KJV IS the Word of God for all English speaking people.
Codex Sinaiticus was not found in a trash can. That myth is easily refuted. Y reading Constantin von Tischendorf’s own writing. Seriously, Google it.
I challenge that there is absolutely nothing that would change your mind about your KJVO position, because it is not based on history or fact. It is based on your faith in a particular version. There is absolutely no Greek text that reads like Revelation 16:5 prior to Beza’s textual emendation, but I guarantee you would argue for it’s inclusion in the text. Then, you would argue for the KJV’s reading of Ephesian’s 3:9 by using the exact opposite logic. You cannot argue consistently and be KJVO. The argument that you would use to support one verse must be abandoned to support another.
@@mresab1997 Sir, you know so much that isn’t so. I think I am finished wasting my time on you.
If the KJV IS the word of God in English, then what about other languages? Foreign bibles make different textual decisions as well. The bible read by persecuted Chinese Christians is based on the 1881 text.
I am actually a bit skeptical of the critical text as well, but it's for the same reason that I am against KJVO: I believe that the word of God is preserved and available the same way today as it was during the reformation and before then. I prefer TR readings without being absolutist. (KJVO violates both "preserved" and "available". CT violates "available")
Are you a KJV Onlyist or just a TR person? There are more gracious ways to defend the TR than attributing ill motives to translators of modern versions. And if you really are into the TR, at least use the NKJV.
@@mresab1997 Who told you the NKJV is a majority text or CT translation. Sure there are a few isolated places where the NKJV may have a non-TR reading, but these are very rare.
Most of the differences between the NKJV and KJV are related to translation rather than meaning. When this happens it has nothing to do with Alexandrian manuscripts, and it is unfair to call these Alexandrian translations. We have a larger corpus of ancient Greek texts now so the meaning of certain words are clearer. For example, in 1 Thess 5:22, KJV reads "appearance" and NKJV reads "form", as do many modern translations. The Wycliff translation actually agrees with modern translations here.
If your gripe with modern translations is only the textual basis, then KJV onlyists should team up together and make a minimal update to the KJV so that the archaic words and meanings are replaced with modern words.
Look at Acts 8:37, in The King James Bible.
Now:Look for that same Scripture in the New International Version...or, as I call it, The New International Perversion!
Guess what? Acts 8:37, in earlier printings of the NIV, COMPLETELY ELIMINATED IT!
Later printings later put it back in...but put it at the bottom of the page, stating that:"Most texts don't have this Verse of Scripture in it"!
That's only ONE reason, why I'll never use the NIV, or even allow one in my Apartment!!!!!
Have you ever researched to see why it isn’t there?
Acts 8.37 is not in the oldest Greek manuscripts from the 300s-400s AD, nor is it in the majority of Greek manuscripts. Its best support in Greek is Codex Laudianus from the 500s. If it is authentic, then it was scrubbed from most Greek copies and preserved mostly in Latin translations. More likely, it was an early tradition that serves to offer a response to the eunuch's (rhetorical?) question in verse 36.
I personally prefer versions that include all the passages but have footnotes explaining the situation...
I would love to find a side by side with one side having all the passages and the other side without... and footnotes with explanation at the bottom...
Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins. KJV Now NIV Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. Removing how we have redemption "through His blood" minimizes the importance of the cross.
I'm beginning to understand why your church moved on without you. The problem with people who have a little knowledge is that they seem to forget it's a little knowledge. Praying you'll get back to preaching the Word instead of sowing discord.
The old “bloodless Bible comment”. I love this comment. I will do a video on it. I look forward to teaching you the error of your statement. I pray you are willing to learn.
There was a time when I would have listened to you preach, but those days are over. I pray that somewhere down the line you find some humility. @@pastorburris
@@SammyMcNeill Mr. Burris is an angry and bitter fella isn’t he?
As a Pentecostal I enjoyed this video. Many of the older saints in our ranks hold KJV only. One thing I learned recently is NLT and NIV are dynamic translations. I'm personally NKJV and NLT.
Thank you for sharing Jonathan, just watched this video and have many more to go thank you again for the time you are taking to share. You packed a lot of information into this video but there was one thing you did not mention - Is the Word of God supernatural? We are told His Word is eternal, fixed in the heavens. Its author God. Which means plainly the responsibility to preserve and protect His Word belongs to the author. So I am asking you and every person on this board - Do you believe this to be true? The Word of God is either supernatural or it is not?
Let me end with a quote from Gleason Archer author of A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Revised and Expanded on page 25: "....IT WOULD TAKE NOTHING SHORT OF A MIRACLE TO INSURE THE INERRANCY OF A COPY OF AN ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT"
Do you believe?
2 Timothy 3:16 tells us that all scripture is breathed out by God. Therefore, it is not merely a product of man. However, 2 Peter 1:21 tells us He used human agency to deliver it to mankind. It is supernatural in that it is the word of God. It is not conceived in the minds of men.
So do you believe all 400 or so english translations are right?
This is the problem. You jumped to a horrible conclusion. I have dozens of videos on this subject. I teach people how to defend the Bible - including the KJV. You should do more research before making comments like this again.
The New World Translation, What a Real Corruption of the Bible Looks Like
ua-cam.com/video/FfyPbhqF0Xo/v-deo.html
It makes no difference whether a verse was in the original or added later. If you have the faith and believe it , it's the word of God. If you have the faith and don't believe it , it's not the word of God. And if you don't have the faith, it doesn't matter what you believe. Christians no longer have the faith. They don't hear the Spirit.
Excuse me? Do you realize what you just said? Once faith doesn’t make it true or false. By your standard, the Quran is the word of God because Muslim’s believe it to be so. Christians believe the Bible is the word of God, but that is not what makes it so. Your statement is illogical. If you were trying to make a point, you didn’t.
@@pastorburris Muslims are unbelievers, they can't have faith in God. They lie and pretend to believe, like most Christians. When you rely on your reasoning, you walk by sight not by faith. To walk by faith is to become a little child, depending only on the Father's guiding Holy Spirit. Wolves in sheep's clothing wrote the new translations, in the spirit of their father, and they all "smell" like snake excrement. Older translations which were done by men who had the Spirit, had not made any perfect translations, but translations that can be used by the Spirit. You sound like someone who used to have faith but had it destroyed through education. Knowledge puffs up, and God resists the proud. I pray that you find your way back.
@@pastorburris Faith is the evidence (Hebrews 11:1)
The evidence of what? That verse has nothing to do with a Bible translation.
@pastorburris Faith is the evidence of things not seen, which is pretty much everything because of how little we can humanly see. Our faith is the proof of our testimony. Our faith is the gift of the Holy Spirit, by which we are to test all things. The Spirit can not give you faith to believe a lie because God can't lie. God did not give you faith in the power of the Spirit to believe that NIV is also the word of God. You came to that opinion on your own.
Who wrote the Holy Writ? Answer: the Holy Spirit.
What if, someone with the Holy Spirit said that the NIV is written specifically by men without the Spirit, but rather by unregenerate men with familiar spirits of this world, and are written to keep those who love not the Truth in their strong Lover of Self, Self Determinist, first birth nature and delusions?
How do you judge this situation?
Matthew 18 and Luke 19 are parallel passages?
Excellent!
............
As I seem to recall, I think maybe some commentaries suggest such verses, or phrases, were directly added in by scribes, skipping the marginal note stage, to make them agree with other synoptic passages.
My observation is that often the additions are true. Though some, like Acts 16:31, do flat-out contradict other Scriptures! The question is, were they in the original manuscripts.
Also, a scholar has to assign weights to variant readings. But present this to other scholars.
............
BTW, KJV includes these verses:
[Jesus said ...] A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all [men] know that ye are my DISCIPLES, if ye have love one to another.
--John 13:34-35 (KJV)
[I used capitals for emphasis.]
These verses are also in ESV, RSV, ASV, NIV, NKJV, NAS, AMP, DARBY. YOUNG'S, NLT, and GNB. (Some based on TR, others based on other Greek editions.)
For those of us who write comments, this is Christ's own TEST of our credibility.
............
Kurios Iesous Xristos!
:--}>
Why are you so worried about defending new translations? Why do you always diminish the KJV? Are you born again?
Wow. You really question my salvation because over Bible translations?
How I Became a Christian
ua-cam.com/video/3gzLL2t1vuI/v-deo.html
SLAVE!!!! I LOVE YOUR SHIRT! I AM A SLAVE TO GOD!!!
There is only one Bible, One God and One church... Those who Truly follow Jesus know this...
Faithhope, very true! That’s how it’s going to end up in this end time (I Cor 1:10) KJV.
God Bless... @@Studio54MediaGroup
Older does not necessarily mean more accurate, satan was working to corrupt the scriptures even back then.
Please watch this video. I’m afraid you are parroting things you have been told, but not looked up for yourself.
Are Alexandrian Manuscripts Corrupt? Answering the Alexandrian vs Antioch Two Schools Argument
ua-cam.com/video/WYExFw2rTFM/v-deo.html
IF alexandrian text was the original word of God,why it did not came out during the 1600?and let us remember the first christians was the believers of antioch (the book of acts)not in alexandria.alexandria was even mention in the new testament...
Wow! You really need to see this video that comes out tomorrow.
Defining Textual Criticism Terms, Alexandrian vs Byzantine, Majority Text, TR, Critical Text
ua-cam.com/video/bUvdMyltki0/v-deo.html
If I may. An author suggested an understanding of these "missing verses". He mentioned how we don't live in the 300s or 400s. Buying a Bible wasn't about comparing version to version, leather cover and gold-edged pages vs a plainer, less expensive print. These texts were done by hand.
‣ Often Bible "sales" were, for the most part, the marketing of a single book such as Matthew or Mark. And the price was often quite high. The Suggestion involved a copyist adding a verse from Luke as "value-added".
‣ Now, from the copyist's point-of-view, it's all scripture! However, when Mark is "beefed up" with all kinds of verses from Matthew and Luke, the character of Mark's gospel changes. It's supposed to be the fastest paced Gospel. But adding a bonus verse HERE and another one THERE slows Mark's narrative, which was not his intention.
‣ But the Scribe never saw it as "adding to Scripture", because what was taken from another Gospel *_was_* Scripture.
With the lack of a printing press in those days no one walked into a Bible Society book store only to walk out fifteen minutes later with an entire box of give-away Bibles for street ministry. Copying a Bible was a long, slow and painstaking task.
‣ It has been said to me that purchasing a New Testament could cost the customer an entire year's salary. That may not be exactly correct, but it's not like an ESV New Testament for 3.99$.
And I did wish to add: the phrase "missing verse" is a line that grinds my gears. Reason simply being that it biases the listener/reader. If a recension has a verse in it that other copies do not, then it's not "missing" but rather "absent". Absent is a neutral term. "Missing" has a boat-load of implications. "Missing" due to neglect; missing due to sabotage; and so forth. I personally prefer reading the Septuagint's account of Esther. And gosh darn it if I don't come across countless commentators that must throw in the expression "Additions to Esther". Well, guess what? "Subtractions from Esther" when referring to the Hebrew text is *_just as valid._* The Greek text is "longer". The Hebrew is "shorter". Let's work our way past such expressions. 🙂
Did you watch the video? Are you aware of my position? I was using the language of the graphic being used in KJVO circles.
@@pastorburris Forgive me brother if it seemed like I was trying to correct you. That wasn't my intention.
Modern computer-assisted research on manuscripts along with ages of the fragments or pages has helped a great deal, such as you mentioned in the video. _Crossway's_ NT is the work of many, many hours of cross referencing texts. The research seems to conclude that indeed verses appeared in other Gospels from a certain key point in time. They're not there before, but they certainly do appear afterwards.
These additions are definitely there. No question, no contest. But the "Why" is what always bothered me. The standard explanation is that Scribes added verses into the text "from memory". This *_may_* be possible. But it suggests an incredible sloppiness on the part of the scribes. I never agreed with the reasoning.
When I came across a scholar's text that suggested something less accusational, I felt I could stand behind that new point-of-view. Scribes gave to people who were giving up a substantial sum of money for a pile of paper and ink a few "bonus" verses from elsewhere.
The notion that scribes "inserted from memory" is like the evolutionist's "billions of years". We hear it so often and tuck it into our hearts as genuine due to repetition. It's the view that stands out from the repetition that causes me to think and to consider any alternatives.
How that insertion was done was probably as a "note" in the side column, as how it appears. I'm merely suggesting that the theory of the scribe's *_intent_* or *_lack of integrity_* is open for debate.
... by defending Wescott/hort, you most likely supported the Catholic INQUISITION. Hort dabbled in the occult, doubted the infallible word of God, and was a supporter of darwinism. Oh, and they also created their own forged Greek text .I'll stick with the King James bible, not these modern-day versions that got to twist, add, and remove God's word. .... see youtube channel "Truth is Christ" proves God's Holy Word is the King James bible.
You really started the year out with the most nonsensical comment imaginable. This is called a slippery slope fallacy. You know absolutely nothing about what you are commenting on. I have several videos demonstrating Brandon at Truth is Christ’s use of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy and Confirmation Bias to fabricate his claims. And you are wrong about Westcott and Hort. This is what happens when you don’t check your sources.
Are KJVO Gail Riplinger and Jack Chick Right About Westcott’s Affinity for Ghosts and Spirits?
ua-cam.com/video/ZtgtiEEV36o/v-deo.html
In Revelation 22 v19, the word "book" is changed to the word "scroll".... WHY???..... A scroll is a letter written and rolled up .. A book is a book....
Walk with the KJV Authorized and you will not be lied to.
Let us ask the Lord Lord about the KJV AUTHORIZED .
I'm going to dance with the one who brung me.
Thank God for his servant William Tyndale.
Tyndale didn’t work on the KJV. 81% of it is his work. How much difference in translations will you allow and it still be the word of God?
Who hurt you?
No one. I am pursuing truth.
Compare KJV against other translation on Gal. 2:16, and see the difference
Here you go. Please point out the problem.
Galatians 2:16 (KJV 1900): 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Galatians 2:16 (LSB): 16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.
Galatians 2:16 (NASB 2020): 16 nevertheless, knowing that a person is not justified by works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the Law; since by works of the Law no flesh will be justified.
Galatians 2:16 (ESV): 16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
Galatians 2:16 (NKJV): 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
Galatians 2:16 (NIV): 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
@@pastorburris
KJV - we are justified (by the faith of Jesus Christ)
NASB & ESV - we are justified (through faith in Jesus Christ)
NKJ & NIV - we are justified (by faith in Jesus Christ).
There is a big difference in by the faith of Jesus Christ against through faith in Jesus Christ, and by faith in Jesus Christ.
For me, the KJV is correct, because Jesus' faith is greater than our faith. It was His faith that justifies us. Our faith wavers but not Christ's.
Please address the underlying Greek and show how the difference in translation is unfaithful to the text. Your interpretation is impacting your translation, not the other way around. What did Paul write? What prepositions are used? What is their case? Please defend your position.
@@pastorburris my bible used to be NKJ, and we have NIV and ESV too, and i made it a point to memorize verses in NKJ. But when i read the KJV that i saw the big difference. Sir, i am just sharing my experiences in reading the Bible. We are both believers in Christ and the Scripture.
One passage that really caught my attention was when i read Gal. 1;8,9, that in today's time period, we ought to preach the gospel that Paul preaches, because preaching another gospel not according to Paul's gospel will be accursed. This simply means there are several gospels. The Bible in the book of revelation even talks about the everlasting gospel.
I am not familiar with the Greek translation, as we Filipinos are used in using the English language. Although there are pastors here that study the Bible in Greek, specially those who have gone to Bible school.
I appreciate your experiences, but experiences are not facts. Please address the questions in my comments above. Your experiences should not be a basis for absolutes like King James Onlyism. People in India pray to a man who was killed on a motorcycle accident because their experience is that praying to him brings good luck. That’s a true story by the way. Just because you feel like it reads differently doesn’t mean it’s a wrong translation. The questions o asked above matter.
So you believe the earlier translations are better because the later translation amended text. Would you also believe the same is true with the original greek text manuscripts? Well no. Your argument would crumble.
No. That is not my position at all. Did you watch the entirety of this video?
Unfortunately all Bibles have deleted scripture like the book of Enoch. You really have to dive into things to find the truth.
Trying to defend leaving parts out are ya ?
Nope. Trying to demonstrate that others should not have added to scripture 😉
The bible should keep being updated until all the utter immorality is taken out. Might interest younger people then, sadly.
Kathryn kick uses the NIV bible. I saw the Wisconsin parade driver who ran over a bunch of people using the NIV bible during his trial.
And Jeffrey Dahmer preferred the KJV. True story. Look it up. What does either of those things say about the versions themselves? Absolutely nothing.
@@pastorburris yeah actually my point is no sound doctrine church building who teaches salvation by grace through faith and baptism by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ will use the NIV.
Except that many do.
@@pastorburris do you have the names of them? I’d like to check them out
Doctrinally sound churches that use the NIV? What if their “sound doctrine” doesn’t line up with yours? I know of solid conservative Baptist churches that use it for a portion of not all of their services. They also allow it in their hymn books. If you are IFB, then the KJV is a fundamental so anything contrary would not be “sound doctrine” to you. I don’t want to waste my time if I don’t know where the endzone is.
Your deceived
That is not a refutation. Please show me in my video where I am wrong. I will wait.
Interesting. It might be an original to modern language translational thing.