You probably understand this verse to mean that a believer in Jesus is grafted into Israel so that regardless of race or ethnicity, he or she is an heir to the promises made to and about the literal descendants of Jacob Israel. What if it means that belonging to Christ is confirmation you are actually an Israelite? Jesus said his flock knew him. His flock was true Israel. Not Jews.
@ “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Romans 1:16 LSB) “…For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s seed, but: ‘through Isaac your seed will be named.’ That is, the children of the flesh are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are considered as seed. For this is the word of promise: ‘At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son.’ And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that the purpose of God according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, ‘The older shall serve the younger.’ Just as it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’ What shall we say then? Is there any unrighteousness with God? May it never be! For He says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’” (Romans 9:6b-15 LSB)
Which is more difficult... 1) Understanding the King James, or 2) Learning New Testament Greek ? If learning Greek is harder, why do we make it out like understanding the KJV is impossible? And when we matter-of-factly parrot claims like "the KJV is 'unreadable' (for certain people)", aren't we basically making the admission that they are not smart enough to even learn Greek?
While it in indeed the "soft bigotry of low expectations", you really can't tell a newly baptized individual to get to know God by reading the KJV. In order to get the ball rolling, you need the training wheels of the modern versions. After your curiosity grows and you want to get deeper into it, the KJV is a better translation. It uses the plural forms of the word "you", where "thee" and "thou" are singular and "you" and "yours" is plural. This is actually helpful when parsing the commandments of Christ. The Greek and old English make this distinction but modern English does not.
@@GizmoFromPizmoMy ESV pew Bible (minimal notes) will generally list plural vs singular "you" in footnotes where there is otherwise ambiguity, so even in modern translations that distinction need not be lost.
Sorry to burst your bubble however the ESV OT is far superior than the KJV OT, the ESV OT is the only literal translation that incorporates the latest research of the Dead Sea scrolls which are very important. In the NT I prefer the NKJV over all the other translations since it’s based on the TR and the language is updated.
@@GizmoFromPizmo I started by reading KJV and did not have much of an idea what I read or at least what it was saying to me, but as I began using word study dictionary and reading on a regular basis, I was able to understand it better than other translations. I have read that KJV is as easy to read, but a little more difficult to understand some of the word structuring, it is just what many are not willing to take the time to study, I have come to love the KJV 1611 but can't read Greek and have no desire too. I do use the Strongs Concordance and Blue bible parallel for help, now other translations seem a little watered down to me, but that could be because I have read the KJV for so long.
I have been following you for the last three years, and I often find your videos interesting. I have been blessed to see how your viewership has grown over the last few years. This video, however, is not as good as it seems. First of all, the title is very bashing. "These Bible translations are worse than you realize." You don't qualify what you mean by "worse" and pretend your viewers realize how bad are "these" translations, but you don't qualify either which are "these" translations, and for all and all, you use one bible verse to justify what you say (see, Gal 3.29, descendants, offspring, and so on). Yes, these translations do not render completely what the original SEED renders, but as you said it correctly, even the word SEED in our language would not render a good translation either. Also, it is clear that the whole idea of bashing respectful (by saying that they are worse that we realise) Bible translations is to advertise your new course (a three-week course) in Greek. Now, you know as well as I do that little knowledge of Greek IS WORSE than no knowledge of Greek... However good you are, and you are good, and I always enjoy your expertise, you know as well as I that it takes years (I have been on it for more than 40 years now) and studying Greek to be able to understand its nuances, and especially to be able to compete with highly qualified scholars who have translated the New Testament from Greek, and especially the newest UBS/N&A versions. To me, it would have been more intellectually honest to make a nice ad on your course and say that it will help you a little bit in understanding the literature, like commentaries, and so on... But the way it is presented insinuates that after following your 3-week course, your students would become experts in recognizing "how WORSE than you realize" these bible translations are. To me, it is also diminishing the hard work of Bible translators, and more, it discredits the Bibles we have, insinuating that they are all bad. No, when people don't know Greek, and even when they do know Greek, the best is to always consult many bible translations. To let people believe that following a three-week course would fix the problem is bad advice, advertisement, and intellectual dishonesty. Please don't take it bad... I think that following your course will be excellent for many people, but the way you advertise it does not seem good to me. Don
Good response! Think about those Christians who barely open their Bible. After watching this video, will they still believe the authority of the Bible? I also recommend all the Christians who know biblical languages to read the book of Exegetical Fallacies by Carson.
Well said. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It certainly isn't going to give you the tools to start critiquing the many fine (not worse) translations out there.
Thanks for your comments. I normally take the line that we have good translations, and I believe this is true - which is why I say it. However, too many still get stuck in "translation wars" and miss the point that this video tries to make. The point here is that regardless of how "accurate" your translation is, its not as good as you think it is because you simply can't do justice to the original language in translation.
Understanding the text is not understanding every jot, tittle, verb or sentence. It’s about allowing the Holy Spirit to illuminate the word of God in your heart , understanding the word is not the same as believing the word. As long as your endeavour brings you to the foot of the cross and the gospel becomes your way of life the rest is just a beautiful read!
Hahaha nice. Yea im just gonna go down to my local bible dealer where they sell all those “original” bibles and ill use this here discount from the daily penny saver adds. Lol
@@4StonesHandcraft My wife once worked at a Christian bookstore and people would come in to buy a Holy Bible. They weren’t looking for a specific version; They only wanted a Holy Bible.
To call criticism of a text the equivalent to hating it is a gross oversimplification. It may be that KJVO's can't understand how one can criticize anything without hating it since they have so much hate towards the other versions.
@@bobbyadkins6983on this video very few, of course there are only 27 comments on this video. My comment was in response to your comment being an oversimplification of any criticism of the KJV and the general hate that KJVO's express towards any other version. This is clear from their use of the term "perversions".
The truth of the Gospel cuts through. Studying original languages is a wonderful thing, but people are saved regardless, and the omnipotent hand of God will not lose any. Do the righteous work for His sake, but remember your work cannot save, only Christ’s work can.
There's never going to be a perfect translation, in your mind. But God isn't stuck in the greek and Hebrew Bible. He gets His Perfect Word out to the whole world. God is not limited
NKJV is a little too hard to read for the average person? I don't think the problem is the translation then. The KJV is actual not "hard" to read either, if you actually read it daily for a couple of weeks.
@davidjanbaz7728 What I mean is: Human language has sufficient capacity to contain what God wanted to communicate, but -to your point- not exhaustive enough capacity to contain all his thoughts
I have Jerome's 405AD Latin translation of the NT that shows both the Latin text and the English. A very interesting volume. And Jerome had 300sAD Greek texts.
So everyone should learn Greek and Hebrew to understand what God's said? That still doesn't solve the problems because we will still argue about manuscripts.
To understand Bible. 1 learn greek 2 learn ancien greek 3 find original Bible 4 translated to your language All transactions were made to benefit specific religion
This is the elephant in the room: thank you for bringing this up. The Received Text of the NT as used in the KJV tradition is valued by some, but not by all: the special verses and words it retains strengthen the identity and power of God in Christ, so I would say it's worth insisting on including it, but comparing translations for English variations and quality of translation is always needed. Besides 1 Tim 3:16 (see below) there are gospel statements which matter too. This teaching in Mk 2 isn't matched in the NIV, ESV or NASB, while they do manage to in Lk 5:32; for, in Mk 2 the modern translations doesn't have "...to repentance". "Without question, great is the mystery of godliness: "God was revealed in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached to the Gentiles, believed on in the world, taken up into glory." (1 Tim 3:16) "When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” (Mk 2:17) The NKJV has been 'replaced' by the Modern English Version in 2014, which modernises the KJV directly, using "formal equivalence": and oh so sweetly, for it sounds and feels like the KJV still (that's the MEV I copied from biblegateway.com above), and clarifies meanings by changing or adding a word here and there. Spot the extra word here! "For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe." (1 Cor 1:21 MEV) God bless your own studies going forward, too.
The KJV is still the most read English bible in the world. Saying that we do not use those words anymore is therefore patently false since millions of people use them when they read and quote the KJV. Its language is still in daily active use. The language of the KJV is direct and clear. Children read it and understand it. People from other languages (like myself) read it and understand it. Reading it improves your overall English comprehension. I cannot fathom where people, whose primary language is English, come from when they say it is difficult to understand. It is like there is some sort of cult of the incompetent that requires that a lack of learning be so highly regarded that the Bible must be dumbed down to placate them. Have the humility to learn.
"The KJV is still the most read English bible in the world." That's incorrect actually. It's probably the most read english bible of *all time* but in modern times the NIV is read more. "Saying that we do not use those words anymore is therefore patently false since millions of people use them when they read and quote the KJV. Its language is still in daily active use." No... That's not how language works... There are many archaic words in the KJV that are just not used anymore. The KJV was written in 1611, words have changed. It doesn't matter if people read the KJV from time to time, the words don't suddenly stop being archaic. Outside of the KJV they're not used. It's like saying shakespearean english isn't archaic because people still read shakespeare. "The language of the KJV is direct and clear" What? Who decided that? There are literally hundreds of verses in the KJV that are anything but clear. "Children read it and understand it." What?? No?! If you cherrypick a sentence and let them sit on it for a minute, yes, but it's not like an 8 year old is going to be reading the KJV and actually undestanding it... "People from other languages (like myself) read it and understand it. " And??? The language is still unnecessarily hard. Words have also changed meaning. You *think* that you understand, but in reality you're not understanding at all, because the words have changed over time... How hard is it for you KJV onlyists to learn basicle principles of language?? English hasn't stood still for the last 400 years... "Reading it improves your overall English comprehension." YES, 17th century english, not modern english... "I cannot fathom where people, whose primary language is English, come from when they say it is difficult to understand." Maybe because it is difficult to understand? "It is like there is some sort of cult of the incompetent that requires that a lack of learning be so highly regarded that the Bible must be dumbed down to placate them." My god calm down you fool. Aren't you in the incompetent KJV-only cult that needs some 17th century king dumb down and translate the bible for you because you're too stupid to learn the biblical languages? "Have the humility to learn." Then go and learn hebrew & koine greek. From what I've read in your comment, you have anything but humility. You bathe in pride and arrogance.
I wouldn't go that far, brother. A lot of people struggle with it due to the archaic words, syntax and grammatical forms. I believe a new translation will be helpful - so I've begun such a project: a new translation, based on the KJV. No dumbing down, no simplification; just good English, but with the intent to use a literary style without confusing a literate American who doesn't haven't specialized education. What do you think?
If you want a more ‘accurate’ reading to compare your favorite version then you must go back to the original Greek and Hebrew writings. That’s what many (or at least my) seminaries do.
The elephant in the room that you are not speaking about is the source text the translators translate from. Sinaiticus was largely used to change modern Bibles. It is not 4th century as they claim. It is 1800’s. Vaticanus, was also used to change source text. Likely from the 1400’s and Erasmus said to not pay attention to it. Finally, codex Alexandrinus was used to change parts of Revelation. Scribal errors have been covered by various people such as. “14 - 2006 CTS - John Niemela - 24 Elders and The Rapture: Revelation 5”
This is an excellent video. It sounds a lot like a pretty standard talk I give in my introductory Scripture classes in the core. I'm not expecting very many of my students to go on to be Scripture scholars, but to be educated, you just need to know something about the limitations inherent in translations of any kind. Students can be brought to a MUCH deeper appreciation of the Bible than they had ever imagined possible, just by looking more closely at the original languages, even without really understanding those languages independently.
I'd like to know some pros and cons of certain translations including the NET Full Notes, NLT, TPT, and the AMPC. Additionally, if you have time, I'd like to know what are your thoughts on the Wuest and Vincent Word Studies. What do you think of the AMG the complete word study series, the Tehillim, and Rick Renner's Sparkling Gems from the Greek. Blessings to you!
All I got from what you said, is that one cannot translate perfectly from one language to another. I didn't hear you say that one translation is a bad translation.
The best Protestant translation is the KJV, period. The best Catholic translation is the Douay Rhiems, which is older than the KJV. In my opinion, the Douay Rhiems is the most accurate translation because it's a straight translation from the Latin Vulgate, which St Jerome translated from the Greek and Hebrew documents. The Latin Vulgate was the Holy Bible from the St. Jerome to the church fathers. This was the only Bible for centuries. There are some good modern translations like NKJV and Revised Standand.
When will we get a full Bible, Old and New Testament Scriptures, based on the Greek Septuagint and the the NT Critical text ? I have the Orthodox Study Bible which I carry to church and Bible study, but I would love to have a Bible that I can carry which has the, lets say, the Lexham Septuagint and the RSV of ESV NT ?
@ which period of time? Which versions of masoretic and LXX? Which versions of the Latin Vulgate? Which mss’s in the Eastern Orthodoxy? Does the Samaritan Pentateuch count? Which Mss? It has been shown Jesus didn’t have a problem quoting the LXX or “Masoretic”. Jesus would read from and expound on any mss of the writings He came across. If anything, we know none of them would be an exact match. So, if it didn’t bother God…why should it bother you? Why not do what Origen did-the Hexapla? You proclaim, the “masoretic” text is superior, but it was mainly hidden from and/or not really used by Christianity for centuries. God hid the text of His Message from His faithful?
The course sounds very good and useful. I agree that the tools are extremely useful but one must first learn how to use them well and carefully, and I am very glad to see you are offering to train many in that skill. I have chosen to prioritize learning meanings over memorizing words, and so I have learned the Greek New Testament far faster and better by using the tools than what I would have by devoting myself to memorizing all the word forms, and I am becoming so familiar with the Greek that soon I will easily be able to learn the word forms, so when I do I will be doing so with great efficiency. Having benefitted in that way, I have desired that others be able to learn that same skill and enjoy that same benefit. People who went to seminary and memorized alot of word forms, but know almost nothing of the nuances of the semantics and applied parlance, will often say that the tools are merely a liability and that you either must learn Greek or else just trust those who memorized a bunch of words but know almost nothing of the nuances of the semantics and applied parlance. In reality, it is very feasible to learn proper use of the tools and to apply that to very great benefit. I am glad you are offering the public access to that benefit.
If you are really dipping your toes into the scripture for the first time my humble advise would be any Thought-for-Thought translation like the NLT (New Living Translation) It reads like a modern day book, easy to understand and the Gospel is very clear. once you have tasted and found it good move onto a Word-for-Word translation like ESV, NASB, translation you can really deep dive into. Every blessing in your quest.
@@OneTeenDiscipleship Indeed. Logos Bible Software is excellent and worth looking into (even their videos on UA-cam to start with) if you’re planning on studying and using Greek in your life and ministry. I think you can download the program for free, but the products and packages get expensive. It’s worth getting a good English translation there (ESV, etc.), a good Greek New Testament (NA28, Tyndale House GNT), the best Greek-English lexicon (abbreviated BDAG for short), the most used Hebrew OT (Biblia Hebraic Stuttgartensia), and a great Hebrew-English lexicon (like The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament or HALOT for short). Those four resources on Logos are invaluable if you can also take at least a year of Greek and Hebrew either at a college, seminary, or on something like Biblical Mastery Academy here. The Greek language is beautiful. What a blessing that God spoke to us in human languages like Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. And it is cool that they decided to name their company and program after that glorious title of Christ in John 1.
@@OneTeenDiscipleship Indeed. The name of the company is Logos Bible Software. Excellent, excellent company and product. It’s worth looking into even on their UA-cam page. If you study Greek or Hebrew or are planning to do so for at least a year at the college/seminary level or its equivalent through something like Biblical Mastery Academy here, Logos will be of great benefit to you. Their products can get pricey for sure, but if you do some study in the biblical languages, it is for sure worth getting these resources to have within Logos: 1) a good English Bible (ESV, etc.), 2) a good Greek New Testament (GNT for short; something like the NA28 or Tyndale House GNT), 3) the best Greek-English dictionary (lexicon technically; best one is abbreviated BDAG), 4) the standard Hebrew Old Testament (called BHS for short, or Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia spelled out), and 5) the best Hebrew Aramaic lexicon called The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament or HALOT for short. It is great that they named their company after that glorious title of Christ in John 1. What an unfathomable gift that God spoke to us in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek! God bless.
Indeed. The name of the company is Logos Bible Software. Excellent, excellent company and product. It’s worth looking into even on their UA-cam page. If you study Greek or Hebrew or are planning to do so for at least a year at the college/seminary level or its equivalent through something like Biblical Mastery Academy here, Logos will be of great benefit to you. Their products can get pricey for sure, but if you do some study in the biblical languages, it is for sure worth getting these resources to have within Logos: 1) a good English Bible (ESV, etc.), 2) a good Greek New Testament (GNT for short; something like the NA28 or Tyndale House GNT), 3) the best Greek-English dictionary (lexicon technically; best one is abbreviated BDAG), 4) the standard Hebrew Old Testament (called BHS for short, or Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia spelled out), and 5) the best Hebrew Aramaic lexicon called The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament or HALOT for short. It is great that they named their company after that glorious title of Christ in John 1. What an unfathomable gift that God spoke to us in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek! God bless.
How did the hebrews wrote the old testament in their hebrew bible? Why do hebrew God/Christian God is called "Yahweh" the same name of the God of babylonia religion? Did the hebrews just invented the bible?
Why would we fudge idioms? People just need to learn the Bible's idioms. Why would we fudge them? Teachers need to just teach better; it's not that hard. It becomes hard, when we hide all the original word choices behind rewordings (which are not translations, because they fail to translate what was written), but if the idioms are on the page, then they can be easily learned. We are in the Information Age now, this stuff has become exceedingly easy now, and it's well past time we start shifting our paradigms to take advantage of that ease.
Good video, thank you. Wow. When God saved me I started reading the bible and it made perfect sense to me, and I have an excellent handle on all the major bible fundamentals. I did not use a bible dictionary, concordance, original greek nor hebrew. Are these tools usefull? Of course they are. But not at the cost of making reading the bible a hinderance, which is what so many bible "thinkers" are doing. I truly believe that for someone that God saves and has a bible and do not have all these "resources" they will still grow to be a strong Christian through the plain reading of the scriptures as the Holy Spirit gives revelation. If they are able to glean from study materials all the better, yet I still do so very cautiously because of all of the errors in these theological texts. Blessings!!!
Reading the bible is one thing. Studying the bible is quite another. Theology requires time and effort. Hermeneutics is the SCIENCE of Contract Interpretation. Most people are "reading the bible", while scholarly theology requires that you understand the language of the document. If you're just getting started then any old bible will do (in general). But if you're pursuing God then you have to get serious.
It's not that difficult with a good sense for grammatical functions you can just read the Greek with meaning and grammar next to it and you will understand most of it. Languages in principle are always the same.
Question. Galatians 1:16 is translated in the ESV and some other translations, to reveal His Son "to" me. The NASB and some translations say, to reveal His Son "in" me. In my understanding of salvation (in a non-scholarly way) it should be "in" me. You are much more knowledgeable, so could you explain that? Thank you
Hi Darrel, I’m brand new to Greek and wanting to surround myself with others who know it well. Just wondering if there’s a Discord server out there that you’re aware of that I can join? If not, may I suggest that we could make one (I know how to if needed) and have the link posted in a future video so we can all come together and help each other out in voice calls and text channels etc? Thank you heaps for considering and God bless.:)
No, sorry. However, we do have a community in our Greek Mastery Membership. You will find some free communities on Facebook if you hunt around. Nerdy Language Majors is good, though often a bit technical for complete newbies.
@@bma Ahh okay, thanks for sharing, I'll look into those on facebook! If I may ask though, just wondering why theres no discord? Wether yours or anyone else who hasnt made one. Thank you again!
Excuse me, but of course the 1611 was hard to read that's why over time the English language became standardized and the editions of the KJV were finished by 1769. That is what we are reading today. I know young children who read the KJV without difficulties.
Yes. Sperma is Seed; Mono Genés is Only Begotten; Iesous Christos Who is Jesus Christ (Messiah - Messias).. Who is Yeshua ha Mashiach (it is the translations of the same Name which is above all names). Also, Charagma is Mark; Eikon is Image; Memra (Heb) & Logos (Grk) is Voice Word & Expression; and Theotēs is Divine GodHead. Yes the Greek speaks true, so do our English and other language Bible versions and translations. The only things is the variants which effect no theology at all! 40 writers, God inspired, inerrant, and unchanging, with 66 books. From 1250 BC starting with Moses, and ending with John in 95 AD! Gods Word, the Sacred Scriptures, the Holy Bible! It is Truth and our Only & Final Authority in all things life and faith and et cetera! I was kjv only to I learned about the Bible and its translations copies and versions.. textual criticism, then i repented of that nutty cult. Most are sincere, but wrong. Some are dividers and not Christian like Riplinger etc. Lol
"Seed" is better so we can connect in our mind the play on words our Lord used in many of His parables (for example, the Enemy sowing tares in the good "wheat" (which, of course, began as "seed"), and also the idea of "dispersing the Seed (be it people or True words). Another problem is when they translate "rhema: spoken word" as "thing, matter, etc." In Luke 1:37, rhema (spoken word) is "thing" and in the following verse 38, it is "word" and referring to the same topic. "No rhema-word is impossible with God" And Miriam / Mary says: "Let it be to me according to your rhema-word." Why did they do that?! A necessarily misunderstood Scripture so often quoted and "believed for".
All those other translations but KJV are from the Alexandrian texts , they were an agnostic cult , do you think Gods word came from a cult ? KJV is from passed down texts the received texts handed down since the church started in Antioch.
I catch the gist of what he is saying, and it is good advertisement for his product. However, others have made the argument that being merely able to read Greek is just as dangerous as using tools (lexicons, concordances, dictionaries, etc) if you are unable to speak the language. How so? One can pick up nuances in a language if they can speak it (voice fluctuations, tone, sarcasm) that may not be the case if one can only read it. As one who cannot read Greek without relying on modern tools, I can somewhat identify with those who make that argument. In fact, you could even go a step further and say that understanding the customs, courtesies, and culture of biblical times is even more important than being able to read the original languages for English speakers because of the sheer number variations of English translations.
Funny how we think that the Word of God is ink and parchment. I promise you that it is not. If you speak English, the KJV is a good standard. Research the translations that take away and add, to IT. Make that short list of the translations that deviate the least, use those. God's Word is preserved unto those that seek Him with a supple heart.
Logos is equivalent to Dabar in the Old Testament. It’s not the logos ideology of Plato, we have to assume like the Apostles that their standard for all definitions would be from the Old Testament scriptures, not from some philosopher who used logos in a way that the old testament ever uses it. That’s making Philo more important to John than the Old Testament.
KJV has a lot of translations that it gets wrong, because it used newer manuscripts. For one, the KJV's Lord's Prayer says "deliver us from evil," whereas others say "deliver us from the evil one." It is a simple case ending that the KJV misinterpreted. Another thing, Luke 2:14 KJV says "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men," but NASB says “Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among people with whom He is pleased.” The reason they translated so differently is because the manuscripts the KJV used had a ς at the end of the word, whereas the older manuscripts did not have that letter. Hope this helps! Also don't think I'm just hating on the KJV, cause the study bible that I use is a KJV.
Keep trying. Pray for wisdom. Most of the newer versions are translated from the corrupted manuscripts of Westcott and Hort. They are not the oldest manuscripts.
My NKJV and NASB@77 both make footnotes. What these footnotes say is that “good will toward men” is a legitimate translation as are the others used. If you are of the Majority Text hypothesis/theory then it’s “good will toward men”. So which or both? If the passage is “with whom He is pleased” as in only His chosen people or just those who “believe”, then Jesus is not for all people…which is why He clearly came-for everyone. If it’s “good will towards men” as if it’s His “good and pleasure”, then then His purposeful Good News is clearly proclaimed to all-which includes the announcement to His Chosen. Personally, taking the totality of the meaning of the passage and bibliology as a whole context, it would be best expressed as “good will to all mankind”. “For God so loved the WORLD…” JN 3:16…
@@richiejourney1840 First off, I did get one thing wrong. The manuscripts the KJV used DROPPED OUT the ς, not added it. The word was eudokias (translated as: of good will, characterized by good pleasure), and the older manuscripts say eudokia(subjective of good will). This is what changes the entire meaning. In other words, the peace that the angels sang that belonged to the earth as a result of Christ is not a generic, worldwide peace for all humankind, but a peace limited to those who obtain favor with God by believing in his Son Jesus (taking into account context). God's love is for all, but his peace is only for those who he favors (the ones in Christ). God bless!!!!
@ I don’t doubt that brother! But I do not strictly adhere to the TC that older is correct. Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. Peace to you brother! Enjoy Thanksgiving!
It is a mistake to think that the KJV was ever a good translation OR that it used current English as it was in 1611. They deliberately used much language borrowed straight out of the Latin and/or used a word because it “sounded good” in an almost completely oral/aural culture. Faith is a “substance” is a classic example. The word substance had already changed in meaning ~250yrs before 1611
Dude KJV is not that difficult. As someone who hated reading and was a stoner I learned by reading KJV and when people like this guys starts off the way he did then he loses credibility
Yet there must be a reason that "seed" is used so often in OT - especially in the Books of Moses...? It's quite descriptive - we are literally from the seed of our fathers. In fact, there are instances where "seed" is used from a woman. In addition - the Hebrew word often translated "descendants" is "dorot," as opposed to "zerah" for seed. Another term used is "toldot," meaning legacies... so one can't just choose to replace 'seed' with another word for our own satisfaction unless the author writes it. Even if the Hebrew writer of a NT book is writing in Greek, no doubt his original thinking is in Hebrew.
Many of my friends and family use different english versions and many of those same people have good christian testimonies, so I try not to be critical; however, many versions read different or leave out portions of scripture completely; some worse than others. It seemed to start just before my teenage days and when I was young, our Sunday School Teacher, at the Southern Baptist Church I attended, gave us the Good News for Modern Man; I started using the Living Bible when I was about 15 and thought it was cool. There are now many different versions and I feel it has become a confusion to Believers; Something God is not the author of. The King James Version is simply written for those who have been taught English and that is why so many struggle these days and are so easily deceived; our educational system has become lax on the basics in their instruction and our youth are graduating with poor reading skills. At one time, in our Nation, if one quoted a verse of the Bible, it didn't matter what denomination they were from, everyone quoted the same verse the same way and while culture, tradition and ceremony might be different, the basics of doctrine were similar. One may have some difficulty, at first, with reading the King James Bible, but I truly believe that it not only contains God's Word, it is God's Word and one will never truly understand God's way without its teaching; My faith would be much weakend if I thought I had a book with error. I have great confidence when I read and share the Word of God from the King James Bible. Yes, I am KJV only and the Church I attend is a KJV only, but as I said in the beginning, I don't want to be critical, just firm in my faith. I do hope that at least the Gospel is clear in all these other versions, but believe that history and doctrine could be dim. Sincerely, a child of the King
I studied in Seminary and had to take three Greek courses as well as a few Hebrew courses. It was hard to learn 🤦♂️, unfortunately it takes much time and years to be competent. I would be interested in your study since I studied a few decades ago.
This is so true. Like the fact Grsek has past tenses but different times (snapsnot tense, video tense, etc.). I think its possible but then it wouldnt be a word or word "literal" translation, it would be explaining half the time what certain words mean like "heard" or "said". Honestly, i thought this video would be something like rightly bashing the Passion Translation. But this is a great video nonetheless. Continucing my greek jounrey! God be with you, brothe.
Man. So full of themselves believing they can make God’s Word better, never believing what God said about preserving His Word in His Word. Does Jesus Christ have errors in His being? If anyone believes God hasn't given the world a pure and true Bible, then Jesus can't be the Christ because John 14:1 says "the Word was made flesh", and Revelation 19:13 says "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God." Either you believe and trust in the LORD, or you reject His Word and deny Him.
Raised with & Memorized out of KJV. Almost anything else when read sounds foreign to me. The other/newer translations for new and young believers for explaining or helping them understand better. But I prefer good old fashioned KJV personally.
It's not that complicated. The Holy Spirit will direct the surrendered truth seeking soul in Christ. That being said, a careful investigation into the history of the Bible translations will expose all the corrupted versions out there. Most will not seek the Lord with all their heart, even though they think or say they do. Don't take any man's word for it. Let the Spirit of God teach you the way, the truth, and the life. Then you can begin to judge what people are saying about the Bible and its translations.
kjv has an advantage over any other translations for its words can be found out through strongs, jay greens and many apps including tecarta life bible (Tecarta support is lot better than e-sword). as far as greek and hebrew goes, it's not the same language that's been used today. so using strongs while reading the bible, definitely helps to discover a lot about the bible, and all the archaic words can either be found out with KJV definitions booklets or a dictionary. there's no point of trying to figure out an accurate translation, because that's not what is Bible all about. As for me, it is the food for my spirit, and without it my spirit will wane away, and i'll be living myself in dark.
Nowhere do I read in any English translation that I need to study Greek to in order to study God's Word. If Gid wanted us study Greek, He would've kept Greek as the only translation to force us to study Greek. Nice try, Totally Depraved Calvinist!
To really understand the bible you need to have a basic understanding of biblical hermeneutics and a basic understanding of greek and hebrew syntax. Verb tense mood and voice are very specific this is the reason they bible was written in these languages. Most Christians are too lazy to really study the bibleeven though the Word of God commands Christians to. 2 Timothy 2:15 King James Version 15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
I’m not committed to (or against) any translation, but I wonder why people are so insistent on the KJV when it uses the Masoretic text, which was not used by the New Testament writers
@ Most modern translations do use the MT as a base, and then make adjustments to it from the LXX and maybe the Qumran scrolls. There are two modern LXX translations (Lexham English Septuagint and NETS Bible), but these are really only used by people who want to seriously study the Bible, not by the average Bible reader. I don’t think the MT is bad (my main Bible is the ESV), but if you want to get into the nitty gritty of Bible scholarship you need to compliment that with some LXX or at least an interlinear
Why do we want lay person to understand all of these naunces. The English translations (I read English and Arabic) to understand and study the bible. Is it perfect, by no means. But looking at all those Hebrew/Greek scholars (i follow a lot of them, including you), I still find disagreements. I'm not against learning Hebrew/Greek, but I don't believe that God expects everyone to learn to read, study, understand, and live the Bible. When in doubt, I check multiple translations, check experts like you for a better understanding, consult robust bible studies...etc. But the idea that every Christian needs to understand and read Hebrew/Greek doesn't hold well. The purpose is to read and understand the Bible for my day to day life, not to win a debate, and trust me that I have been a Christian since 1989, and it's enough. I read a lot and follow loads of people, so I'm not saying this lightly. We are doing like Muslims. They say if you want to understand the quran, you must read Arabic. It's not the case with the Bible. The purpose is to read, understand, and apply. With translations like NKJV, NASB, LSB, and ESV, you can surely achieve this. By the way, English is not my first language, and I don't find the NKJV hard to read.
"but if *ye* [are] of Christ, then ye are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise." (Gal 3:29 JND) A scholar's version from the 1880s. I have used it from my youth.
I'm not going to say that there's no value in studying the original languages, but is it really the responsibility of the average lay Christian to do so? Also, don't the translators of these versions already address some of these concerns in their standard marginal notes, let alone in dedicated study Bibles? If you were specifically addressing pastors--or even Sunday School teachers--I could see your point, but you're really selling short the adequacy of our major translations.
Bill Mounce addresses that with this analogy: One day you decide to upgrade one of the parts in your car. You grab a crowbar and the new part, and get to work. You get it done just fine, but a couple of the parts were damaged because you didn't use proper tools, like a socket wrench, a hammer, a drill, etc. Without the Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic, you can teach people and yourself just fine, but it will never compare to the job done with the correct "tools."
The question is not one of responsibility - certainly I would agree that those who teach have a responsibility to know the original languages. However, there is no reason why the lay person can't better understand the scriptures for themselves. Those who desire can and should learn to read the original languages. This video is directed to those who care about precision regardless of their role in the church - precision does not come through translations.
@@bma The average layperson's need for precision isn't comparable to that of a person in a teaching role. Orthopraxy will not be seriously affected by minute details such as Paul's use of σπέρμα in Galatians 3.29. And while I wouldn't discourage someone from pursuing this skill if they are moved to do so, I would take care not to pressure anyone into feeling that it's required as a part of the Christian life. As Paul himself said, Ὑμεῖς δέ ἐστε σῶμα Χριστοῦ καὶ μέλη ἐκ μέρους. Καὶ οὓς μὲν ἔθετο ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρῶτον ἀποστόλους, δεύτερον προφήτας, τρίτον διδασκάλους, ἔπειτα δυνάμεις, ἔπειτα χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων, ἀντιλήμψεις, κυβερνήσεις, γένη γλωσσῶν. μὴ πάντες ἀπόστολοι; μὴ πάντες προφῆται; μὴ πάντες διδάσκαλοι; μὴ πάντες δυνάμεις; μὴ πάντες χαρίσματα ἔχουσιν ἰαμάτων; μὴ πάντες γλώσσαις λαλοῦσιν; μὴ πάντες διερμηνεύουσιν.
@@MAMorenoI wouldn’t even go so far as to say “those who teach have a responsibility to know” a foreign language at all. It is not necessary among all teachers. Who are those who “teach”? Everyone is a “teacher”. But I would definitely encourage learning the biblical languages if you can or mostly if the Spirit so moves you. Very beneficial and does help in discerning the truth of what many say.
yes, i definitely have been disappointed by the NASB so many times, which is said to be a so-called "literal" translation, it is neither "literal" nor concordant in so many places (its footnotes in the NT give a more "literal" and concordant rendering)... it is so overrated, unfortunately.... i find the KJV and NKJV far better renderings of the Greek in the NT.... nice videos as always... 👍
The NASB77 is my primary translation of choice. My critique of it is that the literal renderings r in the center-colum cross reference, and the alternate renderings r in the text. It should be the other way around.
@@soundlycreative I agree, but the alternate words should be in the cross reference whereas the literal words should be in actual verses of scripture. That is probably the only issue that I have with the NASB77.
@@kiimbel1877 oh! So your saying the NASB translators may have not put the literal word in but listed it as an optional translation? I didn’t know this.
imo it's like ok you have the greek hellenistic world and jewish law that the original christians lived in, with their septuigints and NTs that all of the translations and traditions are rooted in. and then you have the "western tradition" which is talking about the exact same stuff, but through an historical lens that corresponds to certain cultures. The KJV is their holy text because it is the bible through their protestant tradition and their national heritage. You even have the Catholic tradition with their Vulgate Latin biblesand different traditions derived from church tradition. Yet they're looking at the exact same ancient history. and so on and so on. KJV has a different character when you put the book of mormon on too, making it yet another even though it's literally the same text, not even in translation. so it's like, when a tradition uses KJV, it's relevant despite the differences, because that's part of the English tradition. Theology written using it are part of out canon, and thats why it's important to know about, unicorns and all. What needs to happen is for peoplemto be less like "this text is the one true text" and more like "this text is the truth of our English protestant tradition (or etc.)" then its not a matter of "well actually its actually forged and a bad translation" and more "oh ok so your people do xyz unlike these other people because your biboe says to and theirs doesn't. good to know"
"Logos" = "statement". (Test it and see) That was easy. It usually is rather easy to find an English equivalent. The difference is far less in the definitions of words, and far more in how those definitions are applied in parlance. We don't use the word "statement" as broadly in our parlance as the Greeks did "logos", but it is still the exact same definition for "logos" as for "statement". There ought to be a Bible which is translated to convey the original parlance, so that we may immerse ourselves in that parlance and thereby easily and naturally become accustomed to it. Yeah, it's hard to learn when it is kept hidden, but it doesn't need to be hidden, but rather it may well be taught and easily so.
William Tyndale's NT is the best English version, made easy even for the ploughboy, and peasant. And understanding his English translation is a breeze...people are just lazy. Sell your stuff honestly, and stop exaggerating.
I complety agree there's no perfect translation. 😊 There's always something lost in any translation in any language. Or as the Italians say, the translator is a traitor! That said, I find the CSB strikes a good balance between "accuracy" and "readability". And in my humble opinion I think the CSB has the best translation of the section of Galatians 3 mentioned innthe video among the major evangelical English Bible translations (e.g. CSB uses "seed" throughout). Anyway I think the CSB is at least worth checking out. Of course, the best would be to learn Koine Greek from Darryl and the Biblical Mastery Academy.
This man states there is no prefect translation of the bible. Is this his opinion or is this scriptural. The safest thing you should do is filter what man says through the filter of the scriptures. .All bibles claim to be inerrant . All bibles say every word of God is pure. To think that Satan is not going to change God's word or try to corrupt it is ignorance of any bible you hold . Nothing is more important to God than his word. Psalm 12:6 says that God will preserve his word. I am not saying you could get nothing out of knowing the Greek and Hebrew. But these people that think their experts on the Greek and Hebrew do not hold a candle to the translators of any bible. What they are is proud thinking their mind is the final authority . Why is every bible compared to the King James? Could it be that somehow they know it to be the standard? The ESV is said by many to be a more reliable translation than the KJV. But check out many of the translations that never were taught in Sunday school that David killed Goliath. 2 Samuel 21:19 English Standard Version 19 And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, struck down Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.[ You don't need to know Greek and Hebrew to figure what going on here. There is a reason Jesus said to the Devil in Mathew 4 " IT IS WRITTEN " There is a reason the KJV text has no copyright. Could the reason we have so many new bibles that come from corrupted lineage of manuscripts have anything to do with the love of money being the root of all evil. You cant understand old English is the claim. Really I thought Jesus said the Holy Spirit is the one to guide you into all truth.. Don't believe all the lies and don't believe circular reasoning believe the scriptures and the promises of God.
the KJV is OLD and therefore the US has allowed it in public domain. Though in the UK it seems different: you'll have to credit that " Reproduced by permission of the Crown's patentee, Cambridge University Press"
Yes and no. There are similarities (e.g. they are both inflected languages) but there are differences too (the way verbs work, the alphabet, etc). English uses a lot of roots from both Greek and Latin, which makes vocabulary similar in both languages.
I prefer the KJV but I use the KJV, NKJV and ESV for studying and sermon prep. Occasionally I even look at the NIV. Pray before you read, allow the Hoy Spirit to lead you to the right understanding of Scripture 👍
Yes it was. Check the forward for the NKJV, or any book on the history of the English Bible. Tyndale's work was the first translation from Greek to English, and everybody has been benefitting from his work since. That doesn't mean those who built on his work did not go back to the Greek, but they used Tyndale's work as a base either directly (KJV) or indirectly (NIV).
@richiejourney1840 they looked at many sources, including th3 Catholic Rheims. Using something as one of the many things they looked at in the process is very different than being an update of it. It is a revision of the Bishop's, which is part of the Protestant English Bible tradition. Therefore, it is very similar but not an update of it.
@ they looked at and used many things. The Bishops' Bible was authorized by the Anglican bishops in 1568. It was produced to replace the Geneva Bible, which was associated with Calvinism. The Bishops' Bible was also known as the "Treacle Bible" because of its translation of Jeremiah 8:22. The Bishops' Bible was the Bible of the Church of England and went through 20 editions in 42 years. The Bishops’ Bible also followed the Latin Vulgate in many places as well as being the base text for their Apochrapha. The King James Bible translators were instructed to follow the Bishops' Bible as much as possible. The King James Bible includes much of the wording of the Tyndale and Coverdale translations. It used various TR’s and itself used the Vulgate in places. They not only referenced many things, they PREFERRED to USE many. Tyndale is one of their base Greek Texts. Scholars, and the translators admit all this. Not only that, but there are parts NOT FOUND IN ANY MSS.
The KJV is still in use. Its language is not archaic, because it is still in use. Archaic language is that which is no longer being used regularly. The KJV is widely used every day. If King-James-era English is difficult for modern English speakers to learn, then Greek is literally impossible. If Greek can be learned, then KJV-era English is exceedingly easy to learn and not very hard to read at all. When people are interested in something, they will easily learn very much about it without even trying (and in the case of KJV-era English, there is only a little bit to learn, because it is Modern English not Middle or Old English). Lack of interest and difficulty are not the same thing, and people are not too stupid to learn what is easy to learn. Also, the language is only slightly outdated relative to common parlance, it is false to say it is "incredibly archaic" or "completely separate from the English you use in everyday language" (though I sure do recognize that it is "distinct" from common parlance; I agree that far). The King James Bible serves the important function of defining proper modern English, which it achieves by having been the most ubiquitous and cherished English document of all time, and specifically during and beyond the era when Modern English was becoming finalized. These days, with Marxists making war by redefining words, the KJV is particularly linguistically important to remind us of what proper Modern English is; these days, the KJV remains an important linguistic anchor. Also, the KJV has second person singulars and plurals, which are rather necessary to translate the Text with sufficient accuracy for following the precision of the Author's intent. We can't just smooth over the singulars and plurals leave them vague. It's impossible to learn the difference between "you" and "you", but it is easy to learn the difference between "you" and "thou". Not that the KJV shouldn't be improved upon; it should; it can be improved.
God promised to preserve His Word (Psalm 12:6-7; Matthew 24:35), and the KJV faithfully fulfills that promise, being based on the reliable Textus Receptus and Masoretic Texts without doctrinal error. Claims of "errors" in the KJV often come from reliance on corrupted manuscripts like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (which both originate from the Catholic Church’s Saint Catherine’s Monastery and the Vatican, by the way). These differ significantly from the preserved majority text used by God's people for centuries. Stop standing against the saints of God and stand with us, sir. The Catholic empire has been attacking the Word since the 5th millennium. Satan will never win in his attack against God’s Word. The arguments you are bringing to the table are the same ones that people have been saying for centuries. God said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Tyndale's Bible The Geneva Bible The Bishops' Bible The Great Bible All these Bibles, leading up to the KJV 1611, agree doctrinally with one another. The modern translations do not agree doctrinally, and that is a huge problem for people seeking to know God. He tells us to study and to understand sound doctrine. The Catholic Church (which is where you get your modern Bibles from) is far off doctrinally, and they cannot be trusted with anything. The Catholic Church is going to collapse, and all her fruit that she bore is going to collapse with her. There is only one Word of God in the world, and it is the KJV, along with all the foreign language translations that have been faithfully translated from the KJV 1611. The KJV 1769 is the same as the KJV 1611, just with updated spelling and punctuation; no words were changed or removed, and no verses were added or removed. Look at all these videos coming out attacking the KJV-Satan is clearly not happy with what is going on. Why? Because people are waking up from his deception with the modern versions. After a long 100 years, people are starting to realize the KJV was faithfully translated, and no one in the translation committee had an "agenda," unlike the NIV committee, which had a lesbian as one of their "faithful translators." Every modern translation, including the NKJV, has been influenced by Catholic-preserved translations. The people of this world are waking up, and God is gathering all His people to proclaim His Word as we reign with Him for the next millennium.
There are some verses and parts of verses in the TR that have no ancient manuscript support whatever. I prefer the Majority Text, which is different from the text based on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
Seldom have I ever got a correct answer to the question, "What is God's word"? Then I ask them to compare Exodus 1:11 and 1 Kings 6:1 for the date of the exodus. Both of those texts are God's word but time of their dates are 1446 BC and about 1250 BC. God's Word is the message from God.
Biblical mastery academy, the NASV isn't a good translation, neither are every modern translations. They come from the erroneous Alexandrian of Egypt texts who were anti Christian. You have to put the right Greek word in the context to the right scriptures. The NKJV is the most accurate translation
The KJV is perfect to use as your go to bible as long as you have a Strongs Exhaustive Concordance. Using Strongs you can look up every word in the KJV to see the Hebrew word in the OT and the Greek word in the NT that each word in the KJV that it was translated from and you will know exactly what God has to say to you. The KJV is the best, in my opinion, and I have been reading and studying from it for over 40 years. NASB not bad, also has a concordance you can buy to see the Hebrew and Greek words with thier definitions. NIV I would not recommend for a number of reasons which I will not get into here.
As a KJV onlyist, I like the KJV's English because it's more accurate to the biblical text than contemporary English. KJV English has never been spoken, the KJV is not in the English of 1611.
The RSV is not in the English of 1952, the NKJV is not in the English of 1982, and the ESV is not in the English of 2001. They all retain elements that are foreign to the periods in which they were produced, both because of their retention of archaic language (e.g. inverted negatives) and because of their adoption of Hebrew/Greek idioms. However, they are in an English that is as recognizable to the people of their time as the KJV was to the people of 1611. Miles Smith would have strongly opposed your side and strongly supported those who have revised the committee's work in the centuries since its completion. If he would not, then he would be a hypocrite, and I am not convinced that he was: *Now what can be more available thereto, than to deliver God's book unto God's people in a tongue which they understand? Since of a hidden treasure, and of a fountain that is sealed, there is no profit, as Ptolemy Philadelph wrote to the Rabbins or masters of the Jews, as witnesseth Epiphanius: and as S. Augustine saith; A man had rather be with his dog than with a stranger (whose tongue is strange unto him).* *Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavor to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us.*
@MAMoreno thee, thou, thy, and thine is singular. Ye, you, your, and yours are plural. The KJV's English is more accurate than modern English is in translating the Bible. And I don't care what the KJV preface says.
KJV English was spoken. The KJV was largely the English of its day. Thee, thou, and thine were used in more informal conversation, although they did fall largely out of use by the 1700s and were completely obselete by the 1800s. I detest the notion that KJV English is somehow more accurate. The second person pronoun distinction is great, but a modern translation, the CSB, makes the distinction in the footnotes, and a translation like the LSB makes it within the translation. The KJV isn't completely accurate, either. "God forbid" is in the KJV multiple times, but the phrase isn't in the original languages. It is a more dynamic choice that conveys the meaning. The same with "God save the king." "Long live the king" is more accurate, and dynamic translations like the NLT and NIV are more accurate than the KJV there! It is false to say that the most accurate way to translate the Bible into English is to go back to the 1600s. We should not put unnecessary barriers between people and God's Word, by forcing them to use a 400 year old translation. I love the KJV, but KJV Onlyists are like the Flat Earthers of Christianity.
@@KenyonBowers The singular/plural distinction is typically obvious from context, and when it's not, there are plenty of ways of handling it without using archaic conventions (which were merely old hat in 1611 but are truly foreign today). One of the most cited examples in defense of the thou/you distinction is Luke 22.31-32. However, the two most recent updates of the NASB have used italics to clarify the ambiguity in verse 31. NASB 2020: “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded to sift you _men_ like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith will not fail; and you, when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” LSB 2021: “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded to sift _all of_ you like wheat. But I have prayed earnestly for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, once you have returned, strengthen your brothers.” And lest there be any more room for confusion, the NASB 2020 includes marginal notes throughout verse 32 to clarify that the pronouns are "singular, referring only to Peter." Other translations (CSB, ESV) offer similar footnotes. As for dismissing the translators' preface, you dismiss their work by doing so. If you have to make an imaginary KJV in your head that wasn't produced by translators with those opinions, then you're not really King James Only: you're Peter Ruckman Only.
@@DanielSteel1999 thee, thou, thine, etc. were not used in the KJV the way they were used in the contemporary English of the time. The LSB doesn't make that distinction, and I shouldn't need a footnote every time the Bible says "you." I should be able to read it and remember, "Oh, it says 'thee,' so it's singular." The KJV was using the strongest form of "no" they would have had, i.e. God forbid. It makes perfect sense why they translated it that way. As for "God save the king", looking at the lexicon, I'm not so sure they went completely dynamic in it. Sure, they did to a degree, but not completely. There is no unnecessary barrier between people and the Bible because of the KJV. That's utterly foolish. The KJV is not hard to read or understand.
“And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise.” (Galatians 3:29 LSB)
You probably understand this verse to mean that a believer in Jesus is grafted into Israel so that regardless of race or ethnicity, he or she is an heir to the promises made to and about the literal descendants of Jacob Israel.
What if it means that belonging to Christ is confirmation you are actually an Israelite?
Jesus said his flock knew him.
His flock was true Israel.
Not Jews.
@ “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Romans 1:16 LSB)
“…For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s seed, but: ‘through Isaac your seed will be named.’ That is, the children of the flesh are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are considered as seed. For this is the word of promise: ‘At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son.’ And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that the purpose of God according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, ‘The older shall serve the younger.’ Just as it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’ What shall we say then? Is there any unrighteousness with God? May it never be! For He says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’” (Romans 9:6b-15 LSB)
@@geordiewishart1683John said that heirs of Abraham could be raised from the stones/rocks. You are indeed grafted in by faith true alone.
Grafted in and survive by faith @@misfitkid3926
Which is more difficult...
1) Understanding the King James, or
2) Learning New Testament Greek ?
If learning Greek is harder, why do we make it out like understanding the KJV is impossible? And when we matter-of-factly parrot claims like "the KJV is 'unreadable' (for certain people)", aren't we basically making the admission that they are not smart enough to even learn Greek?
While it in indeed the "soft bigotry of low expectations", you really can't tell a newly baptized individual to get to know God by reading the KJV. In order to get the ball rolling, you need the training wheels of the modern versions.
After your curiosity grows and you want to get deeper into it, the KJV is a better translation. It uses the plural forms of the word "you", where "thee" and "thou" are singular and "you" and "yours" is plural. This is actually helpful when parsing the commandments of Christ. The Greek and old English make this distinction but modern English does not.
@@GizmoFromPizmoMy ESV pew Bible (minimal notes) will generally list plural vs singular "you" in footnotes where there is otherwise ambiguity, so even in modern translations that distinction need not be lost.
Sorry to burst your bubble however the ESV OT is far superior than the KJV OT, the ESV OT is the only literal translation that incorporates the latest research of the Dead Sea scrolls which are very important. In the NT I prefer the NKJV over all the other translations since it’s based on the TR and the language is updated.
@@Miroslaw-rs8ip Lol, if you want to "burst my bubble", you're gonna need a much sharper pin than that. 🤣
@@GizmoFromPizmo I started by reading KJV and did not have much of an idea what I read or at least what it was saying to me, but as I began using word study dictionary and reading on a regular basis, I was able to understand it better than other translations. I have read that KJV is as easy to read, but a little more difficult to understand some of the word structuring, it is just what many are not willing to take the time to study, I have come to love the KJV 1611 but can't read Greek and have no desire too. I do use the Strongs Concordance and Blue bible parallel for help, now other translations seem a little watered down to me, but that could be because I have read the KJV for so long.
I have been following you for the last three years, and I often find your videos interesting. I have been blessed to see how your viewership has grown over the last few years. This video, however, is not as good as it seems. First of all, the title is very bashing. "These Bible translations are worse than you realize." You don't qualify what you mean by "worse" and pretend your viewers realize how bad are "these" translations, but you don't qualify either which are "these" translations, and for all and all, you use one bible verse to justify what you say (see, Gal 3.29, descendants, offspring, and so on). Yes, these translations do not render completely what the original SEED renders, but as you said it correctly, even the word SEED in our language would not render a good translation either.
Also, it is clear that the whole idea of bashing respectful (by saying that they are worse that we realise) Bible translations is to advertise your new course (a three-week course) in Greek. Now, you know as well as I do that little knowledge of Greek IS WORSE than no knowledge of Greek... However good you are, and you are good, and I always enjoy your expertise, you know as well as I that it takes years (I have been on it for more than 40 years now) and studying Greek to be able to understand its nuances, and especially to be able to compete with highly qualified scholars who have translated the New Testament from Greek, and especially the newest UBS/N&A versions. To me, it would have been more intellectually honest to make a nice ad on your course and say that it will help you a little bit in understanding the literature, like commentaries, and so on... But the way it is presented insinuates that after following your 3-week course, your students would become experts in recognizing "how WORSE than you realize" these bible translations are.
To me, it is also diminishing the hard work of Bible translators, and more, it discredits the Bibles we have, insinuating that they are all bad. No, when people don't know Greek, and even when they do know Greek, the best is to always consult many bible translations. To let people believe that following a three-week course would fix the problem is bad advice, advertisement, and intellectual dishonesty.
Please don't take it bad... I think that following your course will be excellent for many people, but the way you advertise it does not seem good to me.
Don
Good response! Think about those Christians who barely open their Bible. After watching this video, will they still believe the authority of the Bible?
I also recommend all the Christians who know biblical languages to read the book of Exegetical Fallacies by Carson.
Well said. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It certainly isn't going to give you the tools to start critiquing the many fine (not worse) translations out there.
@@matthew4642 Yes, I have that book, it's good.
Thanks for your comments. I normally take the line that we have good translations, and I believe this is true - which is why I say it. However, too many still get stuck in "translation wars" and miss the point that this video tries to make. The point here is that regardless of how "accurate" your translation is, its not as good as you think it is because you simply can't do justice to the original language in translation.
@@bmaI’m by far no master of the Greek, yet I fail to understand why the meanings cannot be translated. Perhaps, because it would take to many words?
Understanding the text is not understanding every jot, tittle, verb or sentence. It’s about allowing the Holy Spirit to illuminate the word of God in your heart , understanding the word is not the same as believing the word. As long as your endeavour brings you to the foot of the cross and the gospel becomes your way of life the rest is just a beautiful read!
Overheard in a Christian book store: “No, I want the old original Saint James Bible!” ( :
Hahaha nice. Yea im just gonna go down to my local bible dealer where they sell all those “original” bibles and ill use this here discount from the daily penny saver adds. Lol
@@4StonesHandcraft My wife once worked at a Christian bookstore and people would come in to buy a Holy Bible. They weren’t looking for a specific version; They only wanted a Holy Bible.
This was a memory from many years ago. Now that think about it again, the request was actually for the “Old original Saint James Vergin”.
Solution: learn Greek and Hebrew. If you don't want that, then let's be clear about what it is you don't want.
Learn Hebrew first.
Knowing Greek is not the total answer. I assume that the translators of the NASB knew Greek.
@@brianjohnson9222 koine Greek. Very different from modern Greek.
Well, this topic definitely drew the KJVOnlyists.
Well, this topic definitely drew the KJV haters.
To call criticism of a text the equivalent to hating it is a gross oversimplification.
It may be that KJVO's can't understand how one can criticize anything without hating it since they have so much hate towards the other versions.
@@jeremystrickland348How many comments can you even find that were made by kjvo people?
@@bobbyadkins6983on this video very few, of course there are only 27 comments on this video. My comment was in response to your comment being an oversimplification of any criticism of the KJV and the general hate that KJVO's express towards any other version. This is clear from their use of the term "perversions".
@jeremystrickland348 My response was a reply to the comment that started this thread. Let that sink in and don't overthink it.
"A varietie of translations is profitable for understanding the sense of the Scriptures" so quoted the KJV translator of Augustine
The truth of the Gospel cuts through. Studying original languages is a wonderful thing, but people are saved regardless, and the omnipotent hand of God will not lose any. Do the righteous work for His sake, but remember your work cannot save, only Christ’s work can.
There's never going to be a perfect translation, in your mind. But God isn't stuck in the greek and Hebrew Bible. He gets His Perfect Word out to the whole world. God is not limited
NKJV is a little too hard to read for the average person? I don't think the problem is the translation then. The KJV is actual not "hard" to read either, if you actually read it daily for a couple of weeks.
Tongue-in-cheek: There is a perfect translation - when God first translated his thoughts into human composition.
Human language is inadequate to do that!!!
@davidjanbaz7728 What I mean is: Human language has sufficient capacity to contain what God wanted to communicate, but -to your point- not exhaustive enough capacity to contain all his thoughts
This is more of an advertisement of your courses than an educational video. What % of portion of ESV is badly translated? Where are the evidences?
Having a hard time thinking that the scholars of King James Bible, did not do a good enough job, to keep me from the torture of your offer.
Everything he said about greek koine, idioms, etc. is TRUE.
So what translation would you suggest and why ?
Which translation is good there has the apocrypha or deuterocanical books ?
I have Jerome's 405AD Latin translation of the NT that shows both the Latin text and the English. A very interesting volume. And Jerome had 300sAD Greek texts.
So everyone should learn Greek and Hebrew to understand what God's said? That still doesn't solve the problems because we will still argue about manuscripts.
To understand Bible.
1 learn greek
2 learn ancien greek
3 find original Bible
4 translated to your language
All transactions were made to benefit specific religion
Hey Darryl, how can I contact you privately?
The best way is support@biblicalmastery.academy.
Also there are disagreements among manuscripts so which one do you use?
This is the elephant in the room: thank you for bringing this up. The Received Text of the NT as used in the KJV tradition is valued by some, but not by all: the special verses and words it retains strengthen the identity and power of God in Christ, so I would say it's worth insisting on including it, but comparing translations for English variations and quality of translation is always needed.
Besides 1 Tim 3:16 (see below) there are gospel statements which matter too. This teaching in Mk 2 isn't matched in the NIV, ESV or NASB, while they do manage to in Lk 5:32; for, in Mk 2 the modern translations doesn't have "...to repentance".
"Without question, great is the mystery of godliness:
"God was revealed in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit,
seen by angels,
preached to the Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
taken up into glory." (1 Tim 3:16)
"When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” (Mk 2:17)
The NKJV has been 'replaced' by the Modern English Version in 2014, which modernises the KJV directly, using "formal equivalence": and oh so sweetly, for it sounds and feels like the KJV still (that's the MEV I copied from biblegateway.com above), and clarifies meanings by changing or adding a word here and there. Spot the extra word here!
"For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe." (1 Cor 1:21 MEV)
God bless your own studies going forward, too.
The KJV is still the most read English bible in the world. Saying that we do not use those words anymore is therefore patently false since millions of people use them when they read and quote the KJV. Its language is still in daily active use.
The language of the KJV is direct and clear. Children read it and understand it. People from other languages (like myself) read it and understand it. Reading it improves your overall English comprehension.
I cannot fathom where people, whose primary language is English, come from when they say it is difficult to understand.
It is like there is some sort of cult of the incompetent that requires that a lack of learning be so highly regarded that the Bible must be dumbed down to placate them.
Have the humility to learn.
"The KJV is still the most read English bible in the world."
That's incorrect actually. It's probably the most read english bible of *all time* but in modern times the NIV is read more.
"Saying that we do not use those words anymore is therefore patently false since millions of people use them when they read and quote the KJV. Its language is still in daily active use."
No... That's not how language works...
There are many archaic words in the KJV that are just not used anymore. The KJV was written in 1611, words have changed. It doesn't matter if people read the KJV from time to time, the words don't suddenly stop being archaic. Outside of the KJV they're not used.
It's like saying shakespearean english isn't archaic because people still read shakespeare.
"The language of the KJV is direct and clear"
What? Who decided that? There are literally hundreds of verses in the KJV that are anything but clear.
"Children read it and understand it."
What?? No?! If you cherrypick a sentence and let them sit on it for a minute, yes, but it's not like an 8 year old is going to be reading the KJV and actually undestanding it...
"People from other languages (like myself) read it and understand it. "
And??? The language is still unnecessarily hard.
Words have also changed meaning. You *think* that you understand, but in reality you're not understanding at all, because the words have changed over time...
How hard is it for you KJV onlyists to learn basicle principles of language?? English hasn't stood still for the last 400 years...
"Reading it improves your overall English comprehension."
YES, 17th century english, not modern english...
"I cannot fathom where people, whose primary language is English, come from when they say it is difficult to understand."
Maybe because it is difficult to understand?
"It is like there is some sort of cult of the incompetent that requires that a lack of learning be so highly regarded that the Bible must be dumbed down to placate them."
My god calm down you fool.
Aren't you in the incompetent KJV-only cult that needs some 17th century king dumb down and translate the bible for you because you're too stupid to learn the biblical languages?
"Have the humility to learn."
Then go and learn hebrew & koine greek.
From what I've read in your comment, you have anything but humility. You bathe in pride and arrogance.
I wouldn't go that far, brother. A lot of people struggle with it due to the archaic words, syntax and grammatical forms. I believe a new translation will be helpful - so I've begun such a project: a new translation, based on the KJV. No dumbing down, no simplification; just good English, but with the intent to use a literary style without confusing a literate American who doesn't haven't specialized education. What do you think?
What Bible software is that?
Would you be willing to review the MEV Bible (TR translation)?
If you want a more ‘accurate’ reading to compare your favorite version then you must go back to the original Greek and Hebrew writings. That’s what many (or at least my) seminaries do.
The elephant in the room that you are not speaking about is the source text the translators translate from.
Sinaiticus was largely used to change modern Bibles. It is not 4th century as they claim. It is 1800’s. Vaticanus, was also used to change source text. Likely from the 1400’s and Erasmus said to not pay attention to it. Finally, codex Alexandrinus was used to change parts of Revelation. Scribal errors have been covered by various people such as. “14 - 2006 CTS - John Niemela - 24 Elders and The Rapture: Revelation 5”
This is an excellent video. It sounds a lot like a pretty standard talk I give in my introductory Scripture classes in the core. I'm not expecting very many of my students to go on to be Scripture scholars, but to be educated, you just need to know something about the limitations inherent in translations of any kind. Students can be brought to a MUCH deeper appreciation of the Bible than they had ever imagined possible, just by looking more closely at the original languages, even without really understanding those languages independently.
I'd like to know some pros and cons of certain translations including the NET Full Notes, NLT, TPT, and the AMPC. Additionally, if you have time, I'd like to know what are your thoughts on the Wuest and Vincent Word Studies. What do you think of the AMG the complete word study series, the Tehillim, and Rick Renner's Sparkling Gems from the Greek. Blessings to you!
All I got from what you said, is that one cannot translate perfectly from one language to another. I didn't hear you say that one translation is a bad translation.
The best Protestant translation is the KJV, period. The best Catholic translation is the Douay Rhiems, which is older than the KJV. In my opinion, the Douay Rhiems is the most accurate translation because it's a straight translation from the Latin Vulgate, which St Jerome translated from the Greek and Hebrew documents. The Latin Vulgate was the Holy Bible from the St. Jerome to the church fathers. This was the only Bible for centuries. There are some good modern translations like NKJV and Revised Standand.
Studying the Word isn't only a matter of translations, but aswell as all the tools we got that are available online .....
When will we get a full Bible, Old and New Testament Scriptures, based on the Greek Septuagint and the the NT Critical text ? I have the Orthodox Study Bible which I carry to church and Bible study, but I would love to have a Bible that I can carry which has the, lets say, the Lexham Septuagint and the RSV of ESV NT ?
Well…the Septuagint is a translation…why not get a Hebrew Tanakh?
@@christo-chaneyprove the Tanakh is superior to the LXX. I think it would be best to have both side by side.
@ what source text is the vast majority of Christian Old Testaments translated from?
@ which period of time? Which versions of masoretic and LXX? Which versions of the Latin Vulgate? Which mss’s in the Eastern Orthodoxy? Does the Samaritan Pentateuch count? Which Mss? It has been shown Jesus didn’t have a problem quoting the LXX or “Masoretic”. Jesus would read from and expound on any mss of the writings He came across. If anything, we know none of them would be an exact match. So, if it didn’t bother God…why should it bother you? Why not do what Origen did-the Hexapla? You proclaim, the “masoretic” text is superior, but it was mainly hidden from and/or not really used by Christianity for centuries. God hid the text of His Message from His faithful?
@@christo-chaney because the New Testament writers were mostly quoting from the LXX, not a Hebrew translation of the Tanakh
The course sounds very good and useful. I agree that the tools are extremely useful but one must first learn how to use them well and carefully, and I am very glad to see you are offering to train many in that skill.
I have chosen to prioritize learning meanings over memorizing words, and so I have learned the Greek New Testament far faster and better by using the tools than what I would have by devoting myself to memorizing all the word forms, and I am becoming so familiar with the Greek that soon I will easily be able to learn the word forms, so when I do I will be doing so with great efficiency.
Having benefitted in that way, I have desired that others be able to learn that same skill and enjoy that same benefit. People who went to seminary and memorized alot of word forms, but know almost nothing of the nuances of the semantics and applied parlance, will often say that the tools are merely a liability and that you either must learn Greek or else just trust those who memorized a bunch of words but know almost nothing of the nuances of the semantics and applied parlance. In reality, it is very feasible to learn proper use of the tools and to apply that to very great benefit.
I am glad you are offering the public access to that benefit.
What do you recommend for an adult who wants to explore the Bible for the first time?😊
If you are really dipping your toes into the scripture for the first time my humble advise would be any Thought-for-Thought translation like the NLT (New Living Translation) It reads like a modern day book, easy to understand and the Gospel is very clear. once you have tasted and found it good move onto a Word-for-Word translation like ESV, NASB, translation you can really deep dive into. Every blessing in your quest.
That’s a great question. I’ll create a video answering in a few weeks.
Logos' Bible Sense Lexicons (BSL) clarifies all of these things.
That name is interesting cause Logos is Greek for word
I use the BSL every single week. It is super helpful.
@@OneTeenDiscipleship Indeed. Logos Bible Software is excellent and worth looking into (even their videos on UA-cam to start with) if you’re planning on studying and using Greek in your life and ministry. I think you can download the program for free, but the products and packages get expensive. It’s worth getting a good English translation there (ESV, etc.), a good Greek New Testament (NA28, Tyndale House GNT), the best Greek-English lexicon (abbreviated BDAG for short), the most used Hebrew OT (Biblia Hebraic Stuttgartensia), and a great Hebrew-English lexicon (like The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament or HALOT for short). Those four resources on Logos are invaluable if you can also take at least a year of Greek and Hebrew either at a college, seminary, or on something like Biblical Mastery Academy here. The Greek language is beautiful. What a blessing that God spoke to us in human languages like Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. And it is cool that they decided to name their company and program after that glorious title of Christ in John 1.
@@OneTeenDiscipleship Indeed. The name of the company is Logos Bible Software. Excellent, excellent company and product. It’s worth looking into even on their UA-cam page. If you study Greek or Hebrew or are planning to do so for at least a year at the college/seminary level or its equivalent through something like Biblical Mastery Academy here, Logos will be of great benefit to you. Their products can get pricey for sure, but if you do some study in the biblical languages, it is for sure worth getting these resources to have within Logos: 1) a good English Bible (ESV, etc.), 2) a good Greek New Testament (GNT for short; something like the NA28 or Tyndale House GNT), 3) the best Greek-English dictionary (lexicon technically; best one is abbreviated BDAG), 4) the standard Hebrew Old Testament (called BHS for short, or Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia spelled out), and 5) the best Hebrew Aramaic lexicon called The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament or HALOT for short. It is great that they named their company after that glorious title of Christ in John 1. What an unfathomable gift that God spoke to us in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek! God bless.
Indeed. The name of the company is Logos Bible Software. Excellent, excellent company and product. It’s worth looking into even on their UA-cam page. If you study Greek or Hebrew or are planning to do so for at least a year at the college/seminary level or its equivalent through something like Biblical Mastery Academy here, Logos will be of great benefit to you. Their products can get pricey for sure, but if you do some study in the biblical languages, it is for sure worth getting these resources to have within Logos: 1) a good English Bible (ESV, etc.), 2) a good Greek New Testament (GNT for short; something like the NA28 or Tyndale House GNT), 3) the best Greek-English dictionary (lexicon technically; best one is abbreviated BDAG), 4) the standard Hebrew Old Testament (called BHS for short, or Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia spelled out), and 5) the best Hebrew Aramaic lexicon called The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament or HALOT for short.
It is great that they named their company after that glorious title of Christ in John 1. What an unfathomable gift that God spoke to us in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek! God bless.
Wow. The ESV is no worse than the KJV or the NKJV
How did the hebrews wrote the old testament in their hebrew bible? Why do hebrew God/Christian God is called "Yahweh" the same name of the God of babylonia religion? Did the hebrews just invented the bible?
Why would we fudge idioms? People just need to learn the Bible's idioms. Why would we fudge them? Teachers need to just teach better; it's not that hard. It becomes hard, when we hide all the original word choices behind rewordings (which are not translations, because they fail to translate what was written), but if the idioms are on the page, then they can be easily learned. We are in the Information Age now, this stuff has become exceedingly easy now, and it's well past time we start shifting our paradigms to take advantage of that ease.
Good video, thank you.
Wow. When God saved me I started reading the bible and it made perfect sense to me, and I have an excellent handle on all the major bible fundamentals. I did not use a bible dictionary, concordance, original greek nor hebrew. Are these tools usefull? Of course they are. But not at the cost of making reading the bible a hinderance, which is what so many bible "thinkers" are doing. I truly believe that for someone that God saves and has a bible and do not have all these "resources" they will still grow to be a strong Christian through the plain reading of the scriptures as the Holy Spirit gives revelation. If they are able to glean from study materials all the better, yet I still do so very cautiously because of all of the errors in these theological texts. Blessings!!!
Reading the bible is one thing. Studying the bible is quite another. Theology requires time and effort. Hermeneutics is the SCIENCE of Contract Interpretation. Most people are "reading the bible", while scholarly theology requires that you understand the language of the document.
If you're just getting started then any old bible will do (in general). But if you're pursuing God then you have to get serious.
It's not that difficult with a good sense for grammatical functions you can just read the Greek with meaning and grammar next to it and you will understand most of it. Languages in principle are always the same.
I just use the comic version with all the pictures. That's all I've ever needed.😁💯🎯
Question. Galatians 1:16 is translated in the ESV and some other translations, to reveal His Son "to" me. The NASB and some translations say, to reveal His Son "in" me. In my understanding of salvation (in a non-scholarly way) it should be "in" me. You are much more knowledgeable, so could you explain that? Thank you
Tyndale didn't translate a complete Bible so the KJV shouldn't be considered to be an update of the Tyndale Bible
The correct interpretive principle will cut through the Gordian knot" of translation.
I bet the KJV-Only nuts melt down over this. Personally, I use the LSB, NASB, ESV, NKJV, KJV and love them immensly. What a treasure!
Hi Darrel, I’m brand new to Greek and wanting to surround myself with others who know it well. Just wondering if there’s a Discord server out there that you’re aware of that I can join? If not, may I suggest that we could make one (I know how to if needed) and have the link posted in a future video so we can all come together and help each other out in voice calls and text channels etc? Thank you heaps for considering and God bless.:)
No, sorry. However, we do have a community in our Greek Mastery Membership. You will find some free communities on Facebook if you hunt around. Nerdy Language Majors is good, though often a bit technical for complete newbies.
@@bma Ahh okay, thanks for sharing, I'll look into those on facebook! If I may ask though, just wondering why theres no discord? Wether yours or anyone else who hasnt made one. Thank you again!
God speaks to His people today in our modern English, not in Elizabethean antiquated English.
Excuse me, but of course the 1611 was hard to read that's why over time the English language became standardized and the editions of the KJV were finished by 1769. That is what we are reading today. I know young children who read the KJV without difficulties.
The KJV is 12th grade reading, and the most reliable English bible.
Yes. Sperma is Seed; Mono Genés is Only Begotten; Iesous Christos Who is Jesus Christ (Messiah - Messias).. Who is Yeshua ha Mashiach (it is the translations of the same Name which is above all names).
Also, Charagma is Mark; Eikon is Image; Memra (Heb) & Logos (Grk) is Voice Word & Expression; and Theotēs is Divine GodHead. Yes the Greek speaks true, so do our English and other language Bible versions and translations. The only things is the variants which effect no theology at all!
40 writers, God inspired, inerrant, and unchanging, with 66 books. From 1250 BC starting with Moses, and ending with John in 95 AD! Gods Word, the Sacred Scriptures, the Holy Bible! It is Truth and our Only & Final Authority in all things life and faith and et cetera!
I was kjv only to I learned about the Bible and its translations copies and versions.. textual criticism, then i repented of that nutty cult. Most are sincere, but wrong. Some are dividers and not Christian like Riplinger etc. Lol
"Seed" is better so we can connect in our mind the play on words our Lord used in many of His parables (for example, the Enemy sowing tares in the good "wheat" (which, of course, began as "seed"), and also the idea of "dispersing the Seed (be it people or True words). Another problem is when they translate "rhema: spoken word" as "thing, matter, etc." In Luke 1:37, rhema (spoken word) is "thing" and in the following verse 38, it is "word" and referring to the same topic. "No rhema-word is impossible with God" And Miriam / Mary says: "Let it be to me according to your rhema-word." Why did they do that?! A necessarily misunderstood Scripture so often quoted and "believed for".
All those other translations but KJV are from the Alexandrian texts , they were an agnostic cult , do you think Gods word came from a cult ? KJV is from passed down texts the received texts handed down since the church started in Antioch.
There have already been translations, before the translations.
I catch the gist of what he is saying, and it is good advertisement for his product. However, others have made the argument that being merely able to read Greek is just as dangerous as using tools (lexicons, concordances, dictionaries, etc) if you are unable to speak the language. How so? One can pick up nuances in a language if they can speak it (voice fluctuations, tone, sarcasm) that may not be the case if one can only read it. As one who cannot read Greek without relying on modern tools, I can somewhat identify with those who make that argument. In fact, you could even go a step further and say that understanding the customs, courtesies, and culture of biblical times is even more important than being able to read the original languages for English speakers because of the sheer number variations of English translations.
Funny how we think that the Word of God is ink and parchment. I promise you that it is not. If you speak English, the KJV is a good standard. Research the translations that take away and add, to IT. Make that short list of the translations that deviate the least, use those. God's Word is preserved unto those that seek Him with a supple heart.
Galatians 3:29 "Abraham's seed" v. "Abraham's descendents". I've noticed the same disconnection in many translations.
Perhaps it’s more of not understanding the meaning rather than word choice? I don’t “feel” the disconnect but that’s just me perhaps?
Logos is equivalent to Dabar in the Old Testament.
It’s not the logos ideology of Plato, we have to assume like the Apostles that their standard for all definitions would be from the Old Testament scriptures, not from some philosopher who used logos in a way that the old testament ever uses it. That’s making Philo more important to John than the Old Testament.
Isn’t memra the equivalent in Hebrew?
@ Memra is Aramaic not Hebrew.
@ ah thanks. So Jesus spoke Aramaic, right?
@ Yes, Aramaic and Hebrew.
@ next languages to learn. I just started a Greek course it’s really fun and interesting.
KJV has a lot of translations that it gets wrong, because it used newer manuscripts. For one, the KJV's Lord's Prayer says "deliver us from evil," whereas others say "deliver us from the evil one." It is a simple case ending that the KJV misinterpreted. Another thing, Luke 2:14 KJV says "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men," but NASB says “Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among people with whom He is pleased.” The reason they translated so differently is because the manuscripts the KJV used had a ς at the end of the word, whereas the older manuscripts did not have that letter. Hope this helps! Also don't think I'm just hating on the KJV, cause the study bible that I use is a KJV.
Keep trying. Pray for wisdom. Most of the newer versions are translated from the corrupted manuscripts of Westcott and Hort. They are not the oldest manuscripts.
My NKJV and NASB@77 both make footnotes. What these footnotes say is that “good will toward men” is a legitimate translation as are the others used. If you are of the Majority Text hypothesis/theory then it’s “good will toward men”. So which or both? If the passage is “with whom He is pleased” as in only His chosen people or just those who “believe”, then Jesus is not for all people…which is why He clearly came-for everyone. If it’s “good will towards men” as if it’s His “good and pleasure”, then then His purposeful Good News is clearly proclaimed to all-which includes the announcement to His Chosen. Personally, taking the totality of the meaning of the passage and bibliology as a whole context, it would be best expressed as “good will to all mankind”. “For God so loved the WORLD…” JN 3:16…
u bet on just 6 late manuscripts😂@@bobbyadkins6983
@@richiejourney1840 First off, I did get one thing wrong. The manuscripts the KJV used DROPPED OUT the ς, not added it. The word was eudokias (translated as: of good will, characterized by good pleasure), and the older manuscripts say eudokia(subjective of good will). This is what changes the entire meaning.
In other words, the peace that the angels sang that belonged to the earth as a result of Christ is not a generic, worldwide peace for all humankind, but a peace limited to those who obtain favor with God by believing in his Son Jesus (taking into account context). God's love is for all, but his peace is only for those who he favors (the ones in Christ). God bless!!!!
@ I don’t doubt that brother! But I do not strictly adhere to the TC that older is correct. Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. Peace to you brother! Enjoy Thanksgiving!
It is a mistake to think that the KJV was ever a good translation OR that it used current English as it was in 1611. They deliberately used much language borrowed straight out of the Latin and/or used a word because it “sounded good” in an almost completely oral/aural culture. Faith is a “substance” is a classic example. The word substance had already changed in meaning ~250yrs before 1611
The KJV is the one of the best translations. It teaches you to appreciate classic literature and understand etymology.
How do you think that word, 'substance', should be translated today?
Dude KJV is not that difficult. As someone who hated reading and was a stoner I learned by reading KJV and when people like this guys starts off the way he did then he loses credibility
Yet there must be a reason that "seed" is used so often in OT - especially in the Books of Moses...? It's quite descriptive - we are literally from the seed of our fathers. In fact, there are instances where "seed" is used from a woman. In addition - the Hebrew word often translated "descendants" is "dorot," as opposed to "zerah" for seed. Another term used is "toldot," meaning legacies... so one can't just choose to replace 'seed' with another word for our own satisfaction unless the author writes it. Even if the Hebrew writer of a NT book is writing in Greek, no doubt his original thinking is in Hebrew.
Many of my friends and family use different english versions and many of those same people have good christian testimonies, so I try not to be critical; however, many versions read different or leave out portions of scripture completely; some worse than others. It seemed to start just before my teenage days and when I was young, our Sunday School Teacher, at the Southern Baptist Church I attended, gave us the Good News for Modern Man; I started using the Living Bible when I was about 15 and thought it was cool. There are now many different versions and I feel it has become a confusion to Believers; Something God is not the author of. The King James Version is simply written for those who have been taught English and that is why so many struggle these days and are so easily deceived; our educational system has become lax on the basics in their instruction and our youth are graduating with poor reading skills. At one time, in our Nation, if one quoted a verse of the Bible, it didn't matter what denomination they were from, everyone quoted the same verse the same way and while culture, tradition and ceremony might be different, the basics of doctrine were similar. One may have some difficulty, at first, with reading the King James Bible, but I truly believe that it not only contains God's Word, it is God's Word and one will never truly understand God's way without its teaching; My faith would be much weakend if I thought I had a book with error. I have great confidence when I read and share the Word of God from the King James Bible. Yes, I am KJV only and the Church I attend is a KJV only, but as I said in the beginning, I don't want to be critical, just firm in my faith. I do hope that at least the Gospel is clear in all these other versions, but believe that history and doctrine could be dim. Sincerely, a child of the King
I studied in Seminary and had to take three Greek courses as well as a few Hebrew courses. It was hard to learn 🤦♂️, unfortunately it takes much time and years to be competent. I would be interested in your study since I studied a few decades ago.
We help many who have previously learned to regain what they learn and go well beyond. We'd love to serve you too!
This is so true. Like the fact Grsek has past tenses but different times (snapsnot tense, video tense, etc.). I think its possible but then it wouldnt be a word or word "literal" translation, it would be explaining half the time what certain words mean like "heard" or "said". Honestly, i thought this video would be something like rightly bashing the Passion Translation. But this is a great video nonetheless. Continucing my greek jounrey! God be with you, brothe.
I need to do a video on bad translations such as the passion translation at some point. Thanks for your comment!
@@bma That would be awesome! Thank you once again. God bless you, sir.
Which translation did Jesus read?
The one that the KJV used, of course
Man. So full of themselves believing they can make God’s Word better, never believing what God said about preserving His Word in His Word. Does Jesus Christ have errors in His being? If anyone believes God hasn't given the world a pure and true Bible, then Jesus can't be the Christ because John 14:1 says "the Word was made flesh", and Revelation 19:13 says "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God."
Either you believe and trust in the LORD, or you reject His Word and deny Him.
So Greek doesn't have verb tenses?
Correct. Greek verbs work differently to English.
@bma okay
I agree there is no perfect translation but don't tell a Ruckmanite that. 🤔😊
Raised with & Memorized out of KJV. Almost anything else when read sounds foreign to me. The other/newer translations for new and young believers for explaining or helping them understand better. But I prefer good old fashioned KJV personally.
It's not that complicated. The Holy Spirit will direct the surrendered truth seeking soul in Christ. That being said, a careful investigation into the history of the Bible translations will expose all the corrupted versions out there. Most will not seek the Lord with all their heart, even though they think or say they do. Don't take any man's word for it. Let the Spirit of God teach you the way, the truth, and the life. Then you can begin to judge what people are saying about the Bible and its translations.
kjv has an advantage over any other translations for its words can be found out through strongs, jay greens and many apps including tecarta life bible (Tecarta support is lot better than e-sword). as far as greek and hebrew goes, it's not the same language that's been used today. so using strongs while reading the bible, definitely helps to discover a lot about the bible, and all the archaic words can either be found out with KJV definitions booklets or a dictionary. there's no point of trying to figure out an accurate translation, because that's not what is Bible all about. As for me, it is the food for my spirit, and without it my spirit will wane away, and i'll be living myself in dark.
BEats me why U wud call the KJV HYPER literal.
the KJV you cant go wrong
Nowhere do I read in any English translation that I need to study Greek to in order to study God's Word. If Gid wanted us study Greek, He would've kept Greek as the only translation to force us to study Greek.
Nice try, Totally Depraved Calvinist!
To really understand the bible you need to have a basic understanding of biblical hermeneutics and a basic understanding of greek and hebrew syntax. Verb tense mood and voice are very specific this is the reason they bible was written in these languages. Most Christians are too lazy to really study the bibleeven though the Word of God commands Christians to.
2 Timothy 2:15
King James Version
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
I’m not committed to (or against) any translation, but I wonder why people are so insistent on the KJV when it uses the Masoretic text, which was not used by the New Testament writers
@americanvendee To my knowledge, all modern English Bible translations use Masoretic text for their Old Testament.
@ Most modern translations do use the MT as a base, and then make adjustments to it from the LXX and maybe the Qumran scrolls. There are two modern LXX translations (Lexham English Septuagint and NETS Bible), but these are really only used by people who want to seriously study the Bible, not by the average Bible reader. I don’t think the MT is bad (my main Bible is the ESV), but if you want to get into the nitty gritty of Bible scholarship you need to compliment that with some LXX or at least an interlinear
THE MESSAGE by Peterson is the worst of the worst.
The Message Bible is not an actual translation.
@ did I say it was?
@ the NIV is not a word for word translation either but many pastors love it. I don’t. to a nonChristian these are semantics. NIV is horrible too.
Why do we want lay person to understand all of these naunces. The English translations (I read English and Arabic) to understand and study the bible. Is it perfect, by no means. But looking at all those Hebrew/Greek scholars (i follow a lot of them, including you), I still find disagreements. I'm not against learning Hebrew/Greek, but I don't believe that God expects everyone to learn to read, study, understand, and live the Bible. When in doubt, I check multiple translations, check experts like you for a better understanding, consult robust bible studies...etc. But the idea that every Christian needs to understand and read Hebrew/Greek doesn't hold well. The purpose is to read and understand the Bible for my day to day life, not to win a debate, and trust me that I have been a Christian since 1989, and it's enough. I read a lot and follow loads of people, so I'm not saying this lightly. We are doing like Muslims. They say if you want to understand the quran, you must read Arabic. It's not the case with the Bible. The purpose is to read, understand, and apply. With translations like NKJV, NASB, LSB, and ESV, you can surely achieve this. By the way, English is not my first language, and I don't find the NKJV hard to read.
"but if *ye* [are] of Christ, then ye are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise." (Gal 3:29 JND) A scholar's version from the 1880s. I have used it from my youth.
I'm not going to say that there's no value in studying the original languages, but is it really the responsibility of the average lay Christian to do so? Also, don't the translators of these versions already address some of these concerns in their standard marginal notes, let alone in dedicated study Bibles? If you were specifically addressing pastors--or even Sunday School teachers--I could see your point, but you're really selling short the adequacy of our major translations.
Bill Mounce addresses that with this analogy:
One day you decide to upgrade one of the parts in your car. You grab a crowbar and the new part, and get to work. You get it done just fine, but a couple of the parts were damaged because you didn't use proper tools, like a socket wrench, a hammer, a drill, etc. Without the Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic, you can teach people and yourself just fine, but it will never compare to the job done with the correct "tools."
Why depend so much on translations without checking the source texts for yourself?
The question is not one of responsibility - certainly I would agree that those who teach have a responsibility to know the original languages. However, there is no reason why the lay person can't better understand the scriptures for themselves. Those who desire can and should learn to read the original languages. This video is directed to those who care about precision regardless of their role in the church - precision does not come through translations.
@@bma The average layperson's need for precision isn't comparable to that of a person in a teaching role. Orthopraxy will not be seriously affected by minute details such as Paul's use of σπέρμα in Galatians 3.29. And while I wouldn't discourage someone from pursuing this skill if they are moved to do so, I would take care not to pressure anyone into feeling that it's required as a part of the Christian life.
As Paul himself said, Ὑμεῖς δέ ἐστε σῶμα Χριστοῦ καὶ μέλη ἐκ μέρους. Καὶ οὓς μὲν ἔθετο ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρῶτον ἀποστόλους, δεύτερον προφήτας, τρίτον διδασκάλους, ἔπειτα δυνάμεις, ἔπειτα χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων, ἀντιλήμψεις, κυβερνήσεις, γένη γλωσσῶν. μὴ πάντες ἀπόστολοι; μὴ πάντες προφῆται; μὴ πάντες διδάσκαλοι; μὴ πάντες δυνάμεις; μὴ πάντες χαρίσματα ἔχουσιν ἰαμάτων; μὴ πάντες γλώσσαις λαλοῦσιν; μὴ πάντες διερμηνεύουσιν.
@@MAMorenoI wouldn’t even go so far as to say “those who teach have a responsibility to know” a foreign language at all. It is not necessary among all teachers. Who are those who “teach”? Everyone is a “teacher”. But I would definitely encourage learning the biblical languages if you can or mostly if the Spirit so moves you. Very beneficial and does help in discerning the truth of what many say.
Thoughts on the Second Testament by Scott Mcknight?
I haven't looked at it... but I should. Thanks for the prompt!
Dang God must of lied and didn't preserve his word! Lol silly text critics
yes, i definitely have been disappointed by the NASB so many times, which is said to be a so-called "literal" translation, it is neither "literal" nor concordant in so many places (its footnotes in the NT give a more "literal" and concordant rendering)... it is so overrated, unfortunately.... i find the KJV and NKJV far better renderings of the Greek in the NT.... nice videos as always... 👍
The NASB77 is my primary translation of choice. My critique of it is that the literal renderings r in the center-colum cross reference, and the alternate renderings r in the text. It should be the other way around.
The fact that the NASB shows when words have been added or when there are alt translations for a word, make it head and shoulders above other for me.
@@soundlycreative I agree, but the alternate words should be in the cross reference whereas the literal words should be in actual verses of scripture. That is probably the only issue that I have with the NASB77.
@@kiimbel1877 oh! So your saying the NASB translators may have not put the literal word in but listed it as an optional translation? I didn’t know this.
imo it's like
ok you have the greek hellenistic world and jewish law that the original christians lived in, with their septuigints and NTs that all of the translations and traditions are rooted in.
and then you have the "western tradition" which is talking about the exact same stuff, but through an historical lens that corresponds to certain cultures. The KJV is their holy text because it is the bible through their protestant tradition and their national heritage.
You even have the Catholic tradition with their Vulgate Latin biblesand different traditions derived from church tradition. Yet they're looking at the exact same ancient history.
and so on and so on. KJV has a different character when you put the book of mormon on too, making it yet another even though it's literally the same text, not even in translation.
so it's like, when a tradition uses KJV, it's relevant despite the differences, because that's part of the English tradition. Theology written using it are part of out canon, and thats why it's important to know about, unicorns and all.
What needs to happen is for peoplemto be less like "this text is the one true text" and more like "this text is the truth of our English protestant tradition (or etc.)" then its not a matter of "well actually its actually forged and a bad translation" and more "oh ok so your people do xyz unlike these other people because your biboe says to and theirs doesn't. good to know"
"Logos" = "statement".
(Test it and see)
That was easy.
It usually is rather easy to find an English equivalent. The difference is far less in the definitions of words, and far more in how those definitions are applied in parlance. We don't use the word "statement" as broadly in our parlance as the Greeks did "logos", but it is still the exact same definition for "logos" as for "statement". There ought to be a Bible which is translated to convey the original parlance, so that we may immerse ourselves in that parlance and thereby easily and naturally become accustomed to it. Yeah, it's hard to learn when it is kept hidden, but it doesn't need to be hidden, but rather it may well be taught and easily so.
William Tyndale's NT is the best English version, made easy even for the ploughboy, and peasant. And understanding his English translation is a breeze...people are just lazy. Sell your stuff honestly, and stop exaggerating.
I complety agree there's no perfect translation. 😊 There's always something lost in any translation in any language. Or as the Italians say, the translator is a traitor! That said, I find the CSB strikes a good balance between "accuracy" and "readability". And in my humble opinion I think the CSB has the best translation of the section of Galatians 3 mentioned innthe video among the major evangelical English Bible translations (e.g. CSB uses "seed" throughout). Anyway I think the CSB is at least worth checking out. Of course, the best would be to learn Koine Greek from Darryl and the Biblical Mastery Academy.
This man states there is no prefect translation of the bible. Is this his opinion or is this scriptural. The safest thing you should do is filter what man says through the filter of the scriptures. .All bibles claim to be inerrant . All bibles say every word of God is pure. To think that Satan is not going to change God's word or try to corrupt it is ignorance of any bible you hold . Nothing is more important to God than his word. Psalm 12:6 says that God will preserve his word. I am not saying you could get nothing out of knowing the Greek and Hebrew. But these people that think their experts on the Greek and Hebrew do not hold a candle to the translators of any bible. What they are is proud thinking their mind is the final authority . Why is every bible compared to the King James? Could it be that somehow they know it to be the standard? The ESV is said by many to be a more reliable translation than the KJV. But check out many of the translations that never were taught in Sunday school that David killed Goliath. 2 Samuel 21:19
English Standard Version
19 And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, struck down Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.[ You don't need to know Greek and Hebrew to figure what going on here. There is a reason Jesus said to the Devil in Mathew 4 " IT IS WRITTEN " There is a reason the KJV text has no copyright. Could the reason we have so many new bibles that come from corrupted lineage of manuscripts have anything to do with the love of money being the root of all evil. You cant understand old English is the claim. Really I thought Jesus said the Holy Spirit is the one to guide you into all truth.. Don't believe all the lies and don't believe circular reasoning believe the scriptures and the promises of God.
Watch Mark Ward 😅
the KJV is OLD and therefore the US has allowed it in public domain. Though in the UK it seems different: you'll have to credit that " Reproduced by permission of the Crown's patentee, Cambridge University Press"
Here's a question for you: is greek similar to latin? I was a student of Latin when i attended secondary (high) school many years ago.
Yes and no. There are similarities (e.g. they are both inflected languages) but there are differences too (the way verbs work, the alphabet, etc). English uses a lot of roots from both Greek and Latin, which makes vocabulary similar in both languages.
What do you mean by “similar”? That is a very ambiguous word😂
@@debras3806well, life is full of similarities and ambiguities.
So is the Tindall Holy Bible the Best. Or is it Tindale?
I want your t-shirt!
We might make some available soon. Subscribe to be notified when we do.
I prefer the KJV but I use the KJV, NKJV and ESV for studying and sermon prep. Occasionally I even look at the NIV.
Pray before you read, allow the Hoy Spirit to lead you to the right understanding of Scripture 👍
The king james was not an update to Tyndale.
Yes it was. Check the forward for the NKJV, or any book on the history of the English Bible. Tyndale's work was the first translation from Greek to English, and everybody has been benefitting from his work since. That doesn't mean those who built on his work did not go back to the Greek, but they used Tyndale's work as a base either directly (KJV) or indirectly (NIV).
@bma the Authorized Version of 1611 was a revision of the previous Authorized Version aka The Bishop's Bible.
@@tonyb408it wasn’t it’s only source. And what was the Bishops Bible based on?
@richiejourney1840 they looked at many sources, including th3 Catholic Rheims. Using something as one of the many things they looked at in the process is very different than being an update of it. It is a revision of the Bishop's, which is part of the Protestant English Bible tradition. Therefore, it is very similar but not an update of it.
@ they looked at and used many things.
The Bishops' Bible was authorized by the Anglican bishops in 1568.
It was produced to replace the Geneva Bible, which was associated with Calvinism.
The Bishops' Bible was also known as the "Treacle Bible" because of its translation of Jeremiah 8:22.
The Bishops' Bible was the Bible of the Church of England and went through 20 editions in 42 years.
The Bishops’ Bible also followed the Latin Vulgate in many places as well as being the base text for their Apochrapha.
The King James Bible translators were instructed to follow the Bishops' Bible as much as possible. The King James Bible includes much of the wording of the Tyndale and Coverdale translations.
It used various TR’s and itself used the Vulgate in places. They not only referenced many things, they PREFERRED to USE many. Tyndale is one of their base Greek Texts. Scholars, and the translators admit all this. Not only that, but there are parts NOT FOUND IN ANY MSS.
The KJV is still in use. Its language is not archaic, because it is still in use. Archaic language is that which is no longer being used regularly. The KJV is widely used every day.
If King-James-era English is difficult for modern English speakers to learn, then Greek is literally impossible. If Greek can be learned, then KJV-era English is exceedingly easy to learn and not very hard to read at all. When people are interested in something, they will easily learn very much about it without even trying (and in the case of KJV-era English, there is only a little bit to learn, because it is Modern English not Middle or Old English). Lack of interest and difficulty are not the same thing, and people are not too stupid to learn what is easy to learn. Also, the language is only slightly outdated relative to common parlance, it is false to say it is "incredibly archaic" or "completely separate from the English you use in everyday language" (though I sure do recognize that it is "distinct" from common parlance; I agree that far).
The King James Bible serves the important function of defining proper modern English, which it achieves by having been the most ubiquitous and cherished English document of all time, and specifically during and beyond the era when Modern English was becoming finalized. These days, with Marxists making war by redefining words, the KJV is particularly linguistically important to remind us of what proper Modern English is; these days, the KJV remains an important linguistic anchor.
Also, the KJV has second person singulars and plurals, which are rather necessary to translate the Text with sufficient accuracy for following the precision of the Author's intent. We can't just smooth over the singulars and plurals leave them vague. It's impossible to learn the difference between "you" and "you", but it is easy to learn the difference between "you" and "thou".
Not that the KJV shouldn't be improved upon; it should; it can be improved.
Excellent
God promised to preserve His Word (Psalm 12:6-7; Matthew 24:35), and the KJV faithfully fulfills that promise, being based on the reliable Textus Receptus and Masoretic Texts without doctrinal error. Claims of "errors" in the KJV often come from reliance on corrupted manuscripts like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (which both originate from the Catholic Church’s Saint Catherine’s Monastery and the Vatican, by the way). These differ significantly from the preserved majority text used by God's people for centuries.
Stop standing against the saints of God and stand with us, sir. The Catholic empire has been attacking the Word since the 5th millennium. Satan will never win in his attack against God’s Word. The arguments you are bringing to the table are the same ones that people have been saying for centuries.
God said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
Tyndale's Bible
The Geneva Bible
The Bishops' Bible
The Great Bible
All these Bibles, leading up to the KJV 1611, agree doctrinally with one another. The modern translations do not agree doctrinally, and that is a huge problem for people seeking to know God. He tells us to study and to understand sound doctrine. The Catholic Church (which is where you get your modern Bibles from) is far off doctrinally, and they cannot be trusted with anything. The Catholic Church is going to collapse, and all her fruit that she bore is going to collapse with her.
There is only one Word of God in the world, and it is the KJV, along with all the foreign language translations that have been faithfully translated from the KJV 1611.
The KJV 1769 is the same as the KJV 1611, just with updated spelling and punctuation; no words were changed or removed, and no verses were added or removed.
Look at all these videos coming out attacking the KJV-Satan is clearly not happy with what is going on. Why? Because people are waking up from his deception with the modern versions. After a long 100 years, people are starting to realize the KJV was faithfully translated, and no one in the translation committee had an "agenda," unlike the NIV committee, which had a lesbian as one of their "faithful translators."
Every modern translation, including the NKJV, has been influenced by Catholic-preserved translations.
The people of this world are waking up, and God is gathering all His people to proclaim His Word as we reign with Him for the next millennium.
There are some verses and parts of verses in the TR that have no ancient manuscript support whatever. I prefer the Majority Text, which is different from the text based on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
You nailed it…His WORD. Was He speaking of letters in ink upon pages?
You nailed it again! There is “ONLY ONE WORD OF GOD” as JN thoroughly proclaims.
The KJV doesn’t have any Catholic preserved writings? Come out of your Ruckmanite box and do a complete scholarly search.
Seldom have I ever got a correct answer to the question, "What is God's word"? Then I ask them to compare Exodus 1:11 and 1 Kings 6:1 for the date of the exodus. Both of those texts are God's word but time of their dates are 1446 BC and about 1250 BC. God's Word is the message from God.
Biblical mastery academy, the NASV isn't a good translation, neither are every modern translations. They come from the erroneous Alexandrian of Egypt texts who were anti Christian.
You have to put the right Greek word in the context to the right scriptures.
The NKJV is the most accurate translation
The KJV is perfect to use as your go to bible as long as you have a Strongs Exhaustive Concordance. Using Strongs you can look up every word in the KJV to see the Hebrew word in the OT and the Greek word in the NT that each word in the KJV that it was translated from and you will know exactly what God has to say to you. The KJV is the best, in my opinion, and I have been reading and studying from it for over 40 years. NASB not bad, also has a concordance you can buy to see the Hebrew and Greek words with thier definitions. NIV I would not recommend for a number of reasons which I will not get into here.
As a KJV onlyist, I like the KJV's English because it's more accurate to the biblical text than contemporary English. KJV English has never been spoken, the KJV is not in the English of 1611.
The RSV is not in the English of 1952, the NKJV is not in the English of 1982, and the ESV is not in the English of 2001. They all retain elements that are foreign to the periods in which they were produced, both because of their retention of archaic language (e.g. inverted negatives) and because of their adoption of Hebrew/Greek idioms. However, they are in an English that is as recognizable to the people of their time as the KJV was to the people of 1611.
Miles Smith would have strongly opposed your side and strongly supported those who have revised the committee's work in the centuries since its completion. If he would not, then he would be a hypocrite, and I am not convinced that he was:
*Now what can be more available thereto, than to deliver God's book unto God's people in a tongue which they understand? Since of a hidden treasure, and of a fountain that is sealed, there is no profit, as Ptolemy Philadelph wrote to the Rabbins or masters of the Jews, as witnesseth Epiphanius: and as S. Augustine saith; A man had rather be with his dog than with a stranger (whose tongue is strange unto him).*
*Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavor to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us.*
@MAMoreno thee, thou, thy, and thine is singular. Ye, you, your, and yours are plural. The KJV's English is more accurate than modern English is in translating the Bible. And I don't care what the KJV preface says.
KJV English was spoken. The KJV was largely the English of its day. Thee, thou, and thine were used in more informal conversation, although they did fall largely out of use by the 1700s and were completely obselete by the 1800s. I detest the notion that KJV English is somehow more accurate. The second person pronoun distinction is great, but a modern translation, the CSB, makes the distinction in the footnotes, and a translation like the LSB makes it within the translation. The KJV isn't completely accurate, either. "God forbid" is in the KJV multiple times, but the phrase isn't in the original languages. It is a more dynamic choice that conveys the meaning. The same with "God save the king." "Long live the king" is more accurate, and dynamic translations like the NLT and NIV are more accurate than the KJV there! It is false to say that the most accurate way to translate the Bible into English is to go back to the 1600s. We should not put unnecessary barriers between people and God's Word, by forcing them to use a 400 year old translation. I love the KJV, but KJV Onlyists are like the Flat Earthers of Christianity.
@@KenyonBowers The singular/plural distinction is typically obvious from context, and when it's not, there are plenty of ways of handling it without using archaic conventions (which were merely old hat in 1611 but are truly foreign today).
One of the most cited examples in defense of the thou/you distinction is Luke 22.31-32. However, the two most recent updates of the NASB have used italics to clarify the ambiguity in verse 31.
NASB 2020: “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded to sift you _men_ like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith will not fail; and you, when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”
LSB 2021: “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded to sift _all of_ you like wheat. But I have prayed earnestly for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, once you have returned, strengthen your brothers.”
And lest there be any more room for confusion, the NASB 2020 includes marginal notes throughout verse 32 to clarify that the pronouns are "singular, referring only to Peter." Other translations (CSB, ESV) offer similar footnotes.
As for dismissing the translators' preface, you dismiss their work by doing so. If you have to make an imaginary KJV in your head that wasn't produced by translators with those opinions, then you're not really King James Only: you're Peter Ruckman Only.
@@DanielSteel1999 thee, thou, thine, etc. were not used in the KJV the way they were used in the contemporary English of the time. The LSB doesn't make that distinction, and I shouldn't need a footnote every time the Bible says "you." I should be able to read it and remember, "Oh, it says 'thee,' so it's singular."
The KJV was using the strongest form of "no" they would have had, i.e. God forbid. It makes perfect sense why they translated it that way. As for "God save the king", looking at the lexicon, I'm not so sure they went completely dynamic in it. Sure, they did to a degree, but not completely.
There is no unnecessary barrier between people and the Bible because of the KJV. That's utterly foolish. The KJV is not hard to read or understand.