Errors in the King James Version
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 сер 2024
- [Free eBook offer from the AHRC - • A free offer from the ... ]
This is an excerpt from my seminar lecture "The Four Stages of Biblical Transmission" that demonstrates how errors have crept into the KJV and other translations.
The King James Version of the Bible, along with other translations, use the Masoretic (Hebrew) and Septuagint (Greek translation) texts as its foundation for its translation. However, both the Masoretic and Septuagint texts contain verifiable errors. These errors are then perpetuated into any translation that uses these texts.
While the KJV proponents reject the new translations, many of these newer translations have had access to sources such as the Dead Sea Scrolls that were not available to the older translations. These recently discovered texts will sometimes provide a more accurate text that better matches the original autographs.
The process of comparing the various ancient manuscripts of the original language (such as the Masoretic text, Dead Sea Scrolls, Samaritan Pentetuch, etc.) and translations (such as the Greek Septuagint, Aramaic Targums, etc) is called Textual Criticism. This process helps us to better reconstruct a Bible text that is closer to the original.
Also see my Challenge to KJVonlyers at
• My Challenge to the KJ...
Some worship a translation.
The Masoretic Text (MT) was an alteration of significant portions of the Square Hebrew Old Testament that began early (noted by the Talmud and Mishnah showing conflicting texts, contradictions, and multiple, competing rabbis making alterations) though Jews also used the Septuagint (translated from Square Hebrew in the mid third century BC), and older than the MT; The MT are hardly original scriptures and not a BC text; see Jeremiah 8:8 (Septuagint).
Paleo Hebrew, used from the 12th to 6th century BC (around 2,000 years older than the MT), gave way to Square Hebrew (around 1,300 years older than the MT), which then eventually gave way to Greek, as evidenced by the Septuagint, which is around 1,000 years than the MT. The Septuagint predates Christianity, used when Greek became the lingua franca, and its use in synagogues by Jews around the Mediterranean was substantiam.
Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint (LXX) within the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) preserve the originals, and overwhelmingly disagree with the MT in numerous instances. The Septuagint predates Christianity and scrolls from it are found within the Dead Sea Scrolls.
1.) Exodus 1:5 in the DSS Square Hebrew agrees with the Septuagint against the MT (and KJV) that all the souls from Jacob were 75, not 70.
2.) The older Square Hebrew in the DSS, the Samaritan Pentateuch, Aramaic Targums, etc, agrees with the Septuagint against the MT (and KJV) for Deut. 32:8-9 in using Sons/angels of God and not sons of Israel.
3.) The Square Hebrew in the DSS for Deuteronomy 32:43 lines up with the Septuagint against the MT (and KJV) saying the angels are to worship messiah.
4.) The Septuagint for 1 and 2 Samuel are backed up by 3 DSS and the MT is known among scholars as botching 1 and 2 Samuel badly.
5.) The MT wrongly has Saul becoming king at age one and ruling for two years.
6.) The MT actually left out an entire line from a Psalm that the Square Hebrew and the Septuagint preserved, thus the so-called masters of vowel memorization not only forgot vowels but also consonants.
7.) Psalm 40:6: a messianic proof text for the Incarnation:
The MT (and KJV): Thou hast dug out my ears.
The Septuagint: A body thou hast prepared me.
Yes. Unfortunately LXX also contains some errors:
For one, in Isaiah 25:8 LXX renders it as "Death has prevailed and swallowed them..."
But we know from 1 Corinthians 15:54 that Paul understood it was "He will swallow up death in victory."
Granted the Hebrew in the MT does leave the subject ambiguous in these verses so the choice is at least understandable, but I think it's safe to say that LXX has it wrong.
No translations are worthy of worship.
Ultimately, given the magnitude of errors of the MT plus the scribes and Masoretes targeting messianic scriptures to alter them, the Septuagint is greater than the MT.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John:1:1
The Word = God
The word of God IS God
O *WORSHIP THE LORD* in the beauty of holiness: fear before him, all the earth.
Psalm:96:9
We worship a perfect translation of God's word (which is God)... AMEN TO THAT 🙌
@@user-sy4ec3em5o and he became flesh and dwelt among us
Well, actually I agree with everything you just said. The "nerve" that you hit, and it may have been an assumption on my part, is that you claimed the KJV, over any other translation, is the word of God, which means that the KJV is the "only" true Bible. I have debated KJV onlyists for years and I have found them to be arrogant and closed minded to anything but their own so called truths and reject any body elses opinions, facts and evidences.
I think the New Testament has been more corrupted than the Old Testament
I like the way the late Dr. Kelly Nelson Birks put it: If KJV only is the word of God, then what was the word of God prior to the 1600's? 😜
@@heartsandmindsathome Most people back then couldn't read
@@gustavmahler1466 i agree the kjv is refered to as the twisted scriptures. Dont argue with those folks they are happy happy happy living in the box
“The sheep will hear their shepherds voice.” KJV stands true!
@UnleashedGraffixx Let me make sure I understand you correctly, are you saying there are no errors in the KJV? If so, how do you explain the error presented in this video?
In Dead Sea Scroll, two Deuteronomy 32:8 have been found but the facts are weird: one, 4Q45 Paleod-, sides with LXX; the other, 4Q37 D-j, sides with Masoretic. How to deal with this?
@DiscipleInstinct Most of the Hebrew and Greek texts I refer to are available on line. I have the Hebrew text of the tanach (OT) on my website. For the Greek Septuagint, just do a search for it and you should be able to find it.
You said, "What is the point of this super analysis of the whole subject, can it add anything to my faith?"
In my opinion, absolutely yes. Understanding the Bible in its original Hebraic context completely changes how one reads the Bible. Most Christians read it from a western Christian perspective and ignore the fact that it was originally written in Ancient Eastern Hebrew culture. As I demonstrate is some of my other videos, the two philosophies are as different as ngiht and day.
I could not agree with you more! Thank you.
And yet, the people of Jesus' time, who knew the ancient Hebrew, mostly rejected Him. I don't doubt there is some value in knowing the original languages, but much more depends on the spirit of the seeker.
@vachief How do you define the word "God?"
@vachief Two questions. 1. I don't see the word "appear" in the KJV in Ex 7:1, are you adding that yourself? 2. How do you, or should I say God, define the word "god?"
The phrase in question is ha-omrim lara. When we break this down we have;
ha - the (definite article)
omer - saying (participle)
im - ones (omrim being the plural participle form)
la - to (preposition)
ra - evil (noun)
when we put all of this together we have "the ones saying to evil." No where in there is the idea of "calling." The Hebrew word for "calling" is qore.
actually the RSV version supplies a footnote ( which they always do when someone is pointing out some contrived anomaly ) Psalms 145 :13 " .. the lord is faithfull in all his words and gracious in all his deeds " with the foot note reading * These two lines are supplied by one Hebrew ,Ms,Gk,Syr. which implies it is found in the Greek , Syrian , and Masoretic versions . The RSV is no " johnny come lately" you know ? I have found versions as old as the 1860's. The revisors began their work when they began to notice problems with the KJV such as the contrived syntax and words that have changed meanings over the centuries .For the record there is no perfect English translation and this has been done by design .
@Duggars14 Would you say that the KJV is perfect, or the Hebrew text?
@vachief So, if the Leningrad and Aleppo Codex's are corrupt, then please explain to me what Hebrew manuscripts the KJV translators used?
There is always something lost in translation from one language to another.
A sentence often spoken by a person who speaks one language. My wife speaks five and says that bs.
---->You know why these "error" videos never gain any traction?
What?, I see 38,940 views, seems like traction to me.
Jeff, I am curious about which manuscript you are translating because that does make a difference. Would you mind sharing that information?
From the Masoretic Hebrew text. Contrary to popular understanding, there is only one Hebrew text, the Masoretic, and all translations use the same text. There are different versions of the Masoretic text, but their differences are very slight, a letter change here and there.
If the KJv is wrong and I want to stick to ONE translation, which would you recommend?
And this is one of the very reasons WHY, I'm NO LONGER a a King James Onlyist anymore! 🙂👍
From a religious standpoint, I've been told the notion is that despite that there may be errors or meanings may be lost in translation (given just how many languages the bible has been translated from) the idea is that this process is ultimately guided by God and/or that the ultimate meanings and message they convey, rather than the syntax of the words, should be what is most important.
How can you base your salvation on that? It’s lazy spiritually
Conviction from the Holy Comforter is the ultimate guide into all truth.
@@okayyeah8699Because words are only as good as their message
"We have this treasure in earthen vessels." It is the thoughts of God that are inspired. The words are those of the languages of men, and there can be minor mistakes in the text as it was copied and translated, and also difficulty conveying God's thoughts, which are infinite, in a weak, finite language. But God didn't just put one idea in one lone text, He put His thoughts all through the Bible, repeating them in words, examples, parables, object lessons, etc. So by lining up all those different expositions of the same truth, it is not difficult to avoid the variance that one mistranslated text might have conveyed.
The Bible is a combination of divinity and humanity. Jesus, the word of God, "was made flesh." It is no different when He came as a man. Did He come in sinless pure flesh, without any traces of the effects of sin? Not at all! His humanity came from the line of David, Abraham, etc. "made in the likeness of sinful flesh." Did Jesus put His entire confidence in His flesh? No! Why would He spend all nights in prayer, if He thought His flesh was infallible and could be trusted? He knew the weakness that was in the flesh.
Furthermore, since He was not the Messiah that people were expecting, most of the Jews rejected Him. They did not consider Him to be perfect. Likewise with the Bible. It may contain the perfect thoughts of God...but how many people discern those thoughts? Not many, because humans have their own idea of how a perfect God should be.
Nevertheless, divinity was housed and expressed through the flesh of Christ, just as the Divine thoughts are expressed in the weak and erring words of men. Even if we had a perfect book, in a perfect language, we would still misunderstand it, because the problem is not in the Bible, it is in weak humanity.
@vachief Is there a perfect Hebrew translation of the KJV for those who speak and read Hebrew?
What Hebrew manuscripts are you using? The one's that the KJV translators used? Or the one's that the Roman Catholic Church uses?
I had two different friends who enlightened me to this over 20 years ago.
One was a world celebrated cartoonist & humorous illustrator whose work was made into toys and included in major motion pictures. He was also a historical explorer who spoke fluent Hebrew. He told me there are a lot of errors in both books of the Bible because Hebrew doesn't translate well(particularly into English), some words & useage not at all. He said the really ancient Hebrew is completely lost because no one today, not even the top Jewish linguists, know what it means. At the time of his death he was producing a two-hour TV documentary about discovering the real remains of Noah's Arc. They found it in a different location than where everyone else is looking because of their noticing an error in one word of Biblical translation.
The other was from a biker brother who was a Messianic Jew. He told me the first New Testament Bible was written by the Catholic Church and everything since is really a variation on it.
I'm sure you fight a lot of backlash but keep up the good work. This needs to be made known.
Hi Joe, so what have you been reading for 20 years ever since? I suppose you believe that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God and in the Father and Holy Spirit?
None of those changes changed the context or meaning...So what does it matter??
*****
Oh okay. That's fair enough. I agree and Agreed.
actually look at the genealogy for Noah. The original scriptures adds 650 years of time; meaning the Flood happened well before the Pyramids were built. The KJV is based off a much newer script that takes that time off and makes a global flood and the pyramids non-compatible.
Actually, IF you study Egyptology, and especially Rohn's Chronology, and the "Thinkers" group with Tim Mahoney, ( patternsofevidence.com ) you would see that the alleged chronology by secularists is out by several centuries - and when it is corrected to match archeology rather than opinion, the flood and the exodus all fit well.
IF you research the timeline of the pre-flood in books such as Adam When, you find not just 650 years but possibly up to 2000 years MORE time than generally conceded for convenience. The issue there is that many of the "begats" were NOT the physical offspring of the patriarch, but a male child born in the year of the patriarch's death. This pattern continued after the flood as well for a time, til we can match events with Scripture for an accurate timeline.
In Egypt today in digs at Avaris, a small temple/pyramid has been uncovered - in a courtyard of 12 smaller buildings and one large one - of a supersized statue, NOT Egyptian, with a striped coat and an obvious position of great power. Is this Joseph?
@vachief Wasn't your interpretation of Exodus 7:1 your "own private interpretation? If not, please site the source of an organization (not individual, as that would be his own private interpretation) who made that interpretation.
Are all modern translation corrupt in your opinion? Have you read and proofed all of the newer translations? I agree with you in part, some newer translations are suspect and some are downright abominations. But others are quite excellent (One being the ISR's The Scriptures). I like to use the NRKJV (Names Revised: there is another called Revised Names which I do not use) and The Scriptures for reading. For study I like to use many Bibles along with an interlinear, Strong's Enhanced, etc.
I've read KJV but lately I've been reading from NIV. I also recently bought the Koren Jerusalem Bible that has Hebrew on the facing page. I was wondering what people's suggestions as to the best English version. My guess would be the Koren version, because it's compiled by people who use Hebrew and English in everyday speech. It also has the advantage that I can check Hebrew words and learn a little bit of that language.
Kjv no doubt
@@davidmoss1445 Douais Rheims is much better, given that the KJV pretty much used it as its main source
@tgambill "No thanks on the video?" I see, you want to believe you what you want, and refuse to look at any evidence that contradicts that view, hmmm, sounds like a cult to me.
@vachief English is my first language, Hebrew my second. I have never heard of a translation from the KJV into any other language. I am curious to see one. Where can I see a translation of the KJV in any other language?
The Chinese King James Version
Jeff Benner, do you speak fluent Hebrew to the point that you could go to isreal and speak to them on their advanced dialect ?
Excellent. Out of all the translations I own, the ESV is the only one that transcribed Lev 20:10 the way you described. Good video.
I think the best modern translation of Hebrew direct to English are the books sold by Artscroll company.
@vachief Are these translations of the KJV also perfect?
Is the KJV translation of Deut 32:8 referring to Jacob? I'm not sure why it would refer to him when it says "sons of Israel" and then the following verse would say Jacob, but it's just a thought. Or is this completely obvious and I'm missing it lol
@memetoto That is a very unique and interesting interpration, the only problem is that it would be very inconsistent with how Hebrew is written throughout the entire Bible. Just because something sounds good in our day and age, doesn't mean it sounded good in ancient times.
The kjv doesn’t change or remove versus tho like the critical text
No, the KJV adds verses that are not original.
So, which version is the best to read?
I would choose one that aims to faithfully reproduce the original text. But really, you will find the truth in all of them, if you are seeking for the truth, that you may keep it. Much more depends on the spirit of the reader, than on an "infallible" text. Jesus was a perfect man, but He was not recognized as such by most people of His time. Humans have the same problem with the Bible, but it is not the fault of a few minor copying errors in the text.
@vachief I thought it was strange to have a translation of a translation, that is why I asked. The KJV, NIV, NASB, etc are "English" only translations. That's why you'll never find a "Spanish" KJV or NIV. When you translate into other languages you have a different Bible. For instance in Spanish there is the NVI and RVR. Please let me know what you find out. My question then is, if God has preserved his word perfectly, is there a perfect translation for all languages?
Anything divine, in the hands of man, is subject to error, and misuse. - Rev. Lee Stonekng
The same God who created everything promised to preserve his words for ever and you somehow doubt that fact ? Remember let God be true and every man be a liar have a nice day ...
Yea that is true.
@@brucedressel8873 One the translation's say that not God and on top of that we don't know if their is a God.
We don't even know which translation is the best and each translation says different thing's.
So which one is right ?
All translation's claim to be the word of God but no one has a way of knowing.
Shane Strickland
“We don’t know if their is a god” ummm you should solve that problem first before you start criticizing the Bible.
@@samsmith346 You don't get the point most God's are easy to disprove.
That's if the attributes are self contridictory.
In other word's you can disprove certain God's.
This does not mean their is no God at all.
But the Christian God attributes contradict each other so his existence is impossible.
This does not mean the original scriptures suffer from the logical problems the translations do.
I have studied into the Greek and Hebrew a bit and the original meaning of certain words and when certain doctrines invaded Christian theology.
I have also studied into how certain word's have changed in meaning.
you can nit pick or just read and obey it
Nit pick? Searching out the truth is a trait The Most High says we should strive for.
Strive to enter in at the straight gate.
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.
(Prov 25:2, KJV)
Nitpick? Rather than try to find the true translations? I respectfully disagree.
AMEN
@vachief So you think that because the KJV is the only translation that uses the word preserve, you think that that preservation was in the KJV? Do you believe the KJV is inspired? Do you believe the KJV is without error?
Which version would you say english speaking people would get the most from reading and studying as related to the translated languages from which english bibles come from? PeaceB2Ya
Actually, I think the majority of the "experts" on Hebrew and the Masoretic text would agree with me. I know this as I have read and talked to a lot of the experts and what they have to say on this subject.
Thank you. Impressive. Blessings
Anyone can go to another bible and see what that bible says and use that and see what the other bibles say and call it an error or erros. Go within in its own txt and use that bible alone you find erros, flaws, condredictions, lies etc... I can show you errors in the other bibles using its own txt don’t need the KJV. That’s the difference...
God isn’t a liar God promises to preserve his word, and it also says God isn’t a liar God cannot lie. Also says men can’t live on bread alone but by every word of God where is it at? There is only one full true word of God where is it at? It’s not that hard to understand this, a lot of deception by man and Satan. I can’t find no erros in the kjb alone in its own txt but I can show you erros and condredictions in all the other religious books using there own txt
@LDSfaithDefender I agree, mistranslations and misunderstandings abound in all English translations including the KJV. As for Exodus 22:18, the word translated as witch is כשף (kasaph), as far as I know, is of unknown meaning. May I ask where you got "poisoner?"
@babiesfriendly what is Daniel 11 vs14 Talking about .or whts the prophesy of that
When one professes to be a Christian, but doesn't believe any Bible is the preserved, inspired and inerrant word of Almighty God which He emphatically states many times would NEVER pass away, that makes them a Bible agnostic or Bible atheist by definition. Here is about three years worth of reading on any question one would like answered as to why all modern versions are Roman Catholic in origin and practice. There are also some good links on this page. God bless and enjoy! dorightchristians.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/will-kinney-kjv-index/comment-page-1/#comment-575
God preserved His Word in the same way He inspired it: in Hebrew and Greek. We know the KJV is not perfectly preserved because of its many errors. The KJV is not a perfect translation. It has many errors:
1. KJV:
"robbers of churches." Acts 19:37
Greek: HIEROSULOUS, "robbers of temples"
2. KJV: "Lucifer" Is 14:12
Hebrew: "O Day Star" (Lucifer is a human origin nickname for the Devil in the 1600's refers not to the devil but the king of Babylon)
3. KJV: "Easter" Acts 12:4
"Passover"
4. KJV: "Tithes of all I possess" Lk 18:12
Greek: "all I acquire"
5. KJV: "Schoolmaster" Gal 3:24
Greek: "attendant" (the law was the one who brought us to Christ, not taught us about Christ)
6. KJV: "God save the King": 1Sam 10:24, 2Sam 16:16, 1Kings 1:25
Hebrew: "May the king live" ( reflects the British culture of the 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.)
7. KJV: "God Forbid." Ro. 3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; 11:1,11; 1 Co. 6:15; Ga. 2:17; 3:21; 6:14
Greek: "may it not be" or "let it not be." (KJV adds the word God where it is absent in the TR because it was a common expression in 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.)
8. KJV: "sweet savour" Lev 6:21; 8:28; 17:6; 23:18
Hebrew: "soothing aroma" (KJV appeals to wrong senses- taste instead of smell in the TR)
9. KJV: "ashes upon his face" 1 Kings 20:38
Hebrew: "bandage over his eyes" (KJV varies from TR by using ashes)
Well said, Calvin.
@@yeoberry as you can see they all mean the same thing God said he would preserve the words not the letters. Kjv is the perfect Bible
@@andreanunez5510 :
The KJV has numerous errors, such as:
1. KJV:
"robbers of churches." Acts 19:37
Greek: HIEROSULOUS, "robbers of temples"
2. KJV: "Lucifer" Is 14:12
Hebrew: "O Day Star" (Lucifer is a human origin nickname for the Devil in the 1600's refers not to the devil but the king of Babylon)
3. KJV: "Easter" Acts 12:4
"Passover"
4. KJV: "Tithes of all I possess" Lk 18:12
Greek: "all I acquire"
5. KJV: "Schoolmaster" Gal 3:24
Greek: "attendant" (the law was the one who brought us to Christ, not taught us about Christ)
6. KJV: "God save the King": 1Sam 10:24, 2Sam 16:16, 1Kings 1:25
Hebrew: "May the king live" ( reflects the British culture of the 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.)
7. KJV: "God Forbid." Ro. 3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; 11:1,11; 1 Co. 6:15; Ga. 2:17; 3:21; 6:14
Greek: "may it not be" or "let it not be." (KJV adds the word God where it is absent in the TR because it was a common expression in 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.)
8. KJV: "sweet savour" Lev 6:21; 8:28; 17:6; 23:18
Hebrew: "soothing aroma" (KJV appeals to wrong senses- taste instead of smell in the TR)
9. KJV: "ashes upon his face" 1 Kings 20:38
Hebrew: "bandage over his eyes" (KJV varies from TR by using ashes)
10. Mark 7:19b: KJV has "expelled" when it should be "He declared all foods cleansed."
@@RobespierreThePoof :
You don't understand what Biblical inerrancy is. It doesn't deny that there were changes and errors made in the transmission of the manuscripts.
When I read the Bible, I like to read the KJV, but I don't only read that version. Many times if I don't understand a word or phrase, I look it up in other version. Then from there, the Holy Spirit is my Guide. Anyone Else?
Don't force people read KJV only!
@@tdickensheets totally agree (1 John 2:27)
Does Maccabees section have any errors. Let me know thanks
many errors in the books of the maccabees.
Eugene Gina There are errors in every translation. Never use a single translation, and take every English word literally.
I'm wondering if you have analyzed Isaiah 7:14.
Hebrew vs English translation.
I think it's the cult-like mentality of the KJV-only crowd that is so offensive, rather than the translation itself. They are nearly like the Muslims screaming that it's perfectly preserved, error free, and even inspired. Erasmus was a RC priest and humanist, and he edited the Greek text on which stands the King James (and Erasmus' is dubbed "the most poorly edited volume in all of literature"). I appreciate all my translations (including the KJV), but I'm wed to none of them.
im currently talking to a kjvo, and all they do is take verses out of context, spouting basically what you have just said. almost like mormons and going to thier mantra. "kjv is perfect, because i say its perfect." and lets not forget that big bad vatican always getting in the way of everything. and some alexandrian error getting in the way. makes no sense.
This link below includes a discussion on the issue of Erasmus. As for the Bible, God clearly tells us that it is perfect and not to be added to or taken away from. And that He will preserve it forever. He also tells us to "study" and "search the Scriptures", which tells me that we do have them somewhere. Note, ONLY ONE Bible can be the perfect one.
thegloryland.com/index.php?p=1_135_king-James-Audio-Videos-Intresting
Reva Stephens well the bible is Gods word, and is sufficient. and as for not adding or subtracting it mean the doctrines and not one has been lost. as well as the meaning of it. and if you say its the kjv then you have not researched this long enough, i suggest looking at the patristic fathers, like clement and polycarp and so forth. and well as other translations of the scriptures. and dont just take my word for it, do as paul stated, be a good berean and search these things out and see if they are true. especially whats said about the bible, like the other translations.
im curious do you subscribe to the notion the the kjv is the only english version we should use? if so why?
Yahshua my saviour i see, well, can you clarify this statement how im offensive? and if you state this, you have not read your bible. because the bible when i first read it, and came to believe in the God of the bible. it was offensive to me. the gospel is offencive to unbelievers as well. have you ever given the law to an unbeliever? and then gave the gospel to them?
and like i stated to the other gentle men. be a good berean.
acts 17:10-15
TheSqaull17
I think it was Dr. Daniel Wallace, who wrote the most used text on the Greek language, who said something like ... 'it should be the Cross of Christ which is the stumbling block, not a Bible translation'. He writes a good scholarly article on why he finds the KJV to be an inferior translation, based on the mountains of MSS we have available to us now, that the KJV translators didn't have:
bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today
He writes as a disinterested scholar of Greek, rather than a knee-jerk emotional proponent of any translation.
For everyone saying that the KJV is the PERFECT translation and the pure word of God, You are either brainwashed or highly in denial. I understand that there were transliteration errors in there for sure, and I still use the KJV as my authority. For one when you see the very word "GOD" or" LORD" that is a replacement for YHWH.( YahWeh,( Elohim) or (Jehovah). So they use titles instead of actual names. And that is all through the Bible. Also in the greek language Jesus was actually "Iesous" and in the aramaic"Yeshua" or in Hebrew Yehoshua" The exact same name of one of the only 2 who made it into the promised land in the Old Testament. The KJV was translated by MAN, so that alone will let you know that it isnt PERFECT. The Hebrew language is a very hard language to translate and transliterate and I know a few places in the KJV that arent exactly correct. In Acts 7;45 one word is erroneous in the translation. It says " Jesus" instead of Joshua. The entire verse and chapter is describing Moses and the Israelites in the wilderness, so it would make no sense whatsoever for it to say " Jesus" and the reason it was erroneous was the fact that Jesus had the exact same name. I believe in the authority of the KJV until I find a more accurate translation, I will continue to use it. I also Know beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is power in the name of "Jesus". My point is we should all study the word of God in such depths,language,translations and such to search for the most accurate and authentic translations possible. We live in the age of information and its not hard to find a translational site that is 100% accurate and as we remain in our faith,we should not be naive in thinking that one translation is PURE AND PERFECT. Because although it is leaps and bounds more authentic than any other modern translation, it does contain at least one or two errors. May God guide and direct your hearts and minds into the path of truth.
Try 150 errors and counting . . . and NO, its NOT the most accurate - apart from the NWT, it is probably the worst of the top 20
+JOSHJU BEAR
Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. "
"
deliberately taken out of CONTEXT, as ANY bible study half accurate will tell you.
Correctly translated:
"Deliver, Lord!
For the godly 3 have disappeared; 4
people of integrity 5 have vanished. 6
12:2 People lie to one another; 7
they flatter and deceive. 8
12:3 May the Lord cut off 9 all flattering lips,
and the tongue that boasts! 10
12:4 They say, 11 “We speak persuasively; 12
we know how to flatter and boast. 13
Who is our master?” 14
12:5 “Because of the violence done to the oppressed, 15
because of the painful cries 16 of the needy,
I will spring into action,” 17 says the Lord.
“I will provide the safety they so desperately desire.” 18
12:6 The Lord’s words are absolutely reliable. 19
They are as untainted as silver purified in a furnace on the ground,
where it is thoroughly refined. 20
12:7 You, Lord, will protect them; 21
you will continually shelter each one from these evil people, 22
12:8 for the wicked seem to be everywhere, 23
when people promote evil. 24 "
Translation noted on the linguistics you ignore:
"19 tn Heb “the words of the Lord are pure words,” i.e., untainted by falsehood or deception (in contrast to the flattery of the evildoers, v. 2).
20 tn Heb “[like] silver purified in a furnace of [i.e., “on”] the ground, refined seven times.” The singular participle מְזֻקָּק (mÿzuqqaq, “refined”) modifies “silver.” The number seven is used rhetorically to express the thorough nature of the action. For other rhetorical/figurative uses of שִׁבְעָתָיִם (shiv’atayim, “seven times”), see Gen 4:15, 24; Ps 79:12; Prov 6:31; Isa 30:26.
21 tn The third person plural pronominal suffix on the verb is masculine, referring back to the “oppressed” and “needy” in v. 5 (both of those nouns are plural in form), suggesting that the verb means “protect” here. The suffix does not refer to אִמֲרוֹת (’imarot, “words”) in v. 6, because that term is feminine gender.
22 tn Heb “you will protect him from this generation permanently.” The third masculine singular suffix on the verb “protect” is probably used in a distributive sense, referring to each one within the group mentioned previously (the oppressed/needy, referred to as “them” in the preceding line). On this grammatical point see GKC 396 §123.f (where the present text is not cited). (Some Hebrew mss and ancient textual witnesses read “us,” both here and in the preceding line.) The noun דוֹר (dor, “generation”) refers here to the psalmist’s contemporaries, who were characterized by deceit and arrogance (see vv. 1-2). See BDB 189-90 s.v. for other examples where “generation” refers to a class of people."
+JOSHJU BEAR
Man shall not live on bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Deuteronomy 8:3
Matthew 4:4
Luke 4:4
add those up, 16:11"
HUH? Those verse designations have NOTHING to do with anything in the real OR spiritual world. NOR does the number.
Obviously, the KJB did NOT proceed from the mouth of God - NO word of God would have so many contradictions, outright errrors, and inclusions from corrupted Catholic texts.
I Hope you know that the KJB is 100% Catholic from Gen 1: 1 to the last chapter of Revelation; that was made up from pieces of commentaries.
Erasmus who created the Received Text (Falsely called the Texus Receptus - a book that was NOT published til 1631), was a Catholic theologian. HE dedicated the Catholic Greek text to Pope Leo X. He opposed the reformation and Luther. He inserted many passages Directly from the Vulgate, giving a reading NO previous Greek text EVER had. That is why the KJB had the Apocrypha, which was to support purgatory. And why the immaculate conception of Mary was included along with birthdays of popes . . .
That is why those "lost verses" are in margins or footnotes - for they never existed in ANY Greek text EVER before 1300 and Erasmus.
If the King James is not perfect, then there is NO correct English Bible. What are you going to offer in its place, huh? All English versions after the King James are riddled with errors. The evidence is overwhelming, and has been available for a long time.
Vinny, is it possible "Joshua" in Hebrew is the same name as "Jesus" in Greek?
@buzulakd Can you explain this footnote in The Good News bible found at the end of John 8:1-11 concerning the woman taken in the act of adultery?
Footnotes:
John 8:11 Many manuscripts and early translations do not have this passage (8.1-11); others have it after Jn 21.24; others have it after Lk 21.38; one manuscript has it after Jn 7.36
I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. Are you asking for a verse in the Bible that says KJVonlyism is true or false?
Jesus Christ is The Eternal Word Of God.
Jesus is Perfect ‼️ He is The 1 that doesn’t change!
Good video. I'm sorry there are so many who hate you for the knowledge you teach because their *religion* grips them tighter than their faith.
@vachief I'm not sure what your view on the scribes has to do with the erasing of God's name. Are you saying that the Masoretic text is not trustworthy at all? If so, then why did the KJV translators use it for their translation? Maybe the scribes Jesus was referring to were those of the KJV translation who he knew would one day erase the name of God?
It all depends on what you base one’s view of truth upon. “Ye shall know them by their fruits” Matthew 7:16-not necessarily their roots. Where do the different versions lead towards?
It's very English centric too, because I know of no other inspired versions in other languages.
(Matthew 22:29) "Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God."
Prov181
Through desire a man, having separated himself, seeks and intermeddles with all wisdom.
A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself.
(Prov 18:1-2, KJV)
AMEN
The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord , thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Psalms 12:6-7 KJV
The Masoretic Text (MT) was an alteration of significant portions of the Square Hebrew Old Testament that began early (noted by the Talmud and Mishnah showing conflicting texts, contradictions, and multiple, competing rabbis making alterations) though Jews also used the Septuagint (translated from Square Hebrew in the mid third century BC), and older than the MT; The MT are hardly original scriptures and not a BC text; see Jeremiah 8:8 (Septuagint).
Paleo Hebrew, used from the 12th to 6th century BC (around 2,000 years older than the MT), gave way to Square Hebrew (around 1,300 years older than the MT), which then eventually gave way to Greek, as evidenced by the Septuagint, which is around 1,000 years than the MT. The Septuagint predates Christianity, used when Greek became the lingua franca, and its use in synagogues by Jews around the Mediterranean was substantiam.
Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint (LXX) within the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) preserve the originals, and overwhelmingly disagree with the MT in numerous instances. The Septuagint predates Christianity and scrolls from it are found within the Dead Sea Scrolls.
1.) Exodus 1:5 in the DSS Square Hebrew agrees with the Septuagint against the MT (and KJV) that all the souls from Jacob were 75, not 70.
2.) The older Square Hebrew in the DSS, the Samaritan Pentateuch, Aramaic Targums, etc, agrees with the Septuagint against the MT (and KJV) for Deut. 32:8-9 in using Sons/angels of God and not sons of Israel.
3.) The Square Hebrew in the DSS for Deuteronomy 32:43 lines up with the Septuagint against the MT (and KJV) saying the angels are to worship messiah.
4.) The Septuagint for 1 and 2 Samuel are backed up by 3 DSS and the MT is known among scholars as botching 1 and 2 Samuel badly.
5.) The MT wrongly has Saul becoming king at age one and ruling for two years.
6.) The MT actually left out an entire line from a Psalm that the Square Hebrew and the Septuagint preserved, thus the so-called masters of vowel memorization not only forgot vowels but also consonants.
7.) Psalm 40:6: a messianic proof text for the Incarnation:
The MT (and KJV): Thou hast dug out my ears.
The Septuagint: A body thou hast prepared me.
After Jesus says this, he teaches from Enoch. Even Paul quotes Enoch. Check out that last line...
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness: so that the man of God may BE COMPLETE, FULLY EQUIPPED FOR EVERY GOOD WORK (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
To the righteous and the wise shall be given books of joy, of integrity, and of great wisdom. To them shall books be given, in which they shall believe; And in which they shall rejoice. And all the righteous shall be rewarded, who from these SHALL ACQUIRE THE KNOWLEDGE OF EVERY UPRIGHT PATH (The Book of Enoch 104:10-11).
@vachief Do you mean God is only limited to just one language?
@MrMoonlight222 What else is there besides the KJV? Well, let me give you the short list of what I use...
Stone's edition Tanach (Hebrew and English)
RSV (English)
NASB (English)
Young's Literal (English)
ASV (English)
Allepo Codex (Hebrew)
Leningrad Codex (Hebrew)
Septuagint (Greek)
Dead Sea Scrolls (Hebrew)
Targum (Aramaic)
Peshitta (Aramaic)
So what I understand from this short clip is that there are No significant or "life altering" changes in the King James version as compared to the other versions.
No not really. No English translation is perfect by any means. Heck, if you realized how much we lose in just translation your mind would be blown. This is why having multiple translations is actually a pretty awesome thing. It makes up for it at least somewhat. If you like the KJV, then use it; it's good. I think this video is really just to rebuke those who say that good ole' King Jimmy is the "only Word of God."
Your post is ONLY plausible because you being a brainwashed cultist, rather than a serious Bible scholar. It is utterly without ANY Scriptural foundation.
There are NO verses missing anywhere in any of the accurate versions - those that are 'missing " are usually in the margin and footnotes - as the KJB did - those verses being ones NOT in any ancient Greek text from antiquity.
We KNOW there were many insertions and revisions of the poor 12th century Greek texts used to create the basis for the KJB - because the collator of those texts (Erasmus) writes at length about it.
The diety of Christ is NEVER an issue in ANY Bible; that is a lie. Show me ONE Bible that denies the diety of Christ (apart from the NWT). YOU cannot.
Jesus is NEVER equated to Lucvifer in ANY accurate Bible, another lie; THE KJB translators did NOT like that BOTH the King of Babylon and Jesus were called son of the morning, and so deliberatly modified the text to include Lucifer, rather than the ONLY possible translation - MORNING STAR; and Acts 8:38 is a very late addition NOT in any Greek text before about 1000 AD:
"92 tc A few later mss (E 36 323 453 945 1739 1891 pc) add, with minor variations, 8:37 “He said to him, ‘If you believe with your whole heart, you may.’ He replied, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’” Verse 37 is lacking in {Ì45,74 א A B C 33 614 vg syp,h co}. It is clearly not a part of the original text of Acts. The variant is significant in showing how some in the early church viewed a confession of faith. The present translation follows NA27 in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations."
To be so blatantly ignorant about your cult's Bible, and to be so sarcastic about anyone wanting to KNOW what the followers of the apostles had to read, is far past arrogant - it could be demonic to be so antagonistic against those that actually STUDY the Bible.
Paul Robinson look at this. www.hissheep.org/kjv/a_comparison_of_the_kjv_niv.html
You can't deny these. FYI God hates arrogance. Be careful because your in danger.
The NIV isn't the only one.
God also hates a lying tongue. Does your post NOT bother you? Be careful, for YOU are in danger.
And just to tweak your nose a bit - I am NOT an NIV fan - but it is light years more accurate than the KJB, and created with the ONLY intent being to make the gospel plain and win souls - NOT at all like the Imperial mandates to establish and legitimize the state church of England as the KJ was.
The NIV exceeds thew KJN on text, accuracy, motive and supportability.
OK _ I looked - utter deception is OBVIOUS.
"Matthew 6:13 KJV "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." NIV "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one." The NIV leaves out "For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever. Amen." Everything pertaining to His Kingdom and Deity is left out."
Matthew 6:33 KJV "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." NIV "But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." "The kingdom of God" is changed to "his kingdom."
Matthew 8:29 KJV "And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?" NIV "'What do you want with us, Son of God?' they shouted. '"Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?'" NIV leaves out "Jesus, thou", degrading the power of the verse concerning His deity."
NOT one of those verses were accurately translated in the KJB, and those missing words are NOT in any historical Bible. They were insertions over the years that are ACCURATELY relegated to margins and foot note if referenced at all - AS IT SHOULD BE! and as the KJ translators did.
"Matt 6:13 And do not lead us into temptation, 18 but deliver us from the evil one. 19 "
"19 tc Most mss (L W Θ 0233 Ë13 33 Ï sy sa Didache) read (though some with slight variation) ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν (“for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever, amen”) here. The reading without this sentence, though, is attested by generally better witnesses (א B D Z 0170 Ë1 pc lat mae Or). The phrase was probably composed for the liturgy of the early church and most likely was based on 1 Chr 29:11-13; a scribe probably added the phrase at this point in the text for use in public scripture reading (see TCGNT 13-14). Both external and internal evidence argue for the shorter reading."
"Matt 6:33 But above all pursue his kingdom 44 and righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well."
"44 tc ‡ Most mss (L W Θ 0233 Ë1,13 33 Ï lat sy mae) read τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ (thn basileian tou qeou kai thn dikaiosunhn aujtou, “the kingdom of God and his righteousness”) here, but the words “of God” are lacking in א B pc sa bo Eus. On the one hand, there is the possibility of accidental omission on the part of these Alexandrian witnesses, but it seems unlikely that the scribe’s eye would skip over both words (especially since τοῦ θεοῦ is bracketed by first declension nouns). Intrinsically, the author generally has a genitive modifier with βασιλεία - especially θεοῦ or οὐρανῶν (ouranwn) - but this argument cuts both ways: Although he might be expected to use such an adjunct here, scribes might also be familiar with his practice and would thus naturally insert it if it were missing in their copy of Matthew. Although a decision is difficult, the omission of τοῦ θεοῦ is considered most likely to be original. NA27 includes the words in brackets, indicating doubt as to their authenticity."
"Matt 8:29 They 51 cried out, “Son of God, leave us alone! 52 Have you come here to torment us before the time?” 53 "
"51 tn Grk “And behold, they cried out, saying.” The Greek word ἰδού (idou) has not been translated because it has no exact English equivalent here, but adds interest and emphasis (BDAG 468 s.v. 1). The participle λέγοντες (legontes) is redundant and has not been translated.
52 tn Grk “what to us and to you?” (an idiom). The phrase τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί (ti Jhmin kai soi) is Semitic in origin, though it made its way into colloquial Greek (BDAG 275 s.v. ἐγώ). The equivalent Hebrew expression in the OT had two basic meanings: (1) When one person was unjustly bothering another, the injured party could say “What to me and to you?” meaning, “What have I done to you that you should do this to me?” (Judg 11:12, 2 Chr 35:21, 1 Kgs 17:18). (2) When someone was asked to get involved in a matter he felt was no business of his own, he could say to the one asking him, “What to me and to you?” meaning, “That is your business, how am I involved?” (2 Kgs 3:13, Hos 14:8). These nuances were apparently expanded in Greek, but the basic notions of defensive hostility (option 1) and indifference or disengagement (option 2) are still present. BDAG suggests the following as glosses for this expression: What have I to do with you? What have we in common? Leave me alone! Never mind! Hostility between Jesus and the demons is certainly to be understood in this context, hence the translation: “Leave us alone….”
53 sn There was an appointed time in which demons would face their judgment, and they seem to have viewed Jesus’ arrival on the scene as an illegitimate change in God’s plan regarding the time when their sentence would be executed"
________________________________________
As you can see - YOUR reference - the three I gave you correct readigs for - were a lie by the writer - NOTHING was left out, for it was never IN any ancient text.
Lying for Jesus is abominable - yet the KJ cultists who constantly lie about things being left out of accurate translations are generally lying - and IF they took the time to study texts would be aware of it.
THE KJB is NOT the standard against which others are compared - it is just one of many translations that MUST be compared with the best (oldest) texts we have.
When doing so, it is an abject failure and among the worst of translations in use today.
Someone sharedthat when a person says, "that word in Greek, ACTUALLY MEANS..." That what they are saying is, "Yea hath God said" Genesis 3.
AMEN
The Masoretic Text (MT) was an alteration of significant portions of the Square Hebrew Old Testament that began early (noted by the Talmud and Mishnah showing conflicting texts, contradictions, and multiple competing rabbis making alterations) though Jews also used the Septuagint (translated from the Square Hebrew around the mid third century BC), and older than the MT; The MT are hardly original scriptures anyway. See Jeremiah 8:8 (Septuagint) concerning the MT.
Paleo Hebrew, used from the 12th to 6th century BC (around 2000 years older than the MT), gave way to Square Hebrew (around 1300 years older than the MT), which then eventually gave way to Greek, as evidenced by the Septuagint, which is around 1000 years older than certain MT portions. The Septuagint predates Christianity, used when Greek became the lingua franca, and its use in synagogues by Jews around the Mediterranean was substantial.
Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint (LXX) within the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) preserve the originals, and overwhelmingly disagree with the MT in numerous instances.
1.) Exodus 1:5 in the DSS Square Hebrew agrees with the Septuagint against the MT that all the souls from Jacob were 75, not 70 which the MT claims.
2.) The older Square Hebrew in the DSS agrees with the Septuagint against the MT for Deut. 32:8-9 in using Sons/angels of God and not sons of Israel.
3.) The Square Hebrew in the DSS for Deuteronomy 32:43 lines up with the Septuagint against the MT.
4.) The Septuagint for 1 and 2 Samuel are backed up by 3 DSS and the MT is known among scholars as botching 1 and 2 Samuel badly.
5.) The MT wrongly has Saul becoming King at age one and ruling for two years.
6.) The MT actually left out an entire line from a Psalm that the Square Hebrew and the Septuagint preserved, thus the so-called masters of vowel memorization not only forgot vowels but also consonants.
7.) Psalm 40:6: a messianic proof text for the Incarnation:
The MT: Thou hast dug out my ears.
The Septuagint: A body thou hast prepared for me.
8.) Concerning another messianic psalm, Psalm 22:16/17, the DSS Square Hebrew and lines up with the Septuagint against the MT.
9.) Baruch, Sirach, Tobit, and Psalm 151 are written in Hebrew in the DSS.
10.) ▪︎The chronologies of Genesis 5, 11 of the Paleo Hebrew and the Septuagint line up against the MT.
▪︎Literary sources before 100 AD line up with the LXX not the MT on this: Josephus and Philo (30/70 AD) did not use the Septuagint to come to their conclusion that lines up with the Septuagint.
▪︎Eupolemus, the Jewish 2nd century BC historian's chronology, comes close to aligning with the Paleo Hebrew and Septuagint and not the MT.
▪︎Jewish Demetrius the Chronicler's (3rd century BC) chronology comes very close to the Paleo Hebrew and Septuagint and against the MT.
▪︎biblearchaeology.org/research/biblical-chronologies/4349-mt-sp-or-lxx-deciphering-a-chronological-and-textual-conundrum-in-genesis-5
Since synagogues around the Mediterranean used Septuagint and Square Hebrew, even in Palestine, Greek was the lingua franca, Jesus grew up near Sepphoris where Hebrew and Greek were both spoken and where Joseph could ply his trade, Christ quoted the scriptures, spoke to the Syrophoenician woman, and Mark/Luke were written to Romans/Greeks, some will be hard-pressed to prove Jesus used only Hebrew.
Concerning key messianic scriptures, Catholics, Copts, Orthodox, and Protestants see that the leaven of the rabbis and then the Masoretes seemed to target scriptures that point to Jesus Christ.
The Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint all agree with each other against the MT far more than they disagree, thus the starting point is to sideline the MT.
There are dozens and dozens of instances where the, Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint agree against the MT: By the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses let every word be established. Deut. 19:15; 2 Cor. 13:1.
@@Tony41christ AMEN there are no errors in the KJV.
The KJV shows, per Acts 12:4, that Easter was celebrated in Biblical times!:
King James Version
"And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."
1.) Nowhere within the KJV does it say God would use the KJV to preserve His word.
2.) The KJV is hardly the first authorized English Bible.
3.) It is certainly not the first Bible from an English king.
4.) The authorized KJV in 1611 authorized the Apocrypha.
5.) The KJV does in places quote from the Septuagint.
King James didn't like the Geneva Bible, the Bible favored by the English people, the Puritans left England with their Geneva Bibles to flee the Church of England and from being persecuted, and came to America. If only KJV people had a clue...
@@Tony41christ So then the KJV messed up?
Shalom Aleykhem (peace to you!)
Which is the correct way to say YHVH; Yahweh or Yahuwah?
Still waiting for an answer for my question from 3 days ago, about which translation from ancient manuscripts to english, that you feel are closest to the ancients or the best version english speaking peoples would get the most from????? PeaceB2Ya
The problem is not in the Bible, it is in weak, sinful humanity. Even if God would dictate a book, and send it down from heaven, people would misunderstand it, and argue about the meaning of various texts. We need the Holy Spirit to correctly discern the thoughts of God that are expressed in the Bible. There must be a yearning to be like Him.
Psalm 25:14 The secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him; and He will show them His covenant.
Isaiah 35:8 And a highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein.
God will guide His people into all truth, but only when they put "no confidence in the flesh" (Phil. 3:3). Or, in other words, when they stop trying to make His word support their faulty ideas and self-exalting concepts.
Improving the translation into a different language doesnt make it an error.
*****
There are no errors.
wot..
+Tera Tokomi
"+Joe Go There are no errors."
You are a cultist. You refuse to see what is plainly on display!
English only.What sort of cult is that ?
Your question is utterly ambiguous.
I added this to my "Answers to KJV-Onlyism" playlist. Great job.
I'm sorry for your lack of understanding ... Check out Chick Publications Davivd Daniels for the real story, you can thank me later ...
CurtTheGamer 😂😂😂😂😂🤦♂️
WOW this guy. KJV is the only full word of God I can show you erros in any other bible within that bible don’t even need to use the KJV this man goes to hebrew lanaguage 😂😂🤷🏼♂️🤦♂️💯🤔 he goes to the Hebrew do called Bible did you know that Jesus wasn’t even Hebrew? There are no erros, let’s find erros within the kjb in its own not use another source beixsse I can show you erros in any other bible using there own bible. Anyone can say the nkjv or other bibles have erros according to there bible go inside your own bible and see period.
CurtTheGamer Anyone can go to another bible and see what that bible says and use that and see what the other bibles say and call it an error or erros. Go within in its own txt and use that bible alone you find erros, flaws, condredictions, lies etc... I can show you errors in the other bibles using its own txt don’t need the KJV. That’s the difference...
God isn’t a liar God promises to preserve his word, and it also says God isn’t a liar God cannot lie. Also says men can’t live on bread alone but by every word of God where is it at? There is only one full true word of God where is it at? It’s not that hard to understand this, a lot of deception by man and Satan. I can’t find no erros in the kjb alone in its own txt but I can show you erros and condredictions in all the other religious books using there own txt
The website Jesus is Savior obeys it like it is the real text.
@@coltonbrown9821 did he mention Jesus?
Does the Masoretic text erroneously repeat a line in Leviticus 20:10?
The KJV says:
"And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." (Leviticus 20:10)
The Hebrew says:
ואיש אשר ינאף את־אשת איש אשר ינאף את־אשת רעהו מות־יומת הנאף והנאפת׃
In the Hebrew there is an apparent repetition of the phrase "איש אשר ינאף את־אשת (a man who commits adultery with a woman)". The literal translation of the verse from Hebrew could read:
"And a man who commits adultery with the wife of a man who commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor shall surely be put to death, the adulterer and the adulteress."
On the face of it, the verse appears to say that it is an offence to commit adultery with the wife of a man who commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor. Such a sentence seems awkward. Thus some translations (e.g. ESV, NLT) have omitted the repeating clause. However, the awkwardness is due to there being no punctuation in the Hebrew. The sentence makes sense when it is punctuated correctly. Consider the same literal translation with punctuations provided in the following manner:
"And a man who commits adultery with the wife of a man (who commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor) shall surely be put to death, the adulterer and the adulteress."
When the words are grouped into clauses in this manner, the repetition makes sense. The first clause includes the words "And a man who commits adultery with the wife of a man". The second clause, which is a parenthetical clarification of the first clause, includes the words "who commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor". The second "who" points to the first occurrence of "man" (the adulterer) as the antecedent.
It has been alleged that Hebrew parallelism does not repeat the exact same words. But although the words at Leviticus 20:10 may be identical according to a certain grouping of words, the clauses are not identical if the words are grouped as suggested above. The parallelism at Leviticus 20:10 provides for the clearest statement of the law. In Hebrew, the same word "ishah" is used to mean "woman" and "wife". To ensure that the reader understands "ishah" at Leviticus 20:10 to mean "wife" (a married woman), the clearest way to do so is to say "man's ishah". A "neighbor's ishah" could technically mean "neighbor's woman" which could refer to a female neighbor's unmarried daughter. But Leviticus 20:10 is specifically prohibiting adultery with a married woman. The reference to a "man's ishah" closes off this legal loophole. The reference to a "neighbor's ishah" in the parallel clause further clarifies the law by drawing attention to the fact that adultery is a sin against one's neighbor. As "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" is the law fulfilled in one word (Galatians 5:14), it is most fitting that the prohibition against adultery makes a connection to the ultimate prohibition of offending one's neighbor.
The KJV supplies the words "even he" in italics instead of parentheses to provide the same effect of rendering the second clause as a clarification of the first. The NKJV, NASB and NIV (1984, TNIV, 2010) also treat the Masoretic text here as being without error.
Which version is closest to the ancient Hebrew
If you want to understand the Hebrew Bible perfectly, you should off course consult an interpretation by those who have command over Biblical Hebrew and its exegetes, namely the Jewish religious authorities just like if you want to understand the Koran, you should consult one by those who have command over Classical Arabic and its exegetes, the Muslim religious authorities or in case of the Septuagint or New Testament, one by an expert and exegete of Koine Greek, likely a Orthodox Christian scholar.
My faith is stronger having an understanding of good textual criticism and how it works to preserve God's word. One of the KJO fallacies is that they have been led to believe that life without a perfect English translation somehow means that we do not have the Word of God.
Shalom,
In Yeshua HaMashiach YHWH
James you unsaved liar! You have no pure bible. You have a dead book.Thy word is very pure, therefore thy servant loveth it.You replace the pure bible with your own selfish opinions as the Jesuits were wanting you to be.
We shall see.
"James you unsaved liar! You have no pure bible. You have a dead book.Thy word is very pure, therefore thy servant loveth it.You replace the pure bible with your own selfish opinions as the Jesuits were wanting you to be."
Typical of the illiteracy and ignorance of the KJO CULTISTS - even the JW's are not as irrationally fanatical about their Bible, and its only a BIT more corrupt than the KJB.
the JW's, by the way, were FOUNDED on the KJ.
There is NO such thing as a perfect pure Bible. And IF there was - the KJ would be at the BOTTOM of the list. I MIGHT grant the Geneva was pure - as it is a FAR more honest translation than the KJ.
WHY was the Apocrypha put in the KJ to begin with and integrated into the cross references and marginal notes? And IF it was the PURE word of GOD, who had authority to remove it?
SUCH logical and important questions are NEVER considered by cultists promoting their cult. Blind faith and censorship are their stock in trade.
MOCKING any opposing view their evangelism.
LYING about the Jesuit conspiracy their doctrine.
Paul,
Yes the KJO people are an interesting breed. They take ignorance and make it a virtue.
Interestingly the ESV best fits the Ivan Panin numbering pattern that is so unique to the Bible. While I NOW prefer the NET Bible - for its 62000 translators notes and completely unique textual material (predating, and NOT subject to the criticism of either the KJO cultists and their Catholic Erasmus text, or the W&H fans) allowing a fresh new start - MOST Bibles ikn the last 500 years have more of less followed the Catholic theologian Erasmus - through the KJ, NKJ, and others.
BY itself - that Can be problematic; when people see verse numbers missing, they have been taught it's because those wicked Jesuits have taken it out - instead of being HONEST and stating it didn't belong there at all when Stephanus made verse numbers.
Such is life dealing with those enmeshed in cults . . .
??? The King James for the most part is a far better "translation" of the old testament. But the KJV is still a translation!!! Also the problem most kjv onlyists don't understand is the textus receptus is the worst manuscripts of the byzantine lineage. Erasmus' texts were in very poor shape and incomplete as well. Erasmus had to use the Latin text to finish the last 8 to 12 verses of Revelation.
Also the translators of the KJV cited the "translation" will probably need worked on in the future. Also most people don't use the 1611, they use a nineteenth century updated version, which destroys the stupidity of the perfect translation claims. Because those claiming it, have by their criteria a bastardized version.
So where do you find the perfect word of God that God promised to preserve forever? 1Pet 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. Matt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Do you know how many versions there are or the English Bible? Some of them are directly translated from the Septuagint or the Tanakh. And if I recall correctly, then I am quite certain that the KJV version is translated from the Latin Vulgate (which in itself is translation of the Septuagint) through a French translation. That would make it a 3rd hand translation.
D & K Grace Definitely not in an English translation.
Wow everything you have stated is false. You seem to have studied this issue somewhat, but have completely misinterpreted all of the information, which leads me to believe either you are wilfully ignorant, or much more sinister than that.
@Douglas Hosea 11:12. Major mistranslation. I have a lot more. Also, none of us is a KJV condemner. I personally admire the KJV. We simply do not believe that is is the one and only perfect translation of the Bible.
@vachief I am not arguing that God preserved his word, I think he did, but in the Hebrew, the OT and NT (My Hebrew Bible has Genesis-Revelation), not a faulty translation. What causes you to think his word is preserved in the KJV? No offense, but that sounds pretty ridiculous to me. Do you have any evidence in the Bible that the KJV is the preserved word?
@BelieveandtrustJesus Please enlighten us on how these errors that I have presented are not errors. If you can't do that then the errors stand.
another mistake in the king James bible is the name Jehovah, the j didn't originally exist in Hebrew. the original name is Yahweh. Hebrews didn't use the vowels either so they wrote it YHWH. God's names are really important, He is our God and. using a name He Himself hasn't given I believe is wrong. I know you people who use this bible believe it's right and probably adore God in your hearts but all of us need to seek the truth and worship God in it. please don't be offended because the kj bible has a lot of mistakes, be happy because now you know and can buy a correct translation which will help you come even closer to God.
+Elizhabeth Geer Jehovah is not in kjv...
I know a little Hebrew, Jehovah and Yahweh are you different ways of saying the name of God. If you use the Hebrew without vowels it sounds like Jehovah/Yehovah
+Cody Townsend it is in these passages Exodus 6:3, Psalm 83:18, Isaiah 12:2 & Isaiah 26:4
It's true Lion Hex
acerimmeh
Yeah i found that out haha. That was my bad.
saying that the KJV is the PERFECT translation and the pure word of God, You're either brainwashed or highly in denial.
he didn't say that
@ih8makinusernames I'm not sure what your point is.
@KingJamesBible Is your idea that God does the translating found in the Bible or is it just a manmade doctrine?
THE sad truth concerning the Scriptures are error in English translation. I pray the original scripture to reveal these last days.
beloved becomes a Jesuit, from a sheep to a wolf! No cloak fer yer sin.You have no original. You have a dead book. Your imagination. Gen six :5.*******All false prophets lie!A false witness shall not be unpunished, and a man that speaketh lies shall NOT escape.
+herbbearingseed
Thats a LOT of lies for one post . . .
" beloved becomes a Jesuit, from a sheep to a wolf! No cloak fer yer sin.You have no original. You have a dead book. Your imagination. Gen six :5.*******All false prophets lie!A false witness shall not be unpunished, and a man that speaketh lies shall NOT escape."
IN that case what shall we do to YOU, for YOU are a false witness. WHO becomes a Jesuit? IF all prophets lie than the Bible is unbelievable, for much of it was GIVEN to prophets.
BUT somehow YOU know more than those chosen by GOD for special revelation?
NOONE has an original. BUT accurate Bibles have texts going back perhaps as far as ~78. The KJ was mistranslated from texts dated newer than 1200. Which do you think might be more accurate?
The KJB was based on Erasmus text - a text made up from PARTIAL Catholic Greek texts, assembled and edited, with insertion from the Vulgate in a dozen places, and the finished text dedicated to Pope Leo X, and approved for Catholic usage. HOW accurate does that sound?
TODAY we have very ancient texts - some from before 500, and 6000 or so of them that were UNAVAILABLE to the translators of the KJB.
Common sense and literary evaluation would prove the KJ to be vastly inferior to ANY modern Bible, its 100+ errors make it unfit to be taken seriously today.
There is NO issue of the Jesuits at all in intelligent circles. That ia a made up issue by demonstrable liars -for the cult - and there are many; all of them have been thoroughly disproven and exposed. MOST of their followers refuse to believe the truth.
There is no such thing as "exclusive knowledge". The fact I have actually RESEARCHED this material guarantees it's NOT "exclusive". Erasmus himself wrote about the pressure he was under from Bishops etc to include passages from the Vulgate in his text.
IF you want the short and concise issue - read some of James White's material - "the King James Controversy" was his PhD Thesis but written for the average reader - one of the leading Greek scholars/professors of the day, or Dan Wallace - one of the leading archivists of Greek NT fragments and texts - and the one who heads the organization digitizing the entire body of known ancient texts.
Otherwise, the works of Erasmus are well disseminated and readily available.
AS are studies on his work. eg.
"In constructing and editing the text, Erasmus had the feeblest of manuscript resources. He chiefly used one manuscript of the Gospels, dating from the twelfth century, and one manuscript of Acts and the Epistles, also from the twelfth century. These he edited and corrected, using one or two additional manuscripts of each section, along with his Latin Vulgate. For Revelation, Erasmus had but one Greek manuscript which, though of better than average quality (so says Hort), yet lacked the last six verses of the book. To remedy this defect, Erasmus back-translated the last six verses of Revelation from Latin into Greek, with the result that the final verses of Revelation in his printed Greek text contain numerous Greek readings found in no Greek manuscript of any kind, and are therefore devoid of manuscript authority. (A list of these are given in Scrivener, Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, p. 296, n. 1, and Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 100, n. 1).
One of those readings produced by Erasmus that lacks any Greek manuscript support is the reference to the "book of life" in Rev. 22:19. All Greek manuscripts read "tree of life"; not a single one reads "book of life." The corruption of "tree" into "book" occurred in Latin when a careless or sleepy scribe miscopied the correct ligno (tree) as though it were the similar-appearing libro (book). When Erasmus back-translated from Latin, he introduced for the first time ever in Greek the reading "book of life" in Rev. 22:19, and by the slavish reprinting of Erasmus' text by later editors, the reading "book of life" found its way into the textus receptus and the King James Version, even though it is completely without support of any kind in any Greek manuscript. "
www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_erasmus.htm
The bible says we will hunger for the word of God in the final days
Paul,
1. What's funny is that you praise the scholarship of men like White & Wallace who use the Vaticanus/Sinaiticus to correct all late Mss at Rev 22:19.
2. But sometimes there can be a difference between the TRUTH and the WHOLE TRUTH.
3. The WHOLE TRUTH is that their star witness Vaticanus wss missing the entire book of Revelation untill it was added in the 10th - 15th century! How's that for late Ms?
There are no contradictions in the KJV. This man is correcting the God-honored text. He is saying in essence "only people who speak Hebrew understand the Bible."
*****
I believe God's Word is preserved in every language, not just Hebrew and Greek. There are no errors in the KJV.
Nigel Holland
Yes there are! but there is no correcting an ignorant man now is there?
These comments just support my belief that most Christians do not read the bible.Those that do lack the ability of analytical and critical thinking. This makes you "DEVO" Devo is an actual state of the human mind. Look it up in a dictionary if you own one.
One Christean came to my house and attempted to set me straight. I asked "Do you Read the Bible " His reply " No My Pasture reads to me what I need to know" REALLY Try reading it ! Its filled with miss translations and contrdictions if you don't believe so than you HAVE NEVER READ THE BOOK! So STFU
Edward Kelly Yes they seem like contradictions to you because for each contradiction you "think"you read or hear about.. different people's and nations are being addressed about completely separate situations that have nothing in common with the other
+Nigel Holland the kjv isnt the infallable word
the original hebrew is.
Is the Shema incorrect in the KJV? It seems like the Hebrew says “the Lord is one” however KJV says “is one Lord”
Are we dealing with the septuagint here?
I am not exactly sure what your question is in reference too, but in some cases the Septuagint is a part of the equation. In some cases the KJV translators relied more on the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew, and in some cases the Septuagint can help with translating the text correctly.
There are no errors in the King James Bible. Nor does Jeff Benner identify any in this vid.
I've yet to meet anyone who can find an actual error in the King James Bible.
"Easter" in Acts 12:4 is an error.
+thelastroadrunner
"There are no errors in the King James Bible. Nor does Jeff Benner identify any in this vid.
I've yet to meet anyone who can find an actual error in the King James Bible."
The statement is utterly false - any intelligent Christian can tell you a dozen errors in the KJB, YOU must ONLY hang around with other KJO cult members.
THIS is a video from a KJ using church, and IT explains about 150 errors in the KJ. YOUR statement is an admission of ignorance, NOT a vote of confidence for the Catholic KJB
|ua-cam.com/video/KGgsA0biR_4/v-deo.html
If the dead sea scrolls say one thing and the KJV says another, which one is correct and why.
THE DSS - because they are 2000 years old and unchanged in that period. The KJ was taken from a wide assortment of incomplete scriptures and assembled by Erasmus - with entire pages missing even then. Many of the holes he filled from the VULGATE; other passages from the Vulgate that were NEVER in any Greek Bible were inserted at the request of Bishops etc - to bring the Erasmus Greek closer in line with the Catholic Vulgate in Latin. This is NOT conjectured, but the statement of Erasmus himself as to WHY he justified many of the insertions. So the KJB is a Catholic (Anglican under the new pope of England - King James) translation of Catholic texts.
BUT we have Bibles and fragments that go back possibly as far as ~78 AD - and from THEM we can create a reliable concept of the gospel given to the saints - Dan Wallace and his people are digitizing every fragment known to exist. james White is one of the few scholars to dedicate his life to the Greek Scriptures and holds debates in the Greek language with muzlim scholars. His scholarship is impeccable. His debates detailed and articulate - and correct.
And he discussed the accuracy of the KJ in many UA-cam Videos as well as his own site. The FACT that he is so hated - without cause - by the KJO cultists is a reason to listen to what he says - he NEVER loses a debate with them. He gets them to admit the KJB is inaccurate and contains material, not in any Greek Bible, and their response is that GOD must have wanted to correct the ancient texts. Just an example.
Thanks be to God.Salvation is not dependent on scholars!!!
I am not a KJV only person..but the KJV is the best, most honest, accurate translation we have..hands down the best..!
Kenneth Weust for example did a terrific job with his literal translation of the NT. I can't use it enough when teaching.....from the KJV. :)
Don't force people read KJV only!
Now do a video on the NT, oh wait it's perfect. Btw, who rolled of the rock from the Tomb of Yezues?
@vachief I have no idea what you are attempting to say here.
GOD is the One who preserves His Word.
And He didn't need the "original" Greek and Hebrew text to do so.
Quite the contrary. He even destroyed, (or, allowed to be destroyed), the real Originals Himself. And He tells us about it in Genesis and in Jeremiah. There we clearly see that God could care less about "The Originals" :P
God preserved His Word in the same way He inspired it: in Hebrew and Greek. We know He didn't preserve it in the KJV because it has many errors:
1. KJV:
"robbers of churches." Acts 19:37
Greek: HIEROSULOUS, "robbers of temples"
2. KJV: "Lucifer" Is 14:12
Hebrew: "O Day Star" (Lucifer is a human origin nickname for the Devil in the 1600's refers not to the devil but the king of Babylon)
3. KJV: "Easter" Acts 12:4
"Passover"
4. KJV: "Tithes of all I possess" Lk 18:12
Greek: "all I acquire"
5. KJV: "Schoolmaster" Gal 3:24
Greek: "attendant" (the law was the one who brought us to Christ, not taught us about Christ)
6. KJV: "God save the King": 1Sam 10:24, 2Sam 16:16, 1Kings 1:25
Hebrew: "May the king live" ( reflects the British culture of the 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.)
7. KJV: "God Forbid." Ro. 3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; 11:1,11; 1 Co. 6:15; Ga. 2:17; 3:21; 6:14
Greek: "may it not be" or "let it not be." (KJV adds the word God where it is absent in the TR because it was a common expression in 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.)
8. KJV: "sweet savour" Lev 6:21; 8:28; 17:6; 23:18
Hebrew: "soothing aroma" (KJV appeals to wrong senses- taste instead of smell in the TR)
9. KJV: "ashes upon his face" 1 Kings 20:38
Hebrew: "bandage over his eyes" (KJV varies from TR by using ashes)
I personally don't think the KJV bible is a flawed I think every bible after is a flawed, like the Niv, nkjv, esv, and others
Money Murda I agree
Like how is it a flawed, is it missing verses
Money Murda
exactly, good point, nothing is missing., It is Gods word in the English speaking language.
So what is this video talk'n about much
A couple of word or grammar errors, mistakes
Money Murda
do not trust anyone who claim there are errors in the Kjv ,there are groups out there that want to sell their bible and put down the word of God, If you have a King James bible that comes from the tectus receptus ,99.9% Greek scholars agree with this text this is Gods pure
word do not trust anybody that will try to correct your Kjv.
Jeff, thanks for your reply. The thing I put in quotes comes after "amar." I was pointing out that amar does not have to be translated as "saying" or "said." In fact in the hebrew, that verse has "ha-amarim" which is being used as a substantive participle. In your comment you had to leave out the lamed in your translation to make "ha-amarim" say "ones saying to." You know this, since you claim be translating it literally. The literal says "---- FOR evil good and FOR good evil."
Have you done any videos about the errors in the Quran?
Every bible after the KJV is false and the Even the nkjv
+mfihn I don't think so but if so in your mind show the scriptures that are wrongly translated from the greek to english.
***** So you know hebrew and greek and are able to translate it? Are you saying that the new testament in GOD word doesn't talk about eternal life?
***** I would like to know the names of the people who you consulted about the Greek and Hebrew translation's of the bible as you say supposedly being wrong.
+mfihn says someone who speaks neither language and isn't even a believer, therefore obviously the true Word of God would be the most difficult for you to understand
+mfihn oh ok well case closed then! You did "research!" We can all go home now knowing thanks to you and your research we can now override the word of over 50 brilliant scholars who were all fully FLUENT in dozens of languages.
REPENT: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand! Keep the commandments of God like the seventh day Sabbath, new moons, and feast days. Accept Christ Jesus as Lord and keep the faith. Copy and paste for the world to know
Uhmmm... You do err not knowing the scriptures
Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is *not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ,* even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be *justified by the faith of Christ,* and *not by the works of the law:* for *by the works of the law shall NO flesh be justified.*
Here is how to be saved
Acts 16:31 Andthey said unto him, *Believe* on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalf be saved
Romans 4:5 But to him that *worketh not,* but *believeth* on Him that justifieth the ungodly; his *faith is counted for righteousness.*
Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved, through *faith,* and that not of yourselved it is the *gift* of God; *not of works* let any man should *boast.*
Salvation by faith alone in Jesus Christ, salvation is a gift, there is nothing you can do to earn it, no rules you need to keep, and once you are saved you can never lose your salvation.
@@user-sy4ec3em5o Salvation is like a brand new car bought for us. We must maintain it. We must "work out our salvation with fear and trembling" as it is written by apostle Paul.
Revelation 22:14 says "Blessed are they that do the commandments of God so that they may have right to the tree of life..."
@@1newearth let me explain this scripture to you:
Blessed are they that *do his commandments,* that *they may have right to the tree of life,* and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Revelation:22:14
Once you are saved if you are obedient to God and do his work... you will be *rewarded* in the new earth by being allowed to eat freely from the tree of life in the new Jerusalem... but this is not a salvation scripture... salvation is by faith alone:
For by grace are ye saved through *faith;* and that *not of yourselves:* it is the *gift* of God:
Ephesians:2:8
*Not of works,* lest any man should *boast.*
Ephesians:2:9
The bible is quite clear that our works have nothing to do with our salvation in so far as to tell us that we don't even have the right to boast about being saved... if you say that you are saved and you are "maintaining" your salvation... that's boasting 🤷♂️. It's by faith alone without any works
But to him that *worketh not, but believeth* on him that justifieth the ungodly, his *faith* is *counted for righteousness.*
Romans:4:5
@jason daniel barry James 2 says
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Please prayerfully read all of James chapter 2 especially what is posted here. Do you live in Texas?
@@1newearth James chapter 2 verse 21 is important to understand this chapter.
*Was not Abraham* our father *justified by works,* when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
James:2:21
With this verse in mind let's go back to Romans 4
What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as *pertaining to the flesh,* hath found?
Romans:4:1
For *if* Abraham were justified by works, *he hath whereof to glory;* but *not before God.*
Romans:4:2
So in James 2 we have the controversial statement
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
James:2:17
Which many interpret as: if you don't have works you are not saved... but cross referencing James 2 and Romans 4 we see that if Abraham was justified by works he has glory, but *not before God.* So then if Abraham doesn't has glory, but not before God, then his glory is before men. Let's read James 2 again:
What doth it *profit,* my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? *can faith save him?* (this question is important)
James:2:14
If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
James:2:15
And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding *ye give them not* those things which are needful to the body; *what doth it profit?*
James:2:16
What james is actually saying is, if you say you have faith, but you are not doing good works to help people then your faith is unfruitful, it's not helping anyone... IT'S DEAD...meaning it is not doing anything
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is *dead,* being alone.
James:2:17
If I say: the dog is dead...then the dog was alive...but does the dog cease to exist when it is dead? Did the dog evaporate into nothingness?
Yea, a *man* may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
James:2:18
And here we see "a *man* may say", referring back to what I said earlier... we are justified before other men by our works... but we are not justified before God with our works.
Before God we are justified by faith alone.
Therefore we conclude that a man is *justified by faith without the deeds of the law.*
Romans:3:28
Ps. I live in South Africa.
Have u did research I know about the Torah Hebrew bible. Did u research on king James bible it was translated into English from Hebrew thank u.
@buzulakd do you even know the origins or the KJV?
The king james wasn't translated from the Septuagint (Corrupt manuscripts). It was translated from the Textus Receptus. And there are no errors in the KJV... it is God's perfect word preserved in the English language
There are erros in EVERY bible . God never spoke in OLD ENGLISH LOL.... Just use any bible you want . It doesn't matter . Use all translations to get a better idea of whats being said.
@@12OunceProphet There are only two lines. The received text, textus Receptus from Antioch. Where we were first called Christians. Your new translations come from the greek sinnaticus and Vaticanus Catholic translations. The aleph and beith, alaxandrian texts. A total of 45 manuscripts. The received text has 99.2 of over 6,000 greek manuscripts plus over 10,000 old latin texts , the Pashita that is from about 150 ad. The waldenes text from about 180 ad. The all agree with the text we have with the authorized version. They started to call it the King James in order to try and discredit the OV. Your new translations come from the wescott and hort, Nestled alland, and the rest of the alphabet soup of transportations. They say the sinnaticus was discovered by Von Tishendorf in 1844and the catholic vaticanus was also rediscovered at about the same time. So you expect us Christians to believe that we did not have Gods word for over 1500 years until wescott and hort? Come on man. Psalm 12:6. David said that around about 1000 b.c. to now. Do you think God would let his words be lost. 2 Timothy 2:15. Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of ttuth.In the esv, niv and the rest of the alphabet soup of Alexandria texts im Mark 1:2-3 says prophet. We know that this is in Malachi 1:1 and in Isaiah.
THIS VIDEO STILL HASNT PROVEN SNY THING, BUT THEY THINK THEY KNOW HOW TO READ HEBREW PUT THEY DONT SAD ISNT IT, THAT SATAN WILL TRY HIS BEST TO DESTROY THE WORD OF GOD BUT TRULY CANT , IM STICKING WITH THE THE TRUE WORD OF GOD THE KJV
Ky CraigI assume, that as you claim i do not know Hebrew, then you
yourself must know Hebrew as this is the only way to make such a claim. Please
inform me where my Hebrew is incorrect. Thank you.
Then you'll be blithely sticking to RCC paganism. Whatever happened to studying "to show yourself approved?" Many of us want the Father's Word, unadulterated by Roman paganism and mistakes. That leaves you following a type of denominational Talmud without questioning the doctrines of men. Not where the Father wants you to be. There are errors in ALL translations. The KJV-Only crowd has all the earmarks of a full blown cult.
@josacra Do you have any proof that the kjv translators died preserving the word, or is this just more propaganda by the kjv onlyists?
@LogosTheos what do you mean
Translations may not be perfect but God is :) stop debating everyone, focus on spreading the Gospel, focus on loving others as Jesus loved us. Imma stick with KJV even if I know its not perfect.
Errors caused false doctrines so we must care.
WHY would any rational person do that?
The KJB does NOT have the same meaning as the Bibles used by the NT church - those changes came from Catholic insertions, corruptions and the deliberate corruptions of the English Cathoilc translators - a corrupted pseudo-catholic Church of which sodomite James was the head.
The MODERN accurate Bibles go back 1200 or more years than the KJB's oldest texts - far more accurate - far less catholic contamination.
WHY would you stick with catholic corruption?
@@paulrobinson9318 KJV Onlysts. They take favor on errors in verses and narratives deem spurious that goes even into the Greek New Testament. Their translations mis interpret something Jesus says and in their translations it is read as Jesus insulting a woman. KJV readers would never go to that passage because they know where they messed up centuries ago. Aside from that some KJV Onlysts admit to error after criticizing Christian minorities and other faith groups for omitting the falsehood from their revised translations.
+@@Zhello79
While I agree with your premise - your exact premise eludes me . . .
"KJV readers would never go to that passage because they know where they messed up centuries ago. "
Can you expand or expound your meaning?
@@Zhello79 I was gonna say that. The word gentile is a mistranslation as well. It means nation's or nation not non Jew
I tell you, going with the truth hurts. Love this video.
***** ROFL! Love it how supposed 'christians' cast judgment upon others. I am saved by the blood of Jesus Christ and this video shows nothing but truth. I love how Mr. Benner demonstrates this time after time.
*****
"Thou shall not judge less ye be judged" Mathew chapter 7 Verse 1
I don't believe in the Easter bunny yet I don't through a fit and start condemning the children for looking for the Easter eggs! To each his own and to the man who accepts truth and wisdom is a blessing worth more than silver and gold.
Yes. God blesses so many people through whatever version of the bible they read. I think Jeff is providing a good service in understanding the Hebrew.
Okay lets look at your comment because you have many accusations which have no basis for fact. I will go through each point.
1. "The NIV says Jesus is Satan. The KJV says Jesus is God." Here is the most erroneous errors in all of your comment.
The NIV Does Not Call Jesus Satan - Isaiah 14:12 & Revelation 22:16
I have heard this accusation for the third time this week and I want the truth to be put out there clearly and concisely so that if people google this subject hopefully they don’t find all the misinformation out there but get the truth. Here is how this argument against the NIV usually goes. The claim is laid that the NIV is corrupt and deliberately misleads people into believing that the Savior is actually Satan. They attempt to work that out with two verses (Isaiah 14:12 and Revelation 22:16). Here are the verses:
“How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!”
- Isaiah 14:12
“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.” - Revelation 22:16
No appearance of a problem until you look at Isaiah 14:12 in the King James Version -
“12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”
That is the basis of the charge…that the NIV deliberately replaced Lucifer with “morning star” the same word used for Jesus in Revelation 22. That appears to be problematic on the surface but let’s dig a little deeper.
The word translated Lucifer by the KJV and “Morning Star” by the NIV is the word הֵילֵל (heilel). That word literally means “shining one” as the verb form means “to shine.” It is not a word that means Satan or the devil in Hebrew as a proper name. So two questions arise:
1.Why does the KJV use “Lucifer” and not “shining one”?
2.Why does the NIV use “morning star” and not “shining one”?
1 - Why does the KJV use “Lucifer” and not “shining one”? Lucifer is how the Latin Vulgate translated this word, which the KJV adopted. Lucifer in Latin is a combination of two words Lux = light and ferous = “to bear” or “to carry” which would make Lucifer = bearer of light in Latin. That was a valid translation in the Vulgate. The problem is the KJV didn’t translate it into English. They kept the Latin Lucifer instead. The problem is 99.9% of people don’t know that any more and only think of it as a proper name referring to the Devil or Satan.
So the first point to make is that the verse is not about Lucifer but is about a “light bearer.” Who is that light bearer? Let’s have a look at Isaiah 14 in context…that is always a good idea right? When we do this, we see exactly who Isaiah 14:12 is referring to and it is not Jesus or the Devil. Look back at Isa 13:1 - “An oracle concerning Babylon that Isaiah son of Amoz saw.” (NIV). Isaiah 13 speaks of the destruction of Babylon (see especially 13:19). Chapter 14 continues this message. 14:1-3 is about the return from exile back to Israel. Then notice 14:4 (just 8 verses before the verse in question) - “You will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:” The taunt seems to go from 14:4b-8. Then 14:9 talks about the grave meeting them at their coming. Meeting who? The same people the taunt was against - Babylon. It is a curse referring back to the object of their taunt…not Jesus or Satan but the King of Babylon. Then 14:11-23 is more about Babylon - “your pomp has been brought down, maggots are spread out beneath you, worms cover you….how you have fallen from heaven shining one, son of the dawn.” Also, notice verse 16-17 - ”
Those who see you stare at you,
they ponder your fate:
“Is this the man who shook the earth
and made kingdoms tremble,
17 the man who made the world a desert,
who overthrew its cities
and would not let his captives go home?”
In context you see this is about a man and not Satan. It is about what the rest of the chapter is about - the king of Babylon.
2 - Why does the NIV use “morning star” instead of “shining one”?
This is best understood by the rest of the verse Isaiah calls him “son of the dawn.” It is a parallel to a star that rises high and bright in the sky at morning but then disappears quickly (like the planet Venus). There was an ancient myth in the Babylonian literature that Heylel the morning star Venus scaled to great heights to make himself like a king in the heavens but was quickly driven back down. That is what the king of Babylon will be like…one who rises to great heights and then is toppled from his high position. In other words, the NIV makes the connection that would have been made by Isaiah’s hearers and people in Babylon…those who knew the myth about now its new found application by God toward the king of Babylon. The NIV translators recognized this parallel and made us of it as in the Babylonian mind the “shining one” was the “morning star Venus.” Was that the best move? Probably not if you are going for a literal translation. But if you are trying to read and hear the Bible as they heard it, it is actually a pretty good take on this verse. It is a little too much interpretation in the text for me.
Bottom line, I wish the KJV had actually translated this rather than borrowed from the Latin. I wish the NIV had left interpretation for the footnotes and not taken so much liberty with the text. But at the end of the day it can hardly be said that the NIV was propogating a view that Jesus and Satan are the same based on this text. Instead, when you look at the evidence it appears to be more the case that the NIV was taking history, cultural context, linguistics and much else into consideration to give their best shot at this verse to end up with “morning star” and not some grand conspiracy by wicked and careless translators.
2. "The NIV says were saved by the blood, the NIV says were saved by his death."
Can you elaborate on this one because I don't find anywhere in scripture that this is true. Please let me know.
3. "The NIV denies the virgin birth, yet the KJV says it was a virgin birth."
Again you need to elaborate because once again I do not find this in the NIV version of scripture.
First of all you misunderstand the words of God if you think that the original Hebrew and Greek are not the true preserved words of God. I know you talk about Psalm 12:6-7 but you clearly do not understand that text. You need to visit the following website to help clarify your understanding.
www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_why_psalm.htm
If you only take "american english" to be the "newly inspired" words of God then you are talking about stuff that is on the verge of being a heretic.
You talk about google, when in fact Google is a great resource that the Translators would have used back in their time had they the use of it. The interesting thing is you talk about all this inspiration, but you clearly don't even know what the original translators say about the issue of translation (of which they say they didn't do the best, but they did the best they could). If you want to get the facts then google "KJV 1611 Preface" which gives you the entire document and you can read it for yourself and not just what someone says. Again you just make assertions without evidence.
Yes Lucifer is Satan, however he is also known as a great many othr names as well. Do you need the passages from the bible that state this fact?
As far as the passage of the NIV calling Jesus the son of Joseph. You are not reading the context, nor do you apply the same standards for your own argument. Does it state that Joseph was the father of Jesus? Yes, but it also states that God is his father. He was the human father, and if you read context you'll get that point. You are more than willing to point to verse 33 of chapter two yet disregard verse 41 which says from the KJV:
"41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover."
Now unless God was physically walking with Mary then the KJV is saying his "parents" are Joseph and Mary, not God and Mary. Interesting how you just blindly skip passages. Again, you need to read context and just take passages hoping they will validate your position.
@LordJesusChristtruth Okay... Let's say that God did preserve his word perfectly. Evidently it isn't the KJV as I have shown some of the errors in this video and you, like all the other KJVers are unable to show how these are not errors, so it must be another translation. Maybe the NIV? Or maybe its Luther's German Bible?
Were can I find a Good Hebrew English bible