This Pastor Doesn't Get How Bible Translations Work
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- This KJV-only pastor says he can correct the Greek text using the King James Version. Ironically, the original translators of the King James Version cared very much about what the Greek said.
#RedPenLogic #StandtoReason #Christianity #Apologetics #TheBible
----- FIND MORE FREE TRAINING -----
Website: www.str.org/
Stand to Reason University: training.str.org
Stand to Reason Apps: www.str.org/apps
----- CONNECT -----
Twitter: / strtweets
Facebook: / standtoreason93
Instagram: / standtoreason
LinkedIn: / stand-to-reason
RPL TikTok: / original_mrb
RPL Facebook: / redpenlogic
RPL Instagram: / redpenlogic
RPL UA-cam: / @redpenlogic
----- GIVE -----
Support the work of Stand to Reason: www.str.org/do...
Support Red Pen Logic: www.str.org/re...
![[UA] NAVI проти G2 Esports | Blast Premier Fall Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QWlIm4FGESQ/mqdefault.jpg)
3 things:
1. That dude has an awesome preaching voice.
2. That dude has terrible theology.
3. That dude has set up the KJV as an idol.
As do many who follow the Sola Scriptura creed.
Amen? ...Amen
@@Charistoph
Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”
3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[b] 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’[c]”
I quote this because it seems Jesus’ rebukes the Pharisees for inventing traditions and teaching those traditions instead of the word of God. I think it’s a pretty good argument that Christ was sola scriptura. Given he said that everything in scripture is true.
Also Paul said Scripture is *sufficient* in edifying a man and saving his soul.
In other words, everything we need to know for salvation and everything we need to have for morality sake is *sufficient* in scripture according to Paul who we know is authoritative because of his ministry, Peter’s ministry and Paul has Peter’s seal of approval.
We don’t believe He’s authoritative because somebody said he was, but because he demonstrated he was.
I think he’s messing around. Just being entertaining. I think if you pressed him on this idea he’d probably back off lol.
@@snufkin4568 except "sola scriptura" IS a tradition. It ignores how we have the scriptures through prophets, as it rejects the possibility of more. It assumes that we have all scripture, despite it saying it doesn't. It assumes we have a perfect understanding of how the scripture is to be interpreted, even though there are thousands of denominations which claim to follow "sola scriptura".
What Jesus was talking about is the traditions that add more burdens than the Law requires. Don't forget that Jesus is also the one who warned that even thinking about adultery can place a person under Judgement. That wasn't considered scripture when He said it.
Oh dear, that's an embarrassing watch. That pastor really needs some help.
Please dont call him a pastor 😂
@@AdventureSMBWHe’s a pastor. Just not a very wise one.
@@AdventureSMBW I maybe should have typed "pastor" 👍
You wouldn't have the KJV if it wasn't for the Greek...
And the Hebrew.
& Aramaic... or just use God's preserved word in the KJV since none of those originals exist.
@@vashmatrix5769 putting aside your claim about the loss of originals, what your justification for the claim the KJV is the only truly preserved Word?
@@lukecox6317 👍 That's the question someone seeking truth will ask. I have many. Look for (the at symbol) LightMatrix7.
@@lukecox6317 👍 That's the question someone seeking truth will ask. I have many. Look for (at) LightMatrix7.
Why? Why would someone that is a pastor say something so ignorant? We should all pray for him and the congregation.
Welcome to the world of King James Onlyism.
The leaders of the movement built up a strong-sounding set of arguments for it. Strong-sounding, but wrong.
If the King James was good enough for Jesus and Paul, it's good enough for me
There is a movement of "King James Supremacists" that genuinely believe that God moved through the King James translators to "correct" errors in the original texts. KJOnly is a cult.
@@cdevidalI mean it was even good enough for Moses, so….
The KJV is NOT the fourth member of the Trinity....
Who said it was? It is the inspired word of God in the English language and regarded so highly by the Lord that He places it above His name in Psalms 138:2. You are just prejudiced against it and are grasping at straws as to how you should attack it.
@@robbie12359no one is attacking the KJV. We are attacking the argument that it’s the ONLY “correct” English translation of Scripture.
@@spencergsmith Yes they are. I see it all the time on these types of videos. Tell me. Where may I find the perfect word of God that I can 100% trust without error?
@@robbie12359 the Word of God is perfect in content. Assuming they are properly translated, versions may differ in syntax, grammar, or word choice, but they do not differ in message or content. KJV is no better or worse than NKJV, NASB, ESV, CSB, or even NIV. They are simply different methods of translation, such as verbatim vs. non-verbatim or traditional vs. modern. Acting like KJV is the only “true” Word of God is ignorant and bordering on heretical.
@@spencergsmith Every word of God is pure and nothing of it should be taken away (read the warning in Rev 22). Overall message is all well and good but the doctrine of Christ's deity is attacked, way of salvation, Satan's devices, doctrinal passages etc... and so they actually do not say the same thing even in an overarching sense. All bibles published from 1901 are from the Alexandrian line (Gnostic origin) and the pure KJV has come from Antioch, Syria and ultimately the textus receptus translated by Erasmus in the culmination of the greatest translation effort known to man under king James. The KJV is the true word of God in our language and there is nothing heretical about standing on God's word. Mind you this is a luke warm church era where Christ is knocking on the door to come in so your stance in no way surprises me.
Despite freedom in Christ, it seems humans can't help but find new chains to wear. KJV only is an unBiblical yoke that Jesus came to free you from. Find Jesus and find truth. We love you, fellow Christians, but we don't love the path you're on. We can serve God better together with different translations.
Jesus lives ♥️ and is God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
Well said. Having spent a few years assisting with Bible translation in Africa, I can confirm that it is a difficult process. At times the recipient language has multiple options and sometimes no good option. Choices are made and it is also very difficult for translators to set aside their backgrounds and bias. Most do not understand the challenges of language and translation.
Anyone who's even had the smallest experience in translation would agree with you, sir and simply shake their head at KJV onlyists. You can even see the translational difference in the Greek/Hebrew and Greek/Aramaic Manuscripts and the difficulty the earliest translators had, even with transliteration!
While the KJV is a beautiful version for its poetic language, and to give a decent idea of the story of Jesus, it's a horrible translation if you're looking to find out clearly and specifically what the original authors were trying to say.
So he can use the KJV to correct the Greek, but I'm not convinced he can understand the English...?
I grew up in a church where some of the members were like this. They would get mad at me when I asked them if they thought Jesus spoke 17th Century English. I am a Christian and do believe that the Bible is God's inspired word, but I have never venerated one translation over another. The only thing I care about is how accurate the portrayal of what is being said is. The KJV is a good translation, but like all translations, some things are missed or could have been stated in a more accurate way.
After 20 plus years of study I would definitely disagree with you. The KJV is far more accurate. The new versions have changed so much in the last 25 years it is scary to think about. The complete verse deletions in many places? How they tried to undo how they deleted them and replaced them because their sales went into the tank?
Rev 22:18-19 is so clear that God takes NOTHING more seriously than His Word being kept perfect. There are certainly consequences from it. Just ask Eve.
@@redfaux74 What makes you so certain that it isn't the KJV that's adding verses? What's the evidence for your claim about sales going into the tank? And doesn't the archaic nature of the KJV's English make it less accurate for contemporary readers than any mainstream modern translation in hundreds, if not thousands, of verses?
@redfaux74 There are most certainly bad translations, and one must be very careful about that. However, regarding the verses that have been removed, the reason why some translations removed them is because some earlier sources that weren't available to the translators of the KJV didn't have those verses. It's not done with malice. It's an attempt to be accurate. Personally, I think those verses should be left in, but included with footnotes explaining their disputed nature.
@VTdarkangel - But you have to understand it is possible people could add or subtract to the Word of God. If the church didn't use those manuscripts, and they were different, then they likely weren't supposed to be used. God preserved His Word. You know the Devil wants to corrupt it.
Do you know who Lucifer is?
There is also a notable change in the meaning of words in English over the last 400 years which can cause a modern reader to misinterpret what King James' translators thought was a clear statement for their day.
And of course, there is always a bias in translations, where if there is a possibility for a word to be translated in several ways, the translator will choose the route that most favors their own ideology.
Guess what language everyone spoke in Jesus day. It was Greek. When they read from the old testament, it was, more than likely, the Greek Septuagint since the quotes from the OT in the NT match perfectly with the Septuagint version. It was also Greek.
no. Israelites spoke aramaic not greek
KJV-only is cultish.
Reading a corrupt Bible translation is more cultish.
Was that preaching clip from a Babylon Bee episode?
We wish!
It’s hard to believe this isn’t satire.
There’s a post going around Facebook right now comparing the KJV to the NIV, and the comment section goes from wild to outrageous and sometimes downright hostile.
In my opinion, KJV is alright, but I was taught to compare verses with other versions, but I’ve never tried to correct the original with a translation.
It’s an nteresting approach.
Other versions all come from different source texts. The KJV is the only one made from just the tests that were handed down the generations. Psalms 12: 6-7.
@@vashmatrix5769 No, it isn't. We have older manuscripts closer to the originals now.
@@vashmatrix5769You're obviously illiterate, so why do you care which translation is used?
@TommyNitro - Those older manuscripts don't even agree with each other. You have no idea what you're talking about. For 1900 years we've had the perfect Word of God, used by the church. God was not asleep. His Word was perfect then, during those years, or it was not.
If anyone would want the Word to change or be liquid and maleable... it would be the Devil.
Moose - Have you ever heard of Lucifer? His name is only mentioned in the Bible once.
I really don't understand the KJV obsession crowd.
It's not even that great of a translation.
I have known KJV only people and gone to KJV only churches. For the most part, they are wonderful folks. This guy though.... Good night he is so far off. You'd think he believes Jesus spoke Elizabethan English.
Also, when arguing with KJV only cultists, the only thing that really needs to be pointed out is that the KJV is not the standard. The original manuscripts or the closest thing we have to them are.
The ignorance of this man is so sad, but even sadder are his followers who were showing their approval. And sadder still is the number of churches today who have such in leadership.
It's a terrible travesty that non-English speaking people are unable to read and experience the actual, inspired Word of God - the King Jesus Version! ;) (All those pesky foreign-language translation-abominations just won't cut it. I suppose they'll all have to learn English - and study Shakespeare - in order to have the faintest idea what God is trying to tell them...)
We don’t speak old English anymore
I like the KJV but what about Spanish speaking people and the other 7000 languages and dialects in earth ???
He actually sounds demonic. Listen to him. Holds his fingers up to his forehead and calls himself a loser. Mocking the original scriptures. Arrogance and pride are not fruits of the Holy Spirit.
He comes across as arrogant, flippant, and ignorant. Mostly he's projection his own insecurities about a lack of knowledge of Greek on to his audience. He's missing out by not taking into consideration how the first translations were written. English also isn't capturing everything the same way as the Greek and Hebrew translations. Look at Dante's Divine Comedy in Italian. Someone had to translate it to English. Each translator kept closely to the original while adhering to the terza rima verse form. It's still not like the original though. This is why we shouldn't place these pastors on a pedestal.
0:23 is literally Ruckmanism.
The Authorised Version ( KJV) only pastor seems to have missed the point of that translation of the Bible being 'Authorised'. It was not 'authorised' by the God, but by a mere man. The King, and for his own political ambitions. It amounts to a very long political tract. The translation deliberately avoids Coverdale's more congregationally oriented translation because that would make the gathering of God's people the focus and not the King-controlled official church.
KJV onlyist forget that KJV is also a translation.
I *personally* believe the King James translators got it RIGHT. THAT BEING SAID......is someone who prefers the NIV or NKJV any less saved? There are some "translations" out there that should be avoided and thrown into the deepest part of the sea but that's another conversation. God BLESS you dear Sister!
@@Nov111805 I've read the KJV my entire life, and I attend a KJV only church. That said, I can think of a simple example where I fully believe the Greek is more accurate than the KJV translation.
In 1 Corinthians chapter 13 the KJV says "charity" where the Greek text says "agape". At my church, as well as others, I am used to hearing the pastor say, "charity" while reading the text, and then they switch to saying "love" while discussing the chapter.... If we go back in history to the early 1500's, William Tyndale was receiving grief from Catholics over his translating of "love" instead of "charity" like the Latin Vulgate said. Tyndale wrote a lengthy explanation about the use of the English word "charity" and the use of the Greek word "agape". Tyndale plainly demonstrated that the English word "Love" was an equivalent of the Greek "agape" and that "charity" was not used in English the way "agape" was used in Greek. Tyndale also stated that there was nothing in the text that would indicate that agape should be taken as only charitable love. It was the Catholics who balked at translating the Greek word for love as the English word for love.
This isnt a big issue for me, but I think its a good example of why we should not say what the pastor stated in the video about correcting the Greek with the KJV.
KJV is a verifiably inspired translation though, to see what i mean look up truth is christ.
What about the more than 7,500,000,000 people whose first language is not English, let alone 17th century English? Should we translate from the KJV, the New KJV or from the Greek (and Hebrew), "corrected" by this man?
Biblical translation scholarship has helped me tremendously in my walk. It contextualizes in a way nothing else can. I give thanks for that work.
Imagine being this proud of ignorance.
Even in the KJV it says "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy soul, with all thy heart, and with all thy MIND". And this guy pretty much just said, "Yeah, we can skip that 'mind' one."
@@liljenborg2517 no doubt.
A lot of them are just performers, unfortunately. They have cultist tendencies.
It doesn't seem like the KJV has helped conform him any to Christ's image.
It's a little known fact that if you say "amen" after every single sentence that you say, it automatically makes it true. :)
I grew up around KJV only types and still encounter it some. I moved away from the KJV and part of the reason was reading the introduction that was written by the KJV translators in which they stated they hoped that future translators would be as diligent as they were in producing an accurate translation when the Bible was translated in the future. Even the KJV translators weren't King James only. Nonsense that has been a major distraction in the Kingdom.
I thought the pastor was just joking. Not sure if he was being serious.
I saw this post a while back…he should be removed from the pulpit…he is not a pastor!
I have little patience for those who refuse to learn.
… or think
Sheesh - why are people "amening" that nonsense?
Seems to me that guy is just a comedian. And not a very good one. It looks like all he does is just stand in the pulpit and makes jokes that mock God and his word.
He is the worst pastor I’ve ever seen. I would never attend his church.
Oh, so the final Word of God is _in English_ , is it? Ha.
If the man "Had Greek and Hebrew" to any meaningful level, he would be able to discern that there are more than a few inaccuracies in the KJV (as well as in every other common translation). Although the KJV is my own go to version, because its NT is based on the Textus Receptus, which I believe is the most correct Greek manuscript, by no means do I regard any published Bible translation as the last word superior to the original language.
I agree. One benefit to those who know about the meaning of thou etc, is that the old KJV can tell you if the original 2nd person was singular or plural.
If the KJV was good enough for Paul and Moses then it’s good enough for everyone. :)
🤣🤣🤣 Some years ago, a pastor actually said that with a straight face..
Easily refute his statement by saying: "Who cares what the KJV says, the Geneva Bible, Luther Bible, Tyndale Bible, NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, and NET have the words of God in them too".
It's always surprising to hear any man, much less a pastor, use "Amen" as a throwaway, filler word as often as this dude does. He gives off the vibe of a cultural Christian that is more concerned with being cool than actually preaching the gospel.
If you are going to worship the Bible itself, that is pretty much the same thing that the Muslims and Sikhs do with the Koran and Guru Granth Sahib respectively.
I have to admit, kjv people weird me out. How in the world are you going to contradict the saints who spoke in languages other than english, considering it didn't exist at the time?
I study from the kjv, but that's because i grew up with it and am used to it, but i constantly re-translate verbs if i'm trying to make a point from the scripture. And by the way, "Charity" isnt a very good translation for "agape," but i understand it after some lectures and sermons about the Greek words for love. Smh.
The KJV has its problems as well. A lot of manuscripts like The Dead Sea Scrolls have been discovered since in was written in the 1600s which adds more to the original text and in some cases corrects it...hence the need for a New King James Version.
Pastor like that make me cringe. How many believers has he led astray or denied the deep, rich history of the Bible because of his ignorance or lack of thinking? The word of God is a so full of meaning and context and culture that we can live our whole lives and never fully understand it.
He's not qualified to pastor that congregation.
I agree but listening to the way they approved his arrogance and ignorance I'm guessing they wouldn't set under a qualified teacher.
0:25 "I can take this book and correct the greek"
Ok so I know some people have the idea that the king james bible is the only valid translation, because it is the most faithful translation and somehow blessed/ordained specifically by God.
Usually cults that just use the outdated language to manipulate people as its more difficult to understand, but I digress.
Point is, this is extra wack. In one sentence has he not only said that the greek disagrees with the translation, but that the translation is more correct than the original manuscript. Why?
Also you cant just say "amen" and that like means your point is correct. That's not how words work.
He borrowed this remark from the late Peter Ruckman. Now, if you pay close attention to Ruckman when he makes this remark, what he's really saying is that the KJV could be used to correct the supposedly faulty modern Critical Text of the Greek New Testament by supplying the "missing" readings. But one problem with Ruckman is that his successors often interpret his rhetoric too literally.
All I know is Jesus Christ lived died and resurrected to free people from sin and give eternal life to whoever wants him. He is King of Kings Lord ofLords.
The IFB puts the “fun” in “fundy.” HEYMAN!!!!! 😂
You used intelligence and logic. Two things he has none of.
It's a perfect example of circular reasoning. How do we know if the Greek is correct? Because we can compare it to the KJV! And how do we know the KJV is correct? Because it was taken from the Greek! And how do we know if the Greek is correct? Because, um...
He doesn’t have the start of a clue
I don't think I would stay in that church very long
The only Greek this pastor has had is a Greek salad.
People the original writing of the Bible is Hebrew translated to all other Languages. Christ and all HIS disciples were Hebrew Israelite. God of the Bible says HE the God of the Hebrew Israel. Hebrew for Abraham and Israel for Jacob.
🎯 Key points for quick navigation:
00:00 *📜 Distinction between Bible and Jesus*
- Worship God, not the Scriptures
- Bible is inspired but not divine
- Importance of revering the Scriptures but not worshipping them
01:12 *💭 Understanding translation process*
- Importance of Greek and Hebrew in Bible translation
- Different translation approaches: word for word vs. thought for thought
- Acknowledgment of the challenges in translating ancient texts
02:33 *📚 Translation challenges*
- No perfect translations exist
- Acknowledgment that King James Version is not flawless
- Appreciation for translators who make Scriptures accessible to non-Greek/Hebrew speakers
Made with HARPA AI
3 minutes? you are teaching what? Click bait is not teaching the Bible. What is doctrine anyway? you dare to do a 2 hour study on YOUR false doctrine? I promise your doctrine will not hold up to YOUR Bible!
I like the KJV. Only because it works great along with a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. That better explains what the English translation lacks. It also points out that the word "Pasha" or Passover was replaced with "Easter." the name of a pagan goddess.
Watch what the enemy does. He only attacks the KJV (🤔)! The "original greek" is compromised 😧!
If KJVO people would read the introduction to their Bible. The people doing the translation knew it was not perfect and knew that other translations (even other languages) would need to be made. But they acknowledged that those translations, done accurately, would still be the words of God.
Which greek? This guy does not represent every KJV only guy since many of us are KJV only in the english language. There are many KJV men who are Texus Receptus only.
My position, as an Orthodox Christian, is that if someone wants to devote themselves to one, and only one version of the Bible, it should be the original language. Greek NT, Hebrew for the OT, or Greek for the Septuagint or Greek OT
The KJV is a good translation. It’s the one I usually use, because it’s widely available and the errors are well known and documented.
But only an idiot would say that it’s perfect, or that it corrected errors in the Greek. That’s right up there with Peepstone Joe’s “translation” of the Book of Mormon.
That was WILD!
Huh? 🤨
Btw, great explanation and demonstration of grace in your response.
This guy is a clown. However, if translating the bible from the original language of the authors is so problematic that it leads to these endless rabbit hole debates on what it actually says and means, that's a problem. There are about 60 English translations of the bible, and while several of them have minor difference that don't really matter, we're not talking about a book on economics. This is supposed to be the word of a god. It kind of matters.
Jesus said the spirit will lead you into all truth,,, that is to say without the infilling/baptism of the spirit there will be errant thinking of the carnal mind.
Most churches have no idea what the baptism in the spirit is. They will never find the truth as it is hidden from them. Choices were made in the translating process for the kjv,,, many of them wrong because the men involved were not spirit filled. They had no personal relationship with Jesus to rely on.
Thank you for taking on the KJVO cult.
Folly 🙄🙄🙄🙄 correct the Greek?! Bruh🙄🙄🙄😂
I'm so glad I wasn't born a millenial, swimming in the ocean of vast modernly schooled ignorance and hatred.
How do you get more views? Find the most ridiculous pastor and post his views. If this is supposed to bring about an honest discussion on the matter, it failed.
I dont know this preacher and i wont defend him but i think someone doesnt understand sarcasm and hyperbole
I strongly suggest that if you are KJV only, you do Bible word study on idols.
Well said. Thank you brother for this clarification.
Except he's wrong. God preserved his word in the KJB. Psalms 12: 6-7 KJV.
@@vashmatrix5769 no, it's you who is wrong. The King James is just a translation.
@@HearGodsWord Preserved by God
@@vashmatrix5769 God preserved His Word, and the King James is just a translation of it.
@@HearGodsWord Oversaw by God. He keeps his words. Psalms 12: 6-7 KJV.
Just more IFB nonsense sadly.
I have to ask, which King James Version?? Because nobody uses the 1611. They all use one of the 1769 Blayney revisions (either the Oxford or Cambridge editions, and they are not the same. There are word differences). Not counting the apocrypha, the 1769 KJV has about 8% change in wording compared to the 1611, not changes in spelling or punctuation, but actual word changes (an equivalent to the NKJV vs. KJV ). I used to attend an independent fundamental KJV-only Baptist church. They don't like going to the sauce for information. They love circular arguments using each other as a reference.
Nobody I know that is KJV only uses the 1769 version. They all use the 1611 version. The most vocal even has a "1611KJV" license plate.
@rlhicks1 I find that very hard to believe, since the 1611 KJV is very difficult to read with thick black Gothic type print and contains the apocrypha. Trust me when I say that they are definitely using the 1769 edition because that's all they print. All you have to do is just look at te print in their Bibles. If it's not thick black Gothic print, then you can bank on it not being a 1611. There was a fake 1611 edition getting around for a while, but as soon as you opened it and saw the print and it didnt have the apocrypha, you knew. From what I can find, that was actually an early 1700 edition.
he doesn't even know how to say "amen"
No Greek/Hebrew NO KJV at all.
Ruckmanite no bueno
Only the originals were inspired?
That's what the Devil will tell you. He wants people to doubt God's Word.
No. God has preserved His word (Isaiah 40:8, Matthew 24:35, Psalms 119:89, Psalms 12:6-7). All in the KJV of course of which we do not think it is God but His very pure words in the English language.
@@redfaux74 True. But this video states "But please understand, the doctrine of inspiration refers to composition process of the ORIGINALS. It does not extend to the translation process."
@rlyle5804 - The problem with that is we don't have the originals. God promised to keep His Word pure for all generations. God never promised to keep the original anything.
Don't you find it interesting that Ps 12:6-7 tells us in the KJV that God will do that? In newer versions they change it? Why? Because they admit their versions are not the infallible Word of God. Only Satan would want that to be true. We've had the Word of God in English unchanged for the last 350 years. Suddenly God woke up and changed the changes that are still changing every time a new version is produced? Only the Devil would want that.
You see what our world has changed to just in the last 40 to 50 years since these new versions have become popular. It's obvious.
Head. Desk. Bang.
That's racist.
Ridiculous
I'll be homest. I do see why people believe that the KJV is the Bible that should be used for English speaking people (since it was the first full English translation and all the work that was put into it), and now count myself among them. I'm listening to the pastor amd I'm waiting for the punchline that never came. It makes zero sense to place the KJV over the original texts. Idol worship indeed.
Even if we're ignoring the Vulgate-based Wycliffe Bible from the 1380s, the KJV isn't the first full English translation. The Miles Coverdale Bible is the first complete English Bible to use William Tyndale's 1526 New Testament. (Coverdale himself translated some of the other books.) It came out in 1535, the same year that Tyndale was arrested. More of Tyndale's Old Testament work was incorporated into the Thomas Matthew Bible of 1537, released a year after his execution. Then Coverdale returned to revise his work in the Great Bible of 1539, which was authorized for church use by King Henry VIII. This translation would receive two revisions of its own: an unofficial update in Switzerland under John Calvin (the Geneva Bible of 1560) and an authorized update in England under Queen Elizabeth (the Bishops' Bible of 1568). The KJV committee based their work on the latter, though they incorporated some things from the former.
Why does the Bible speak of baptism being essential for the remission of sins numerous times by the Apostles and Jesus himself yet 98% of all denominations in the World claim you are not saved by baptism?
Thanks for the question! The following may help:
www.str.org/w/is-baptism-necessary-for-salvation-
www.str.org/w/does-baptism-save-
www.str.org/w/does-baptism-have-regenerative-significance-
www.str.org/w/baptism-and-belief
We invite you to call in to our weekly broadcast to discuss your thoughts with Greg Koukl. He'd love to hear from you. Or you can submit an #STRask or Open Mic question. Visit www.str.org/broadcast for details.
What the heck is this guy even talking about?
He's saying exactly what Peter S. Ruckman taught. Ruckman said that the KJV contained "advanced revelation", that it was given by the literal dictate of the Holy Spirit, and that the Greek and Hebrew only mattered when and where they agreed exactly with the KJV.
@@fnjesusfreak Didn't Ruckman believe where the KJV said "aliens" it was actually talking about the little green men in outer space?
@@hayfieldhermit9657 That wouldn't surprise me at all, but I've never seen any evidence. He certainly had some really kooky ideas.
Got to love the KJV only people.
Funny because no KJV bible believer hates those that do not read it but there is plenty of hate and ridicule coming from those who use other perversions. I include you in this by the way. If God inspired His word in any language He would not produce many versions that all disagree with one another and cause confusion. The confusion comes with those who refuse to look into wicked men like Westcott and Hort who had a big part to play in the new versions coming through (these versions only came from 1900 and coincided with fewer missions across the world and the great apostacy we see in the church). Disunity in the body of Christ has much to do with NIV, RSV etc... users not having the correct doctrines (not the only reason) to live by and hold to.
Even though I don't read either Greek or Hebrew (learning disabilities) I fully agree that if you haven't read the Bible in either Greek or Hebrew, you haven't read it at all. There's nothing I enjoy more than listening or reading textual discussions on the etymology of words and translations. Particularly when it comes to the felicities of Hebrew. A single word can deepen one's faith.
Your thinking is the other extreme of his. This is the kind of thinking that leads to Latin mass and eastern orthodox only using greek.
Jesus would rebuke you too.
@@ccrow3355 Hardly. It's what leads to textual notes in commentaries.
The definition of pride has just been demonstrated in this video. And the KJV actually states it quite well too in Proverbs 16:18: Pride goeth before destruction and an haughty spirit before a fall. May the Lord by His Holy Spirit, enlighten this congregation with truth, love and peace.
I've heard this explained in different ways. If you look up Jeremiah 29:11, the KJV says "peace", while the NIV says "prosper" for the word "shalom". If you look this word up in Strong's it is H7965 and has many options to choose from. The ideology in a nutshell is that the KJV translators chose the most applicable word.
The KJV Bible is mathematically encoded
Now this is a first for me. What do you mean exactly? Mathematically encoded how?
@@abigailjack9570 search for mathematical structure of the KJV Bible
I agree with you, but those who believe in “KJV Only” ( and im assuming from this clip that this pastor believes that) actually believe that the KJV was inspired by God. A “reinspiration, “ of God. They DO believe it is perfect in the KJV English.
...and here I am struggling to learn Greek on my own.
"You can not judge other Bibles to be wrong until you have a right Bible." Dr. Gene Kim - San Jose Bible Baptist Church
I would point out that even the Greek isn't the original language of The Bible. That was just the most common version of the documents the New Testament were written in because Greek was the trade language of the day like English is today. Everything was originally in Aramaic, the language of the people in the New Testament. Hopefully those translators who put it in to Greek also translated them properly.
The claim that the original New Testament writing were in Aramaic has one major problem: the complete absence of evidence. It’s theoretically possible but lacks ANY actual evidence.
@@mattfuller651, who said anything about writing?
The words were originally presented in the minds of the people who were causing them to be written. These people grew up speaking, and therefore thinking, in Aramaic.
Therefore, in order for the Greek version to be created, there would have to be a translation. This may be in the mind of the speaker (likely in Paul's case, he being a citizen of Rome), or the scribe (more likely with some of the others). Any translation will be filled with the biases of whoever taught them the second language be it Greek (in Paul's case) or Aramaic (a Greek scribe's case).
As for evidence, what language would you say that average person in Jerusalem at the time spoke in? Do you have any evidence for that?
@@Charistoph If that's the only Aramaic you are referring to then the original writing was Greek and there is no reason to "hope" the translator did a good job since the original was written in Greek. In other words, your original comment was pointless.
@@mattfuller651, only pointless if you don't understand how translation works or the history of Christ's Church.
It appears that you think that the Greek is the original, authoritative language of the New Testament, despite all the major players (besides Pilate) grew up speaking (and therefore thinking) in Hebrew and/or Aramaic. They would have originally presented these stories in Hebrew and Aramaic as they went around teaching the Jews.
It would only be after Simon-Peter had the dream of Unclean Animals that the Gentile push really started happening. Fast-forward a couple decades when they started writing it down for clear communication throughout the Church, and Gentiles being the most predominate number of members, Greek would be the natural go-to. However, the authors still thought in Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek, and so they had to translate from that to Greek, even if they were the ones scribing it. Luke would be the exception to this, being Greek himself (if the tradition is accurate).
@@Charistoph if the language it was originally written in was Greek there is no translator to be concerned with. You said, "Hopefully those translators who put it in to Greek translated them properly." They all knew Greek and communicated in Greek because it was necessary in that part of the Roman Empire. The autographs were inspired - meaning what was written. The theoretical mental translation is irrelevant.
This heresy has gained more traction than one would imagine. Also, I know I'm bucking the literacy trend but he's actually radical, not fundamental, because he has abandoned the fundamental tenets of faith and reason for radical ideas. We should be teaching people to stick with the fundamentals and not get caught up in radical winds of false doctrine.
There is something about the language of the KJV that makes it unique and inspirational to the reader/listener. Also, studying the KJV requires much more time trying to understand the language, time spent in the Word and what it means. Having said that my go to translation is the ESV and it has advantages as well.
The only perfect translation is when God translated his thoughts into human languages
if english is good enough for jesus...
then it is good enough for me~!
It's putting the cart before the horse big-time.
He said it out loud. Most people just thnk it.