Why I Reject King James Onlyism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 тра 2023
- On this episode, Keith shares a recent lecture he gave at Sovereign Grace Academy on the subject of King James Onlyism. While the KJV itself is a wonderful translation, the division which some cause over it is not. This lecture attempts to address some of that division.
#cwac #kjvonlyism #kjv #kjvbible #kjvonly
In the video, Keith mentions several other videos he recommends.
Here are the links to those videos:
PREVIOUS KJV PODCAST: • Would the KJV Translat...
JOHN ANKERBERG SHOW: • JAS - KJV only Debate ...
STEVEN ANDERSON/JAMES WHITE DISCUSSION: • Dr. James White Full I...
Conversations with a Calvinist is the podcast ministry of Pastor Keith Foskey. If you want to learn more about Pastor Keith and his ministry at Sovereign Grace Family Church in Jacksonville, FL, visit www.SGFCjax.org.
To watch our videos, visit CalvinistPodcast.com
To get the audio version of the podcast through Spotify, Apple, or other platforms, visit anchor.fm/medford-foskey
Follow Pastor Keith on Twitter @YourCalvinist
Email questions about the program to CalvinistPodcast@gmail.com
Support the show at Buymeacoffee.com/YourCalvinist
I didn't realize you had your doctorate until I looked up your series on sermon audio. I appreciate your humility brother. Loving your content.
I’m Catholic and we have our own KJV only type movement called Douy Rheims only. Douy Rheims was a Bible written around the time of KJV based on the Vulgate from the 4th century. For some reason in the 1950s there were a huge number of Catholics who only wanted to use the DRB and considered all newer translations invalid and corrupted the same way KJV only views newer versions. I never understood it especially since newer versions have proven to be much better translations.
they’re actually made form the same texts, using only byzantine text which some people swear is perfect and all others are corrupt
The Psalms are numbered differently and do not flow like KJV.
And yet a lot of people say Douay-Rheims when they mean Challoner.
Alot of newer Bibles are not necessarily better. Look how modern Bibles are made and translated. Words and definitions are changed to not offend people. It's quite disturbing.
The Jewish literary critic Harold Bloom was once asked what the difference was between the King James version and all other English Bible translations. His answer: "King James--shaky Hebrew, excellent English. All other translations--excellent Hebrew, shaky English."
It’s simply not logically consistent. There are so many practical arguments against it. And if the KJVonlyism and mindset is taken to it’s logical conclusion, we should all be reading only Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.
My wife and I attended a KJV only church for a while and we wanted to buy bibles for teens that were being bused to the church. These teens were low income, high school dropouts. We wanted to buy them bibles that weren’t KJV because these kids couldn’t read modern American English, let alone 1700s English (we all know it’s not the 1611 version being read today). And the church refused us using our own money to buy them anything but KJV.
And I said “So you are saying it would be better for them to have no bible at all than a non KJV bible?”
They said “yes, that is correct.”
We learned our lesson about the KJVonly cult.
Every time I've tried to respond to this my comment gets taken down. I'm going to break my comment up so I can get it to post. Apologies that this platform is forcing this to be longer than needed.
Only one word of God was passed down by Christians & that's the KJV. While I understand the intent of giving kids some easier reading like NKJV they still changed things in it & thus it shouldn't be treated as the authoritative text. There's a reason those texts in Alexandria were discarded. Seems cultists would want to reject the one text that was passed down & used for hundreds of years.
Check out, "Why I Use The King James Version (KJV) of the Bible?" By- Truth In Genesis. Also check out "Truth Is Christ" as he has lots of vids about 7's & other holy numbers that only work out in the KJV, including the 1611th word... & those only exist because of the passage of time in changing how the KJV was written. It wasn't in there in 1611 but by our changes in English you can see God had his hand in it. I especially encourage you to see all the vids by Truth In Christ on the subject.
@@vashmatrix5769 The NKJV doesn't follow the Alexandrian texts. In fact, some of its footnotes come down rather hard on Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (for instance, the translators' comments on the ending of Mark 16). The translation's preface basically says, "Scholars such as ourselves have determined that the Byzantine text is superior to the Alexandrian text, so we agree with the Textus Receptus more than we disagree with it, as you'll see in our footnotes." (They try to sound a tad more objective, but not by much.)
@@MAMoreno I wasn't saying it was from there. Though I can see where since I said that after you may get that impression. If you can remove the stick from your rear you can critique where I should be more objective.
I just finished this video after watching it for a day or so.
Great content and I appreciate learning a bit more about how we get our English Bibles.
Thank you Pastor Keith!
I recently found your channel and I’ve been loving it. Keep up the good work brother.
Great study! I grew up in a rkjvo church. Thanks for all your hard work. God bless you and your family.
I make no bones about the fact that I prefer the KJV, but whenever I run across a KJV onlyer I tell them they should go all the way and become Anglican, because it’s our Bible.
I'm very secure in sticking with the KJV only but don't understand your comment. Explain plz.
@@vashmatrix5769 KJV was created for use by the Church of England and therefore if you only use KJV only it is best to become Anglican.
@@ulty1472 Actually it was for use by everyone, which is part of why it ticked off the "church". That made the word available to all the common people. My point is more about the Anglican thing, which now I think I'm starting to get what you're saying. Correct me if wrong then, you find the KJV to more directly point to Anglican than my view of it making Gods word available to all, which includes Anglican?
You know it's very funny. If God preserved a perfect received text, He did it through the catholic bodies (Roman and Eastern churches). Then He guided the translation of the KJV from the received text using the (small-c) catholic Church of England.
And yet 99% of these KJV-only people are Baptists. Really makes you think.
Erasmus was Roman Catholic. The KJV translators were Anglicans. They baptized babies.
Where's their Baptist Bible? If Baptists are so right, why didn't the Baptists preserve the received Greek texts and translate it into the best and perfect English translation?
And I'm not saying that Baptists are wrong because they didn't translate the KJV, but it would be an easy argument for a KJV-only Anglican to make.
You sound way too possessive! Anglicans have long abandoned this translation.
Can you post the links to the videos you referenced in this lecture into this video for those of us who aren't in the class but would still like to watch them?
I will add them to the description. Here they are:
MY PODCAST: ua-cam.com/video/QEZgQojuQzE/v-deo.html
JOHN ANKERBERG SHOW: ua-cam.com/video/YH5g0gXW0FI/v-deo.html
STEVEN ANDERSON/JAMES WHITE DISCUSSION: ua-cam.com/video/GkPmnlTlP2M/v-deo.html
Pastor which NASB do you use? I have the 77 Edition
I didn't know that you guys were up in the Jacksonville area! I was just up there last weekend to film a soccer game. I'm down in Brevard County
Thank you...great information and well presented.
You mention text book. I'm interested in what resources you use as I'm working with my pastor to get a similar academy going at our church. Do you have a set of textbooks that you use or just choose at random?
Each class has its own textbooks and additional recommended readings. You can see our overview at SGFCjax.org/Academy and copies of our syllabus are available to download. This class we used "How We Got the Bible" by Lightfoot.
@@ConversationswithaCalvinist thanks!
Do you do this in place of Sunday School? My Church did something like this but not as official as Seminarymnmtype classes with tests but we did eight to ten week classes and then had new classes to be taught by a whole different set of classes and teachers. Thankfully we were a larger church with well educated men besides those on staff who sometimes were asked to teach classes. Just curious if more than anything.
Man I wish this was a longer video! Do you have anymore of these classes recorded? There is so much good info. Thank you so much for posting this
Thank you for the kind reply. This is part of our series on How We Got the Bible. You can view all of them at our sermon audio page. Here is the link: www.sermonaudio.com/solo/foskey/sermons/series/177035/
@@ConversationswithaCalvinist I watched the 8th part. I was disappointed it wasn't "Hey man, if you love Jesus. You'll complete question 51. " - Big Eva
@@ConversationswithaCalviniston a scale of 1 to 10 ,ten being the highest rating where would you put Dr. White in the history of scholars and elders in church history?
How can we take these courses online?
You can read about them at SGFCJAX.org/Academy and you can register at SovereignGraceAcademy.org
In hispanic communities we have basically the same movement with the Reina Valera.
And yet there are actually Ruckmanite/Riplingerite translations of the KJV into Spanish.
1:12:00 But the KJV is copyrighted, by the British Crown. That copyright isn't valid in the US, but a copyright it remains--though KJVO-ism is pretty US-based, so what happens in other countries isn't generally much of a concern to them. The related complaint is that copyright means that subsequent versions have to be different in order to be copyrightable--which is based on a fundamental (and, I believe, deliberate) misinterpretation of copyright law.
Yes, would not want to misrepresent 17 U.S.C 103, FormVA, or the copyright protections found in every Bible. That would be silly to think publisher are abiding by the law.
first you are a good speaker. secondly, this was very fascinating, thanks!
Do these people realize that the KJV was a modern translation in it's day? The original bible was written in Hebrew and Aramaic and the New Testament was written in Greek!
For those who believe that many (if not most) vital stretches of the Bible are just symbolism and allegory, what difference does it make which version is used?
Because books saying different things cannot both be God's preserved word. Tell me the version you have & I'll tell you problems in it.
The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton includes all the 1611 translator notes.
Everything the NCPB does, imo, the Cambridge Clarion does better.
im not in a position to give a lecture but i heard that james asked some witches or whatever to tell the future for him (iirc hanging around necromancers is a biblical no no) and then when they said he would die a crappy death (which he did) he deliberately mistranslated "poisoner" into "witch" so he could have them burned to death as revenge. not sure if thats really what happened but it just seemed worth pointing out
Yeah, he wasn't a great dude.
I graduated from Pensacola Christian College. Though the college does teach a TR-only/KJV position, those KJV-only bumper stickers did not come from them! Ruckman's Pensacola Bible Institute sometimes gets confused with PCC.
I just found your podcast and I’ve become a listener. I enjoyed this lecture on KJV Onlyism.
17:43 Pastor Anderson never said that, in fact he said the opposite. The argument he was making that simply explaining the gospel in your own words isn't how someone gets saved, you need to use scripture since the Word of God has power. James White kept rephrasing his argument and inserting the KJV into it and you fell for it, go rewatch it from 40 minutes in.
I have some Cambridge and Allan KJVs that have the original translators' notes. Actually, Cambridge editions are especially good because many of them have the preface.
To most KJV Onlyists, it doesn't matter. Those types, sad to say, are basically a cult.
@@billiamnotbob Some of them even think that the translators' notes were added by the devil!
@@fnjesusfreak Idolarty is a scary thing. Man, that's out there! I watched Gene Kim a few times and was totally put off. I used to have a copy of the Geneva Bible. Talk about hard reading! lol
I’ve got a 1611 KJV facsimile. It’s made to be an almost exact copy of the original first printing of it. It uses the same rag cotton linen paper as the original. It’s giant and probably weighs 25 pounds. The new smaller reproductions of the 1611 are different in several ways. Size is the obvious difference but the font is another major difference. The original 1611 used gothic font. Absolutely beautiful but harder to read and would be nearly impossible to read at the size of the new small 1611 copies. I also have a leaf from an original first printing of the 1611. It’s a New Testament leaf from the book of Acts. The first printing was from 1611 to 1613. So the leaf is at least 410 years old. I prefer the critical text based formal modern translations of the Bible (LSB,ESV, NASB,CSB,). I believe the critical text is as close to the original autographs as we can possibly get. Based on the evidence which God has preserved for us..and he preserved a treasure trove of manuscripts for us. The KJV translators had literally 1% of the manuscripts we have now but I absolutely love the King James Bible and always will. It’s a fantastic and beautiful translation of God’s word. I have actually read several books about the KJV and it’s creation and legacy. God certainly blessed the English speaking world with the KJV.
I looked at the codex sinaticus. Its horrible. So much changes. Untrustworthy
I’ve learned never to limit God- never limit the power of the Holy Spirit. I grew up with KJV and the Psalms in this version have comforted me since I was in 2nd grade. I have many versions of the Bible and ESV is one of my favorites. Grew up Baptist- Episcopal in Junior High, and Presbyterian and Lutheran in 8th and 9th grade and Roman Catholic as an adult. I prefer Psalms in KJV, use ESV, NET, and CEB. Praise God for His Word. And don’t limit Him and how He works. Love this channel. May Jesus Christ be praised! Alleluia!
I often advise young people to be familiar with the KVJ. Why you may ask? Because the KJV has been around for 400 years, so it is often used in public gatherings, especially non-church gatherings where the Bible may be invoked or read as part of the program.
As an English teacher, I recommend my students read the KJV at some point. It's the Bible alluded to throughout much of British and American literature.
If Athanasius wasn't part of the true Church, then neither was Erasmus, and some (probably most) "KJV Only" types would say that Theodore Beza wasn't part of the true Church (because he was a Calvinist). This demonstrates, to me, how illogical KJV Onlyism is.
I thoroughly enjoyed this video!
Which version of KJV only do you find illogical? He named 5+ versions of that belief. I'm KJV only, but not in saying that you can't be saved if you've never used one.
@Vash Matrix I find "KJV Olyism" illogical, not any version of the KJV illogical. I have (and treasure) a printed edition of the actual 1611 King James Version. You would probably eschew it (because it includes the Apocrypha).
I actually consider the KJV to be superior to many modern translations of the Bible. I just think that believing that one specific English translation of the Bible is the only legitimate translation or that it is somehow "inspired" to be illogical.
It is the original authors of the original autographs of the books of the Old and New Testaments (Moses, Isaiah, the Apostle Paul, the Apostle John, etc.) who were "inspired," not the translators of the KJV.
I find "KJV Onlyism" to be just as illogical as "Vulgate Onlyism" or "NIV Onlyism" (both of which actually exist. There were and are Vulgate Onlyists and NIV Onlyists.).
P.S. I take back part of the above. I actually think that NIV Olyism is more illogical than KJV Onlyism and Vulgate Onlyism. It would actually be easier for me, logically, to believe that the KJV translators were "inspired" or that Jerome was "inspired" than to think that the NIV translators were somehow "inspired." 🤔
And when I say "inspired," I mean "inspired" to the point of being innerant and infallible. I'm not talking about "Natural Inspiration."" The original autographs of Scripture were "inspired" to the level that they were innerant and infallible.
And if the original 1611 KJV translation was innerant and infallible, then logically, we must accept the books of the Apocrypha as Canonical since they were included in the original 1611 KJV translation of the Bible. 🤔
If the translators of the 1611 KJV were wrong to include the Apocrypha in their translation, then what else were they wrong about? Perhaps the 1611 KJV wasn't infallible or innerant? 🤔
@@scottleary8468 You have to click my name & reply so my name is blue for me to get a notification of your comment. My point is what do you mean by KJV only "ism"? He made over 5 examples of completely different meanings to people.
@@scottleary8468 My reply is being broke up because this platform is terrible about censorship.
@Vash Matrix All types of KJV Onlyism are illogical, except for the first, those who simply PREFER the KJV. I have no problem with the logic of that type of KJV Onlyism. That is simply a matter of taste.
Correct, the final TR was edited to reflect the reading of the Authorized version. This being because the Translators of the King James Version saw a few instances in which the accurate reading of scripture was not perfectly complementary to the previous editions of the TR.
This is good stuff brother
I love the KJV, but if it was perfect, why were there so many versions.
One of the comical attitudes of IFBers about being KJV only and thoroughly anti-Calvinist has to do with the origins of the KJV. King James I who promulgated the KJV was raised a Calvinist. While as king James I was not the most ardent Calvinist, he never forgot his theological roots. The KJV Bible and the puritanical 1604 Book of Common Prayer are some of the results.
Another shocker to the IFBers has to be the fact that James I seems to have had numerous lovers of both sexes. Truly a different time. A different time. Or was it????
[Disclaimer: I have greatly simplified James' life story here. Deep reading of medieval history would help sober up the serious student of these long ago times.]
[Btw, Brother Foskey, as a fellow Calvinist, I just love your shows on UA-cam. You are doing so much to keep the loving Christian conversation going between different denominations of sheep. Keep up the great work.]
Christians should exclusively read the Textus Receptus is Greek. Obviously
So, shouldn't King James Version Only people move to England? The Founding Fathers gave out the Geneva Bible.....because the King James Bible held to the divine right of kings.
They also had slaves, no one is perfect, but the King James Bible is!!
I have an English Russian Bible. its RSV.
If you are really interested in a more accurate translation of the Scriptures I would recommend getting a copy of either Mr William Kelly or the JNDarby translation.
Darby as in the father of Dispensationalism ?
Hard pass
I love the KJV, but I never recommend it to new Christians. Why? Because it's an older version of the English language. There's just so many sayings and indiums that people in the modern day won't understand. Other versions of the Bible bring the language up to date for modern readers so that they can better understand what's being said.
Now, with that being said, if I run into a Renaissance festival nerd who uses phrases like "good morrow" and words like "varilly," then yes, here's a KJV for you.
PS: I'm not making fun of those people, I am those people.
I think it’s easier if you have a parent from the Caribbean because there the KJV is used everywhere.
Im also kjv guy but not only
KJVO love to go to daniel 3 24/25 but they don't read the context.. ugh. The plagues of tradition
It's really funny how at 27:00 or so the student has an unacceptably-revised version footnoting the complete woman in adultery.
You do you. But when the book of Acts has 4 dreadful mentions of the city of Alexandria, I don't look at that as coincidence, I look at that as a warning from a Book that is alive (Hebrews 4:12).
The synagogue that conspired against Stephen included Alexandrians. Appollos was preaching an incomplete gospel and had to be corrected. He was from Alexandria. The ship that wrecked and led to Paul being bit by a viper was built in Alexandria. And the ship that had Castor & Pollux on it's flag was built in Alexandria. Pollux was son of Zeus. Zeus = Satan. Pollux = son of Satan = antichrist. Zeus, king of devils (1 Corinthians 10:20). Zeus god of lightning (Luke 10:18).
@johnathanbach Where is James White misleading??? Riplinger is misleading. She tells about how the new versions have David killing Goliath's brother in 2 Samuel making fun of them getting the story wrong. David killing Goliath is in 1 Samuel 17, not 2 Samuel!!!
She's referring to 2 Samuel 21.19.
@@fnjesusfreakYes. Which is a different story. She is misleading
@@kevinjodrey7664 I could tell you what my stance is on that particular verse and it's not exactly the same as the KJV. Basically I would reverse engineer some of the wording from its parallel in 1 Chronicles into the 2 Samuel passage, which the KJV translators partially did, and the translators of other versions just left the text exactly as it stood in Hebrew. The hint to the KJV doing this is the italics on the phrase "the brother of." So they actually tampered with the text to fix an obvious mistake but were honest enough to admit it.
@@fnjesusfreakYes. Chronicles and Kings and 1st and 2nd Samuel have overlaps and differences. That passage out of 2 Samuel that Gail quotes in her book is totally different. David is an adult in 2 Samuel. He was going to bury the binges of Saul and Jonathan
@@kevinjodrey7664 she's pointing out something that is accurate but making an inaccurate statement about it. She's known to make a lot of wildly misleading or even completely bogus comments.
If it ain’t HCSB (Hard Core Southern Baptist) it ain’t nothin 😂😂Lol
Would you please please pretty please..........
Please please please pretty pretty please.
Come one my freind Nick Sayers program.
We can debate over the KING James doctrine being devisive or any related topic you want to suggest.
We can even talk about how we are both brothers in christ.
Things that are different are not the same.
Tell me you are part of the IFB without telling me you are part of the IFB
Right. It's like they've never read Psalm 12:6-7 or heard Jesus mention the importance of even the jot & tittle.
I reject KJV onlyism because it has no scriptural support. It is cultic, deceptive, a man made tradition. It is blasphemous and idolatrous because it confined Almighty God to some archaic imperfect uninspired English translation. So like all cults and false teachings. It creates a god made in man's own image. Therefore it total idolatry. It comprises of false teachers, preaching another gospel. Adding the KJV only deception to the finished work of Christ. Another gospel as all true Bible believers know is the spirit of divination or witchcraft. That describes the KJV only cult exactly who are not true Bible believers. If they were they would not teach the unbilical indefensible KJV only heresy. Other reasons to reject the KJV only heresy? Sam Gipp, Will Kinney, Gail Riplinger, Robert Breaker, Gene Kim, Steven Anderson, Mike Hoggard, David W Daniels and anything from chicktracts. All KJV only cultists. All good reasons to never enter a KJV only church. After all if they teach this heresy what other heresies will they teach?
🤣 Psalm 12:6-7. There's some scriptural support for you. Which Translation came from the preserved text which was passed down, oh yeah the KJB. You're angry & projecting... Btw that perfect inspired translation was at the height of the English language.
Wow... Sounds like somebody is being groomed to kill King James Bible believers.
Like they did before.
So what's the big deal? Even you said there is only 1% difference. I know people who are NIV only. I can make a stronger case against that version (perversion).
I love the KJV as you said it is what I grew up on. But the Legacy Standard is amazing.
No, the LSB is Dazzling....
Song of Songs 5:10
LSB: My beloved is dazzling and ruddy
NIV: My beloved is radiant and ruddy
NLT: My lover is dark and dazzling
CSB: My love is fit and strong
ICB: My lover is clean and tanned
MSG: My dear lover glows with health- red-blooded, radiant!
NIVR: The one who loves me is tanned and handsome
MEV: My beloved is white and ruddy
NASB20: My beloved is dazzling and reddish
GNB: My lover is handsome and strong
CEV: He is handsome and healthy
ESV: My beloved is radiant and ruddy,
KJB: My beloved is white and ruddy
@@casey1167 not sure what you are trying to say, but ṣaḥ means dazzling, glowing, clear, bright, sunny.
@@emtpope I hope you are not saying it does not mean ""fit and strong"
my preference is the ESV, for readability; though when I study or prepare lessons, I'll look at many translations
@@clausewitz41_plus_1 That's great, so how do YOU determine which translation is correct?
Genesis 3:16
ESV - Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.
NLT - And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you
ISV - since your trust is turning toward your husband, and he will dominate you.
TLB - you shall welcome your husband’s affections, and he shall be your master.
CSB - Your desire will be for your husband, yet he will rule over you.
Which group of translator's scholarship do you trust?
Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism.
I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin,
but not the Greek so out it goes.
Good will towards men
Doxology in Matthew
Without cause
God manifest in the flesh
Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin,
so out they go
The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek
and Latin so out they go.
Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8
some throw out.
If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem,
what would you see as a problem?
Ruckman, Anderson, Gipp, Riplinger...you are definitely presenting forth the best arguments for the KJV position. NOT. What about Phil Stringer, Dell Johnson, Dean John Burgon, David Cloud, David Sorenson, D.A. Waite? These are far more mainstream and reasonable. James White is factually incorrect on many points, even highly misleading. This seems to be where you draw your positions on this subject.
Many people who trash versions other than the KJV parrot Ruckman, Riplinger and/or Gipp, so it's fair to point to their beliefs while admitting them to be the fringe of the fringe.
Pensacola Christian College is not where the bumper stickers come from, by the way. I wouldn’t broad brush the KJO movement. Many different opinions are found under that label. The Ruckman / Riplinger positions do not speak for the majority of those who believe in the veracity of the TR / majority text traditions as better.
I would think that a Calvinist would be a Geneva-onlyist.
I loved this class but would be nice if you gave James White credit for most of what you mentioned. God bless
Most people are aware that I’ve been a student of James for 20 years, and I reference him a lot in my teaching. I definitely attribute much of this class to what I’ve learned in his books and lectures. I normally do mention his books while teaching.
Nobody has the original autographs, not one translation we have goes off of the original autographs… anyone that tells you they do has something to sell you…
South Africa here: KJV not just America - it's an issue for me at least: and it's because the NIV scuttled the 1984 and showed their hand to be wicked.
Contrary to what you say, ad hominem is not an invalid argument: if the man is corrupt, then so is his work. The change in the doctrine is against the doctrine of Jesus Christ being God in flesh: the gnostics didn't like that. They are not trustworthy witnesses: Proverbs 14:25 A true witness delivereth souls: but a deceitful witness speaketh lies.
But ALL men are corrupt.
I do use the KJV but am aware of the critical variants issue! Was a good class and I enjoyed the teaching. I have heard folks make the comment that using the KJV vs others one would not produce difference of doctrine! If that statement is true ....why all the fuss!
Thinking of how I fit the 5 examples you made. #1. Not me. I didn't grow up with it nor prefer it, until I believed it. #2. Textus Receptus... complicated based on your explanation... no, to the last part. New King James made too many changes & isn't accurate to the text anymore. #3. Yup I'm confused on the distinction at this point in the vid. I thought the TR was the hand written stuff that was later printed. #4. Yup. That's my group. I believe God preserved his word in the KJV. Without learning the most common language so they can read the KJV the next best thing would be trying to translate the KJV for them. Sending them NIV in their language would lead them astray (like it promoting abortion for example) like it has Americans. #5 Not exactly sure if I get you but I think I agree with it too. God had his hand on it. (Sorta)#6. It's definitely NOT a salvation issue. I had the perverted NIV growing up & still got the gospel.
Rejects the KJV and is a Calvinist, that makes total sense
I agree with your video. I used to be KJV onlyism but no more.
There is such thing as King James Onlyism. However, that banter is often thrown around to badger everyone who holds to the Authorized Version as the final authority for the words of scripture. These are not strictly speaking the same.
viewing the KJV as the "final authority" is inherently KJVO
It is not. And I speak of “final authority” for English speaking people. What’s your final authority, and why?
The apocrypha was not considered to be the inspired word of God in 1611, it was placed between the old and New Testament not within them.. it was separated.
Many inaccurate things you go over in this video.
Whos this joker?
Who am i, who are you?
Go to God The Heavenly Father DIRECTLY and ask HIM!
You do know that's WHY Christ came, right? To give us men back, what Adam lost.....
Direct access & communication with God the Father DIRECTLY!
Ya think GOD knows which bible is inspired by Him!?!? Ask HIM!
NKJV says different things than KJV in many ways. So no, we reject it.
Are there any places in which the KJV provides an inferior translation? Are there any mistakes in the translation of the KJV?
@@RyanGill86 Objectively, none that I've seen & I've seen enough to believe there can't be any. Look for my other comment suggesting some vids.
Perhaps, Acts 5:30?
Would you be willing to admit that this is poorly translated. As the verse seems to say Jesus was killed then hung on a tree.
Or Matthew 2:17, 27:9 “the prophet Jeremy” as opposed to Jeremiah?
@@TheJj861 It's the way they spoke, 1st one see: "WM 279: Does the KJV wrongly translate Acts 5: 30? Follow-up to White/ Ross debate"
@@TheJj861 For the 2nd, Matthew was making a targum. See: Bible Misconceptions- Did Matthew Make an Error? Matthew 27: 9-10
Of course you hate the KJV because you and James White think that you Reformed characters think you are smarter than God. Full of pride like your forefathers, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.
No buddy, we just have way more manuscripts to translate from now
The King James Bible is THE HOLY BIBLE for all English speaking people.
So is the NASB, Legacy, ESV etc…
Great, so toss the KJV. Now what is the replacement? Which Bible has the most correct selections of the extant manuscripts and the best translation there of?
The message here isn't to "toss the KJV."
The message is that it isn't the "only" one we can use.
I'm not KJV only, but I love my KJV and I read it frequently. That said, CSB, ESV, and NIV are all dandy.
The replacement for whom? Are you wanting a translation that all Christians can use? One just for the Protestant branches? An English Bible exclusively for evangelicals? A Baptist translation in particular?
I ask because it can have a significant impact on the answer. Since it's fairly common for English-speaking Eastern Orthodox Christians to use the KJV, any version that replaces it should at the very least have the same set of Apocryphal books as the KJV, and it would be ideal to include 3 Maccabees and Psalm 151 on top of that.
So that would eliminate the NASB, NIV, NLT, NET, CSB, MEV, and several other less-popular evangelical translations. Our options would be the RSV, NEB, TEV, NKJV (if you count the Orthodox Study Bible as an NKJV rather than its own thing), REB, NRSV, CEV, ESV, and CEB. If we require the aforementioned two books that aren't in the KJV, then it would simply be the RSV, NKJV (OSB edition), NRSV, ESV, and CEB.
If we are more worried about Catholic readers than the Orthodox, then we can add the various editions of the JB and NAB, along with the Catholic edition of the NLT. And even if we drop the Catholics, the Anglicans would still prefer to have a translation with the Apocrypha, too. (They use these books in their liturgy despite considering them non-canonical.) So we can't consider something like the NIV to be a serious contender if we're concerned at all about having a standard version that's just as ecumenical as the KJV.
With this in mind, we can now whittle it down further. If the matter is the underlying text, then the Orthodox will naturally argue for their modified Study Bible edition of the NKJV, which has their preferred text in the Old Testament (based on the Septuagint) and the New (based on the Byzantine text). People outside of that tradition are unlikely to agree with them. Catholics used to argue for translations based on the Vulgate (such as the Douay-Rheims or Knox versions), but they've since recognized that the top Protestant scholars of the 19th century were more trustworthy on this issue than their own church tradition was. (Ouch.)
So let's assume that the modern textual approach to the New Testament is correct, which means that the NKJV can't be the standard. So the question turns to the Old Testament. Catholics and Protestants won't accept the Septuagint itself as the standard, but how closely does a translation have to stick to the Masoretic text? If your answer is, "As closely as possible," then you'll definitely back the ESV over the other remaining choices. If your answer is, "Generally, but with modifications based on the best Septuagint and Qumran readings," then you'll choose one of the other options. If your answer is, "Let's just shuffle around the content based purely on scholarly conjecture with no hard evidence," then the NEB is for you.
An easy way to determine how beholden a translation is to the Hebrew Masoretic tradition is to look at Genesis 4.8. If the translators include dialogue from Cain (supported by most of the ancient versions outside of the Masoretic text), then it is more open to textual criticism in the Old Testament than the ESV is. So I'm going to say that we need a version that's open to departures from the Hebrew text without being as reckless as the NEB or REB. We're down to the RSV, JB (et al.), TEV, NAB, NRSV, CEV, NLT, and CEB.
From here, we have to acknowledge that an ecumenical translation must go both ways: it must be available both with and without the Apocrypha. So we say goodbye to the JB and its updates, and we do the same for the NAB editions. So we're now left with two types of Bibles: ones in the KJV tradition (RSV and NRSV) and ones made for people with a lower reading level (TEV, CEV, NLT, and CEB). Should the standard Bible be challenging to read, or should it be as accessible as possible? If we're intending it to be used in churches, then it needs to retain some level of dignity. The TEV and CEV are just a little too chatty, so they can be the next to go. And the RSV is just a little too archaic, so it can go as well.
Three options are left: the NRSV, NLT, and CEB. They're all in contemporary English, and they're all from top scholars. They go from very formal and churchy (NRSV) to rather informal but fairly traditional (NLT) to neither formal nor traditional (CEB). And it's that last point that really hurts the CEB, as it's just a little too willing to shake off familiar language. It's one thing to let go of "propitiation" or some other obscure Latinism from the English Bible, but you're never going to sell people on "the Human One" over "the Son of Man" in the Gospels.
So how do we decide between the NRSV and NLT? Well, first, we have to ask if we're determined to keep the Orthodox around. Can they accept the modern critical text if they get the full Old Testament canon (including Psalm 151)? If so, then the NLT forfeits the game for sticking with the Catholic Deuterocanonical Books. If not, then their opinion doesn't matter anyway. Next, we have to factor in the Isaiah 7.14 controversy. Can evangelicals accept a version that uses "young woman" here, or will they demand "virgin" as the only correct translation of the Hebrew text? If they won't budge on tradition, then the NLT wins.
If neither of those issues are deal-breakers, then it comes down to this: should the Bible of the 21st century sound like formal, literary English, or should it sound like accessible, natural English? In a big, loud megachurch, you can get away with the NLT, but it's less likely to sound appropriately weighty in a liturgical church. Is the goal of a sermon to reach the saved or the lost? It kinda depends, doesn't it? An evangelist is likely to see more value in the NLT, while a pastor is more likely to gravitate toward the NRSV. So maybe it's a draw...
Oh, who am I kidding? I don't even own an NLT. 😛
@@GhostBearCommander nope, not going there. If the ESV, CSB, NIV are all equally correct with the KJB than you simply have a compilation of Bibles riddled with error. You use the CSB and ESV? okay, which one is the correct translation of Gen 3:16? Micah 5:2? Song of Songs 5:10? etc.
Not sure what these versions are handy for when they not only conflict with each other but the KJB also.
@@MAMoreno Ya, I was going to say, if your conclusion was the NLT I am going to seriously re-evaluate all you have written.
I think you are also lacking in your analysis who is on the current revision committee for each distinct version. That might change the acceptance based on how Female pastors and homosexuality is handled in the next revisions.
Your Protestant v. Catholic discussion sort of looses meaning as the existence ESV-CE will probably mean its incorporation into the next version of the ESV as the NLT2015 did with the Catholic version of the NLT.
Oh, and we can't use the NRSV, come now, the NRSVue is the current one, I would never want to miss out on the wonderful translation of 1 Cor 6:9. It warms my soul to know as time passes the meaning of the Greek (and the Hebrew in Gen 3:16) become harder to understand. I would be curious to see how many Greek and Hebrew words in the Bible have become harder to translate over time.
All said, when I am back to a computer off my laptop I will have to review your write up again. Always something good that I missed on the first read.
@Casey P Remember, there were other versions of the Bible before the KJV as well.
The Geneva Bible, the Wycliff Bible, the Tyndale Bible, the Gutenberg Bible, and the King Henry Bible to name a few.
Folks had perfectly reliable alternate translations before the KJV. Why not after? Same difference.
Biggest problem I see from those of you who reject the KJV only view is when I became a devoted Christian no one could point me to where God preserved his word. I knew God exists & he must have preserved his word somewhere. To anyone who doesn't KNOW God is & is fully committed to pursuing God, to be told by Christians that there is no perfect Bible is such a discouraging falsehood from the evil one. If we can't have faith in it being accurate we shouldn't ask others to. It's opening Pandora's box with all these interpretations, like NIV, that I've already heard used to promote abortion.
@@jerem0621 Don't "poor soul" me! I'm finally living a life with joy & purpose while having the security that I know where God preserved his word for us. I'm sorry you & those you evangelize to don't have that. They all use different words that say conflicting things so they can't all be right. Mormons have their own book btw.
@@jerem0621 So now it's 2 books even though those books contradict each other. Save your sorrow for yourself & those you can't point to God's word. I'm not worried about God's judgement, I'm not trying to entertain conflicting translations. I want the truth & me not caring about anyone's feelings & personal bias is how I arrived at KJV. So when you evangelize it must be hard when you get to those contradictions. You sure wouldn't fill me with confidence in the Bible if I were the person coming to you with doubts. Those who say we know the Bible is 99.99% don't win as many. I want 100% maybe look at what's suggested in my other comments if you're not afraid.
@@jerem0621 lol. If you weren't singing "la la la" to yourself & looked at what I said you'd already have the answer to some of your questions. God has had his hand on the KJV from 1611 to now.
@@jerem0621 I'm trying to be polite, so it's time you stop making false accusations like saying I thumb my nose at God. I could accuse you the same way for you saying God's Bible has mistakes. I don't see us having any further civil conversation. All the others have contradictions, many which came from Alexandria. NIV is one of the few that says "miscarriage" on the test of the unfaithful wife, which is used to support abortion. Even From KJV to NKJV north & south got mixed up. When there's little errors like that in the Bible you call right it would be asking too much to have nonbelievers put faith in it as the word of God.
@@jerem0621 You can look at them all as being subject to human translation errors but I still do not. I'll stand with the KJV. Already just found one to help explain that a lot more quickly than in the comments section. It's the way they spoke. See: "WM 279: Does the KJV wrongly translate Acts 5: 30? Follow-up to White/ Ross debate" Good day & take care to you too sir.
I guess the real reason you don’t like the King James Onlyists is because they don’t like Calvinists.
🤣 might have something there
Anyone who knows the Bible and the true Biblical Greek, will know that the NKJV is the most accurate translation.
They would know how erroneous modern translations are, they are translated from the erroneous Alexandrian texts.
Anyone who knows the Bible will know how erroneous Calvinist's are
No, you mean KJV. NKJV takes out the specificity of the language. The thee's & ye's are showing a distinction that's lost.
@@vashmatrix5769 I know the KJV is more poetic then the NKJV, but the NKJV is more accurate.
@@alanhales1123 That's simply not true. For starters, you & ye have different meanings.
@@vashmatrix5769 NO They don't have different meanings. What religion are you??
@@alanhales1123 dude... do the research. Just search, you vs ye, to start. I'm a Christian who did the research. You shouldn't make your assertion without knowing.
With all due respect, it’s difficult to take you seriously given all of your comedic videos. Whenever I listen to you speak seriously I’m always waiting for a punchline.
Since you are a calvinist you Lack any credibility
KJV only. The others are junk.
Agree. They forget God's word is pure.
And Bibles BEFORE the KJV ?
@kt28818 The OT used the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread interchangeably. So. They mean the same thing. All of it includes the Passover.
No buddy , the KJV has no “weaknesses “ and is the only English version that holds and increases its value (for collectors). This poor guy just doesn’t know. Sad.
Right. Prayers for those who don't have the real Bible.
Increasing value confirms its veracity ?
Cool 😎