Other languages don’t have this version idolization issue, not everything new is evil. There are no perfect translations no matter what language, there are good and bad. We should seek the truth of the actual words of God that were penned by those men who were guided by the Holy Spirit.
That’s a pretty ignorant statement. The issue in America that makes this a problem is Bible publishing companies coming out with new versions because Americans always want something new and want to be able to understand the Bible immediately without any studying or investment. This wasn’t an issue really until the 1900s when new versions were created. A
@@johnbates9946 you can always continue to use you same version, the KJV is good and reliable but is certainly clumsy in many areas. Many pastors need to spend a portion of preaching time in translation. Your argument is the same as the Catholic Priests used when the first English Bibles were penned…just put in the time to learn Latin.
@@RJ2878 not interested in learning Latin since the Bible wasn’t written in Latin and I don’t speak Latin. By what authority are you saying the King James is clumsy? If there was an assembly of translators being gathered together today to make a new version, what is on your resume that would qualify you for that position? What are your credentials that allow you to judge such a group of translators?
@@johnbates9946 we also don’t speak the same language the KJV is written in…not the same language. We can make out many verses well, but teach SS to the young. Many people that work for a living simply appreciate a Bible in our current language. If you don’t want one that is fine, but many in you church may be edified by a newer version. The goal of English versions was so the people could understand and now it seems the KJV crowd is acting like the Catholic Church did back in the Middle Ages.
0:14 It's not that it's easier to read; rather, the language is understandable. Reading "thee, thou, thy, art, etc." provides no insight into specific doctrines of Christianity, nor does it present any theological differences. It's simply an outdated manner of language. Not only that, but the KJV is objectively a poor translation, with numerous mistranslations. Take Isaiah 45:7, for example (NASB 1995 in case you're interested in translation): "The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these." The KJV translates 'calamity' as "evil," implying that God creates evil. This translation has led to multiple atheist apologetics criticizing Christianity, all because of an outdated translation. Furthermore, we now have access to older manuscripts than the ones available during the time of the KJV. We have better translations. You are living in the past.
@@connerstephens4547 because the spelling is significantly different than the way we spell today and it had typos when it was originally printed, then it was revised a few times to fix the typos. But what we have in the 1769 edition is modern spelling (for the most part) and the typos have been fixed.
@@johnbates9946 Not just typos, but you’ve got different translations decisions in them. Ruth 3:15. And there is still typos that modern versions have further corrected such as Genesis 3:24(cherubims).
@@connerstephens4547 modern versions are translated from corrupt texts that continually change based off of new discoveries. I’m not interested in any “correction” by a modern versions
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?
This guy don’t know what he talking about. Do your research, the KJV is the Bible that really had added words inside of it. The ESV is know among scholars to be a more literal translation.
I finally found a good use for an ESV that was given. It had a much nicer leather looking cover than my large print paperback KJV Soul winners N.T. This evening I removed the ESV from it's cover and put it in the circular file. Then I got out the Elmer's Glue and used that fine cover to protect my New Testament. I think that will extend the mileage on it. If the glue doesn't hold, then I will try to drill holes in the binding and use rivets or cord. That might be worth an instructional.
I mean no offense, but why is the KJV the standard by which all other English Bibles should be judged by? I love the KJV and I grew up on it, and I think that it is a very accurate translation, but I also use several other English Bibles as well. I think that the standard by which all Bibles should be compared to, including the KJV, is the same standard by which the translators of the KJV used. If you've never read "The Translators to the Reader", which is still in the front of many KJV's, written by the translators themselves, it tells what their standard was, namely the Scriptures in the original languages. Now, I'm not saying that one must be a Hebrew and Greek scholar in order to understand the Bible. I'm very thankful for the abundance of English translations that we have. And I'd even go so far as to say that we probably have too many. But I also believe that if it weren't for the many English translations that we have, that there might not be as many people reading the Bible and believing the gospel and being saved. That's not counting all the Bibles in other languages that are read by non- English speaking people all over the world. And, I realize that the manuscripts used to translate the KJV from are different in many places from those used to translate most, but not all, modern translations. But even in spite of that, I still thank God that there are many people reading the Bible that might not be if all they had was the KJV. The main thing is that it's not enough to only read the Bible, but to live by it. Because the Bible is truly the God breathed, inspired, written word of the living God, regardless of what version you read it in and regardless of what language you read it in. God bless.
The Revision Revised by John William Burgon The importance of this book cannot be underestimated. There is no one book that exposes Westcott and Hort's false Greek Text and false Greek theory behind that text any more thoroughly and convincingly than The Revision Revised. Dean Burgon defends the traditional text of the New Testament. He shows clearly the defects in both manuscript "B" (Vaticanus) and manuscript "Aleph" (Sinaiticus). It is very important to see the arguments contained in this historic volume because virtually the same Greek text of Westcott and Hort (1881) FORMS THE BASIS OF ALMOST ALL OF THE MODERN VERSIONS
In other words (short version); the KJB comes from the Majority Text which is 99.+% of all manuscripts, the modern versions come from 45 manuscripts (proven not to be the oldest is the best as first claimed) which is 1% of all manuscripts and they also come thru Egypt, an Alexandrian monastery that burned down but (manuscipts preserved by the Roman catholic church; codex vaticanus stored at the vatican and the codex Siniaitics found in a monastery on the sinai penninsula with questionable origins; both are not availabe for testing of authenthicity) where as; the Majority Texts that the KJB thousands of copies because they were used (still; preserved by God) came from the churches handed down thru the ages in Antioch, where they (believers) were first called Christians.
One of the many corruptions in the ESV confuse Lucifer with Jesus Christ by giving him the title of day star which is a title given for Jesus Christ and also refers to Lucifer as son of the Dawn whereas the true text correctly describes him as son of the morning. Isaiah 14:12 ESV “How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! The uncorrupted text of the KJV: Isaiah 14:12 KJV - How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 52 Peter 1:19 KJV - We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
First problem I have with all new translations is the use of the words You, Yours etc in reverence to God. In my culture and language we consider that very dissrespectful. Psalm 17 in the KJV is all about the cross and resurrection other transaction renders it to be about a mortal man .
Other languages don’t have this version idolization issue, not everything new is evil. There are no perfect translations no matter what language, there are good and bad.
We should seek the truth of the actual words of God that were penned by those men who were guided by the Holy Spirit.
That’s a pretty ignorant statement. The issue in America that makes this a problem is Bible publishing companies coming out with new versions because Americans always want something new and want to be able to understand the Bible immediately without any studying or investment. This wasn’t an issue really until the 1900s when new versions were created. A
@@johnbates9946 you can always continue to use you same version, the KJV is good and reliable but is certainly clumsy in many areas. Many pastors need to spend a portion of preaching time in translation.
Your argument is the same as the Catholic Priests used when the first English Bibles were penned…just put in the time to learn Latin.
@@RJ2878 not interested in learning Latin since the Bible wasn’t written in Latin and I don’t speak Latin. By what authority are you saying the King James is clumsy? If there was an assembly of translators being gathered together today to make a new version, what is on your resume that would qualify you for that position? What are your credentials that allow you to judge such a group of translators?
@@johnbates9946 the Latin Vulgate was used by the Catholic Church and was the Bible for 1000 years before any English translation was penned.
@@johnbates9946 we also don’t speak the same language the KJV is written in…not the same language. We can make out many verses well, but teach SS to the young.
Many people that work for a living simply appreciate a Bible in our current language. If you don’t want one that is fine, but many in you church may be edified by a newer version. The goal of English versions was so the people could understand and now it seems the KJV crowd is acting like the Catholic Church did back in the Middle Ages.
0:14 It's not that it's easier to read; rather, the language is understandable. Reading "thee, thou, thy, art, etc." provides no insight into specific doctrines of Christianity, nor does it present any theological differences. It's simply an outdated manner of language.
Not only that, but the KJV is objectively a poor translation, with numerous mistranslations.
Take Isaiah 45:7, for example (NASB 1995 in case you're interested in translation):
"The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing well-being and creating calamity;
I am the LORD who does all these."
The KJV translates 'calamity' as "evil," implying that God creates evil. This translation has led to multiple atheist apologetics criticizing Christianity, all because of an outdated translation.
Furthermore, we now have access to older manuscripts than the ones available during the time of the KJV. We have better translations. You are living in the past.
Which KJV should be the standard? The 1611, 1629,1631,1760, or 1769?
1769
@@johnbates9946 Why not the original?
@@connerstephens4547 because the spelling is significantly different than the way we spell today and it had typos when it was originally printed, then it was revised a few times to fix the typos. But what we have in the 1769 edition is modern spelling (for the most part) and the typos have been fixed.
@@johnbates9946 Not just typos, but you’ve got different translations decisions in them. Ruth 3:15. And there is still typos that modern versions have further corrected such as Genesis 3:24(cherubims).
@@connerstephens4547 modern versions are translated from corrupt texts that continually change based off of new discoveries. I’m not interested in any “correction” by a modern versions
King James version all the way!
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?
This guy don’t know what he talking about. Do your research, the KJV is the Bible that really had added words inside of it. The ESV is know among scholars to be a more literal translation.
I finally found a good use for an ESV that was given. It had a much nicer leather looking cover than my large print paperback KJV Soul winners N.T. This evening I removed the ESV from it's cover and put it in the circular file. Then I got out the Elmer's Glue and used that fine cover to protect my New Testament. I think that will extend the mileage on it. If the glue doesn't hold, then I will try to drill holes in the binding and use rivets or cord.
That might be worth an instructional.
I mean no offense, but why is the KJV the standard by which all other English Bibles should be judged by? I love the KJV and I grew up on it, and I think that it is a very accurate translation, but I also use several other English Bibles as well. I think that the standard by which all Bibles should be compared to, including the KJV, is the same standard by which the translators of the KJV used. If you've never read "The Translators to the Reader", which is still in the front of many KJV's, written by the translators themselves, it tells what their standard was, namely the Scriptures in the original languages. Now, I'm not saying that one must be a Hebrew and Greek scholar in order to understand the Bible. I'm very thankful for the abundance of English translations that we have. And I'd even go so far as to say that we probably have too many. But I also believe that if it weren't for the many English translations that we have, that there might not be as many people reading the Bible and believing the gospel and being saved. That's not counting all the Bibles in other languages that are read by non- English speaking people all over the world. And, I realize that the manuscripts used to translate the KJV from are different in many places from those used to translate most, but not all, modern translations. But even in spite of that, I still thank God that there are many people reading the Bible that might not be if all they had was the KJV. The main thing is that it's not enough to only read the Bible, but to live by it. Because the Bible is truly the God breathed, inspired, written word of the living God, regardless of what version you read it in and regardless of what language you read it in. God bless.
The Revision Revised by John William Burgon The importance of this book cannot be underestimated. There is no one book that exposes Westcott and Hort's false Greek Text and false Greek theory behind that text any more thoroughly and convincingly than The Revision Revised. Dean Burgon defends the traditional text of the New Testament. He shows clearly the defects in both manuscript "B" (Vaticanus) and manuscript "Aleph" (Sinaiticus). It is very important to see the arguments contained in this historic volume because virtually the same Greek text of Westcott and Hort (1881) FORMS THE BASIS OF ALMOST ALL OF THE MODERN VERSIONS
In other words (short version); the KJB comes from the Majority Text which is 99.+% of all manuscripts, the modern versions come from 45 manuscripts (proven not to be the oldest is the best as first claimed) which is 1% of all manuscripts and they also come thru Egypt, an Alexandrian monastery that burned down but (manuscipts preserved by the Roman catholic church; codex vaticanus stored at the vatican and the codex Siniaitics found in a monastery on the sinai penninsula with questionable origins; both are not availabe for testing of authenthicity) where as; the Majority Texts that the KJB thousands of copies because they were used (still; preserved by God) came from the churches handed down thru the ages in Antioch, where they (believers) were first called Christians.
@@tombeetwo That's about it, except "There is No “Alexandrian” Text Family" Posted on March 19, 2021, by The Young, Textless, and Reformed
When i was protestant, I compared lots of translations, and KJV was by far my favorite.
ua-cam.com/video/lvVKdXvObKc/v-deo.html
I got both . I think they are both good . I also think it’s good to be a little skeptical.
One of the many corruptions in the ESV confuse Lucifer with Jesus Christ by giving him the title of day star which is a title given for Jesus Christ and also refers to Lucifer as son of the Dawn whereas the true text correctly describes him as son of the morning.
Isaiah 14:12 ESV
“How you are fallen from heaven,
O Day Star, son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!
The uncorrupted text of the KJV:
Isaiah 14:12 KJV - How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
52 Peter 1:19 KJV - We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
First problem I have with all new translations is the use of the words You, Yours etc in reverence to God. In my culture and language we consider that very dissrespectful. Psalm 17 in the KJV is all about the cross and resurrection other transaction renders it to be about a mortal man .
ESV