There are Christians in other countries who would love to have a complete copy of the Bible. Some of them have been imprisoned or even martyred for having a few pages or handwritten copies of the New Testament. The old KJV is great, but it's outdated. If your goal is to reach the lost they'll need to hear the Gospel in the language the actually use and understand.
Funny that one of the reasons for commissioning the KJV was to effect changes to the Book of Common Prayer, yet most of the Bible content of the BCP, the Psalms, ends up staying the old Coverdale version that the people in the pews already knew and overwhelmingly didn't want changed. Edit: Oh good, you mention that nice detail at the end.
From what Dr. Norton has written, I gather the translators were more likely to read the Word in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and a number of other languages, than in any English translation.
I've had KJVO folks tell me that the translators were wrong in their preface, and that their production of the perfect inspired translation was "against their will" so to speak and that the English text of their Bible was perfect, but that their preface was flawed and possibly corrupt. Lunacy
I would love to see both of you do some review on the movie done on the AV translators & translation which was done in 2011 by Lionsgate titled "King James Bible: The Book That Changed the World" and its narrated by John Rhys-Davies. The Hampton Court Conference is acted out completely. Have either of you seen this film? It's half documentary and half theatrical. I loved it.
What gets me is when some hardcore IFB KJVO people suggest that a person can’t get saved if they haven’t heard the Gospel from the KJV. It’s preposterous. I saw a video one time of some “Christian” preachers saying that people from other countries can’t get saved unless they were preached to from the KJV. It’s just silly 🤦🏻.
It was said that the book of common prayer used the KJV in 1662, did I hear that correctly? Does this have any correlation with the puritans in 1662. Did they have an issue with some wording of the KJV?
_I'll quote a large passage from The History of the Book of Common Prayer by J.H. Maude (Oxford Church Text Books, 2nd ed., Rivingtons, 1900, p. 13-14) to answer your questions:_ *The Savoy Conference.* At the Savoy in 1661 twelve divines on each side debated their differences for four months, but no agreement could be arrived at. The points at issue, such as the sign of the Cross, and kneeling at the Eucharist, may appear at first sight to be matters of detail, but they were symbols of radical differences of principle. The real question at issue was the continuity of the Church. The system of the Church and that of the Puritans were and always had been irreconcilable, and the fact was at last recognised. The Savoy Conference was the completion of the Reformation. The Church continued to assert her continuity and catholicity, and modified her system in her own way, while the Puritans made up their minds to remain outside, and formed separate communities of their own. *The Prayer Book of 1661.* The Convocation of 1661 therefore proceeded to revise the Prayer Book without regard to the views of the Puritans. Much of the necessary material was already in existence, and the work proceeded rapidly. When the Convocations of the two provinces had agreed upon the revised book, it was annexed to the Act of Uniformity, which was passed in 1662. The changes made were numerous they have been reckoned as above six hundred, but nothing was done that changed the character of the hook. Some mistakes were made, but the general intention and tendency of the alterations was to approximate somewhat more closely to Catholic practice. The most important alterations were :--The restoration of an explicit oblation of the elements at the Offertory, and of a direction for the Fraction, both of which had been unaccountably omitted in 1549 ; the restoration of a Commemoration of the departed, omitted in 1552 ; the restoration of the 'Black Rubric,' omitted in 1559, but with an alteration of 'real and essential presence ' into ' corporal presence,' which greatly alters its doctrinal meaning ; the insertion of a large number of rubrical directions ; and the use of the Authorised Version for most of the extracts from the Bible, except the Psalter.
Hi there. I attend the Free Methodist Church in Kingston Ontario Canada and we have a bishop who is in charge of all the Free Methodist Church in Canada.
Hey Mark. I see you interview a lot of Ex-KJV Onlyists on your channel. I recommend you have Pastor Jonathan Burris on. He was fired by his church because of 2 UA-cam videos he made. He was raised as a KJV Onlyist and it took him 2 years of deep studying to realize he and they were wrong about the issue. 🤔
Yes, I know him! He edits a number of my videos as a volunteer! I appreciate his generosity greatly. I've been thinking about inviting him on. He and I talked briefly about it. Thank you for this!
If Christians would do more research and analysis of matters relating to Christianity before quickly coming to conclusions, and then remain open to new information when it is presented, Christendom might more united and less divisive. Acceptance or rejection of a particular Bible translation may not rise to the same level of importance as matters that could possibly determine our eternal destiny. Nonetheless, how we approach this issue is oftentimes indicative of the type of mindset that has, and continues, to cause so much strife and division among the brethren. Oftentimes Christians put more effort into jobs, sports, hobbies, material possessions, politics, denominationalism, and a myriad of other things, than they do to an honest effort to know and understand the Bible and the history behind the faith and practice. There is a tendency in all of us to take the easiest path and let ourselves be spoon fed with a particular commentary or denominational teaching. In this informational age that we are in, there is no excuse for this lackadaisical approach. This is especially sad, and tragic, when we think of the possible consequences of getting it wrong. In addition, sloppy or inadequate research has allowed the many many changes that have steered Christianity away from the more or less simple teachings of Jesus, and into the complex systems and dogmas that are prevalent today. May God help us Christians to be more united in love for the brethren and even our enemies, and thus be a more effective witness and example to a skeptical and unbelieving world. Help us to find and practice the faith once delivered to the saints.
This video spends most of the time implying that the KJB was made for Anglicans, and therefore not for today's non-Anglicans, and secondly tries to imply that because it was created as a standard liturgical Bible in England, isn't really for today's non-Anglican Christians to use for their private study, etc. There's just nothing to all these implications: the former Protestant Bibles were good, the KJB was designed to superseded them, the universal use by English-speaking believers is therefore a consistent, acceptable and laudable aim. The KJB really is "one principal good one" for the world.
Surely it's telling that most editions on the market today have hacked out a big chunk of the text to appeal to the broader Protestant church, even though it compromises the KJV itself. Anglicans still regularly use the Apocrypha in their worship despite not regarding it as equally canonical with the Old and New Testaments, so it very much belongs in there as part of the translation. If you have to change the KJV to make it suit non-Anglicans, then it's not really the KJV that suits non-Anglicans.
@@MAMoreno The KJB having the apocrypha is no different to the KJB having a title page. The canonical books of the KJB are good for all Christians. It's silly to remove the title page. And it's inconsequential whether the apocryphal books are printed. From an economic, common sense and simplicity viewpoint, not having the apocrypha is going to be just fine.
"Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God." - Specifically the Douay-Rheims Bible. But they are making a judgement that it was the "meanest." "but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one,..." Any time they departed from the Bishop's and used the Geneva, they were making a judgement on which reading was superior. They had the Vulgate, they had Douay-Rheims, they were not lacking on variant readings. Based on the preface, they felt they had accomplished the stated goal. They felt they had taken the best of the Bishop's, Cloverdale, and Geneva and made correct translations, and while noted in the 20 variant manuscript reading marginal notes, they had made the correct textural selections. To state they did not believe they had done a correct translation of the correct manuscripts would not be consistent with the preface. Thus they did believe the KJB was the best, and correct thus they were onlyist.
There's a difference between thinking that your committee has produced the overall best translation thus far and thinking that your translation is the only one worth consulting (let alone thinking that no one should ever be allowed to update your work). I don't even think that MacArthur would go quite that far, and we all know that he declared his LSB to be "the best translation the English language has ever seen."
@@MAMoreno MacArthur: Does MacArthur believe his (or the translation he had contribution to) is correct? Does he believe when in conflict with other version the LSB should be seen as the most trustworthy, and most likely to be a correct translation of the correct manuscripts? If so, he is no different than I am related to the KJB, and frankly the majority of the KJVO community. MacArthur does believe the LSB to be "the best translation the English language has ever seen," if he did not believe that he would not be promoting it. Dr Ward has written that he believes the ESV is the best pulpit Bible. I would have to assume by stating that opinion he believe the ESV is the most free of error of any Bible or he would not be promoting it as such. When in conflict with other extant bibles under copyright, he is stating the ESV is correct and others wrong. If this is not the case, after promoting a bible with areas he believes are errors, he should be listing those areas. To take a step back, the idea a person can say with the copyright protections and derivative copyright requirement for new authorship all bibles are equal is illogical. To have any level of education and not have an opinion on which version of modern bible is the most correct translation of the most correct manuscripts is also illogical. Updating the KJB? We all know that ship sailed after the NKJV received it's copyright in 1984. The idea of updating the KJB is a non issue and frankly anyone suggesting an update is disingenuous.
@@casey1167”that ship sailed after the NKJV” Out of curiosity: Do you think if somebody in America simply updated the language of the KJV it would be a violation of the NKJV copyright? I just struggle to understand how a version could get a copyright and be able to stop anybody else from doing a similar work from the same public domain source. I found an article from Maurice Robinson, which I believe was a paper he had to do. He was. addressing the copyright issue. He suggested modernising the text of public domain versions and putting them in the public domain. That the versions may have been given a copyright, but he suggested they wouldn’t be protected by copyright in Supreme Court.
@@yahrescues8993 Thomas Nelson sued Tyndale in 2012 related to copyright issues with the NLT, and Thomas Nelson has made copyright complaints against the Premier Study Bible related to formatting. Do I think Thomas Nelson is protective of their copyright? Yes. I just read Gen 1, ideally two words "meat" and "replenish" should get updated. That is two words. Am I going to switch Bibles for that? Probably not. Read John 3, what would you change? "th" to "s"? and after that what? There simply are not enough changes for anyone to switch. And frankly, I don't trust anyone not to mess things up at this point. Am I going to make changes to a 400 year old book which I believe is correct to something I have no idea about just so I don't have to look up words from time to time? Probably not.
I find it interesting that most Bible versions were translated from the Latin Vulgate, including KJV. I agree that NKJV is easier to read, but more modern versions, though simpler, often change, add, or subtract from this text. If you cant understand KJV read it side by side with a version you CAN understand. You will learn the "voice" of scripture and understanding will come.
I’ve learned that the KJV translators used Erasmus and others in their work and the TR came AFTER the KJV and was translated from the KJV. Something you will want to research because this has helped me in my understanding of the history of the KJV translation.
@@cwalters77 The Scrivener edition of the TR is an attempt to reconstruct where the KJV's translators used Beza and where they used Stephanus. But all of those scholarly editions (and the original editions by Erasmus) can be called the TR.
@@curtthegamer934The early Christians were persecuted. Clearly the world wanted to burn the old TR manuscripts and leave a counterfeit discovered by unbelievers burning in Hell. While the KJV translators were not Baptist, they were Christian’s.
@@cwalters7795% of existing manuscripts agree with TR. Why base your faith on 5%? The Oneness Pentecostals who believe baptism is necessary for salvation only base it on a couple of verses taking it out of context ignoring many verses that teach salvation by Faith Alone. I simply cannot believe that the critical text was was rediscovered by unbelievers in the 1800s is the true text. That is double inspiration on the critical text side.
I was raised with NIV, ESV & NKJV. Took me throwing everyone's feelings away & just seeking truth myself that lead to knowing the true Bible is the KJB.
There are Christians in other countries who would love to have a complete copy of the Bible. Some of them have been imprisoned or even martyred for having a few pages or handwritten copies of the New Testament. The old KJV is great, but it's outdated. If your goal is to reach the lost they'll need to hear the Gospel in the language the actually use and understand.
Exactly
Right!
Outstanding! A great analysis about a topic that I have never seen addressed before.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Could you list the books and authors mentioned around the 6 minute ish mark? I think there were 2 or three. Thanks
This was very very helpful. It explains the note in front of many kjv Bibles "appointed to be read in the church"
Right! I always find Tim helpful!
Always love digging into the history of things. I was listening to this in the background while I was working earlier today.
✔
There are several national Lutheran Churches that still have bishops.
✔
Funny that one of the reasons for commissioning the KJV was to effect changes to the Book of Common Prayer, yet most of the Bible content of the BCP, the Psalms, ends up staying the old Coverdale version that the people in the pews already knew and overwhelmingly didn't want changed.
Edit: Oh good, you mention that nice detail at the end.
If more KJV Only proponents simply read the KJV's preface, they'd realize the KJV translators were not KJV Only.
Right!
From what Dr. Norton has written, I gather the translators were more likely to read the Word in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and a number of other languages, than in any English translation.
It’s written in 1611 English, so it’s unintelligible.
Don't know anyone supporting the KJB only who cares what they thought at the time.
I've had KJVO folks tell me that the translators were wrong in their preface, and that their production of the perfect inspired translation was "against their will" so to speak and that the English text of their Bible was perfect, but that their preface was flawed and possibly corrupt. Lunacy
I would love to see both of you do some review on the movie done on the AV translators & translation which was done in 2011 by Lionsgate titled "King James Bible: The Book That Changed the World" and its narrated by John Rhys-Davies. The Hampton Court Conference is acted out completely. Have either of you seen this film? It's half documentary and half theatrical. I loved it.
What gets me is when some hardcore IFB KJVO people suggest that a person can’t get saved if they haven’t heard the Gospel from the KJV. It’s preposterous. I saw a video one time of some “Christian” preachers saying that people from other countries can’t get saved unless they were preached to from the KJV. It’s just silly 🤦🏻.
It's very sad. =(
Jack Hyles, now passed away, said that in a video.
Yay, more Tim Berg!
Agreed!
It was said that the book of common prayer used the KJV in 1662, did I hear that correctly? Does this have any correlation with the puritans in 1662. Did they have an issue with some wording of the KJV?
_I'll quote a large passage from The History of the Book of Common Prayer by J.H. Maude (Oxford Church Text Books, 2nd ed., Rivingtons, 1900, p. 13-14) to answer your questions:_
*The Savoy Conference.* At the Savoy in 1661 twelve divines on each side debated their differences for four months, but no agreement could be arrived at. The points at issue, such as the sign of the Cross, and kneeling at the Eucharist, may appear at first sight to be matters of detail, but they were symbols of radical differences of principle. The real question at issue was the continuity of the Church. The system of the Church and that of the Puritans were and always had been irreconcilable, and the fact was at last recognised. The Savoy Conference was the completion of the Reformation. The Church continued to assert her continuity and catholicity, and modified her system in her own way, while the Puritans made up their minds to remain outside, and formed separate communities of their own.
*The Prayer Book of 1661.* The Convocation of 1661 therefore proceeded to revise the Prayer Book without regard to the views of the Puritans. Much of the necessary material was already in existence, and the work proceeded rapidly. When the Convocations of the two provinces had agreed upon the revised book, it was annexed to the Act of Uniformity, which was passed in 1662. The changes made were numerous they have been reckoned as above six hundred, but nothing was done that changed the character of the hook. Some mistakes were made, but the general intention and tendency of the alterations was to approximate somewhat more closely to Catholic practice.
The most important alterations were :--The restoration of an explicit oblation of the elements at the Offertory, and of a direction for the Fraction, both of which had been unaccountably omitted in 1549 ; the restoration of a Commemoration of the departed, omitted in 1552 ; the restoration of the 'Black Rubric,' omitted in 1559, but with an alteration of 'real and essential presence ' into ' corporal presence,' which greatly alters its doctrinal meaning ; the insertion of a large number of rubrical directions ; and the use of the Authorised Version for most of the extracts from the Bible, except the Psalter.
@@MAMorenoSo it was essentially practices they did not agree with? I’m always interested in how the puritans viewed translations.
@@yahrescues8993 Yes, the Puritans wanted to turn England into another Presbyterian Scotland, essentially.
Hi there. I attend the Free Methodist Church in Kingston Ontario Canada and we have a bishop who is in charge of all the Free Methodist Church in Canada.
Interesting! What's the standard Bible translation around there?
@@wardonwords I think that it's the Good News translation
That was great and usable stuff , thank you both so very much.
Our pleasure!
Great video, Mark! Thank you for sharing this.
Glad you enjoyed it! Good to see you, Josh!
"Shift" as in "shifty" (sort of)?
Hey Mark. I see you interview a lot of Ex-KJV Onlyists on your channel. I recommend you have Pastor Jonathan Burris on. He was fired by his church because of 2 UA-cam videos he made. He was raised as a KJV Onlyist and it took him 2 years of deep studying to realize he and they were wrong about the issue. 🤔
Yes, I know him! He edits a number of my videos as a volunteer! I appreciate his generosity greatly.
I've been thinking about inviting him on. He and I talked briefly about it. Thank you for this!
Enjoyed this conversation!
✔
Thank you, gentlemen.
Our pleasure!
@@wardonwords I'm sure it must be.
Woah...I want to hear about the "with my body I thee worship." I'm unfamiliar with that language.
I'll have to ask Tim to come back!
@@wardonwords Yes please!
Excellent. I learned a ton.
Great to hear!
So I suppose we can say that Galloway’s letter was truly “Authorized!”
Great stuff!
Thanks!
If Christians would do more research and analysis of matters relating to Christianity before quickly coming to conclusions, and then remain open to new information when it is presented, Christendom might more united and less divisive.
Acceptance or rejection of a particular Bible translation may not rise to the same level of importance as matters that could possibly determine our eternal destiny. Nonetheless, how we approach this issue is oftentimes indicative of the type of mindset that has, and continues, to cause so much strife and division among the brethren.
Oftentimes Christians put more effort into jobs, sports, hobbies, material possessions, politics, denominationalism, and a myriad of other things, than they do to an honest effort to know and understand the Bible and the history behind the faith and practice.
There is a tendency in all of us to take the easiest path and let ourselves be spoon fed with a particular commentary or denominational teaching. In this informational age that we are in, there is no excuse for this lackadaisical approach. This is especially sad, and tragic, when we think of the possible consequences of getting it wrong.
In addition, sloppy or inadequate research has allowed the many many changes that have steered Christianity away from the more or less simple teachings of Jesus, and into the complex systems and dogmas that are prevalent today.
May God help us Christians to be more united in love for the brethren and even our enemies, and thus be a more effective witness and example to a skeptical and unbelieving world.
Help us to find and practice the faith once delivered to the saints.
Good work, as always.
I appreciate that, Kevin! Always means a lot coming from you!
English C of E bishops pronounce diocese in several ways - and pluralise it variously, too!
Ah, cool! Didn't know that!
They absolutely were - they just didn’t know it at the time… just kidding.
;)
This video spends most of the time implying that the KJB was made for Anglicans, and therefore not for today's non-Anglicans, and secondly tries to imply that because it was created as a standard liturgical Bible in England, isn't really for today's non-Anglican Christians to use for their private study, etc. There's just nothing to all these implications: the former Protestant Bibles were good, the KJB was designed to superseded them, the universal use by English-speaking believers is therefore a consistent, acceptable and laudable aim. The KJB really is "one principal good one" for the world.
Surely it's telling that most editions on the market today have hacked out a big chunk of the text to appeal to the broader Protestant church, even though it compromises the KJV itself. Anglicans still regularly use the Apocrypha in their worship despite not regarding it as equally canonical with the Old and New Testaments, so it very much belongs in there as part of the translation. If you have to change the KJV to make it suit non-Anglicans, then it's not really the KJV that suits non-Anglicans.
@@MAMoreno The KJB having the apocrypha is no different to the KJB having a title page. The canonical books of the KJB are good for all Christians. It's silly to remove the title page. And it's inconsequential whether the apocryphal books are printed. From an economic, common sense and simplicity viewpoint, not having the apocrypha is going to be just fine.
"Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God." - Specifically the Douay-Rheims Bible. But they are making a judgement that it was the "meanest."
"but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one,..."
Any time they departed from the Bishop's and used the Geneva, they were making a judgement on which reading was superior. They had the Vulgate, they had Douay-Rheims, they were not lacking on variant readings.
Based on the preface, they felt they had accomplished the stated goal. They felt they had taken the best of the Bishop's, Cloverdale, and Geneva and made correct translations, and while noted in the 20 variant manuscript reading marginal notes, they had made the correct textural selections.
To state they did not believe they had done a correct translation of the correct manuscripts would not be consistent with the preface. Thus they did believe the KJB was the best, and correct thus they were onlyist.
There's a difference between thinking that your committee has produced the overall best translation thus far and thinking that your translation is the only one worth consulting (let alone thinking that no one should ever be allowed to update your work). I don't even think that MacArthur would go quite that far, and we all know that he declared his LSB to be "the best translation the English language has ever seen."
@@MAMoreno MacArthur: Does MacArthur believe his (or the translation he had contribution to) is correct? Does he believe when in conflict with other version the LSB should be seen as the most trustworthy, and most likely to be a correct translation of the correct manuscripts? If so, he is no different than I am related to the KJB, and frankly the majority of the KJVO community. MacArthur does believe the LSB to be "the best translation the English language has ever seen," if he did not believe that he would not be promoting it.
Dr Ward has written that he believes the ESV is the best pulpit Bible. I would have to assume by stating that opinion he believe the ESV is the most free of error of any Bible or he would not be promoting it as such. When in conflict with other extant bibles under copyright, he is stating the ESV is correct and others wrong. If this is not the case, after promoting a bible with areas he believes are errors, he should be listing those areas.
To take a step back, the idea a person can say with the copyright protections and derivative copyright requirement for new authorship all bibles are equal is illogical. To have any level of education and not have an opinion on which version of modern bible is the most correct translation of the most correct manuscripts is also illogical.
Updating the KJB? We all know that ship sailed after the NKJV received it's copyright in 1984. The idea of updating the KJB is a non issue and frankly anyone suggesting an update is disingenuous.
@@casey1167”that ship sailed after the NKJV”
Out of curiosity: Do you think if somebody in America simply updated the language of the KJV it would be a violation of the NKJV copyright? I just struggle to understand how a version could get a copyright and be able to stop anybody else from doing a similar work from the same public domain source.
I found an article from Maurice Robinson, which I believe was a paper he had to do. He was. addressing the copyright issue. He suggested modernising the text of public domain versions and putting them in the public domain. That the versions may have been given a copyright, but he suggested they wouldn’t be protected by copyright in Supreme Court.
@@yahrescues8993 Thomas Nelson sued Tyndale in 2012 related to copyright issues with the NLT, and Thomas Nelson has made copyright complaints against the Premier Study Bible related to formatting. Do I think Thomas Nelson is protective of their copyright? Yes.
I just read Gen 1, ideally two words "meat" and "replenish" should get updated. That is two words. Am I going to switch Bibles for that? Probably not. Read John 3, what would you change? "th" to "s"? and after that what? There simply are not enough changes for anyone to switch. And frankly, I don't trust anyone not to mess things up at this point. Am I going to make changes to a 400 year old book which I believe is correct to something I have no idea about just so I don't have to look up words from time to time? Probably not.
This was great!
I learned.
Thank you, Mark and Timothy.
I don't think thats the preface of KJB.
It's a version with slightly updated spelling. It's in the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible.
@markwardonwords still not the original...
@@Ishallnotquit777 Here you go. Original spelling and everything: www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/1611-King-James-Bible-Introduction.php
Just saved KJB History to my bookmarks.
It's an excellent site!
In 47 days? 😂 we'll be raptured by then 😂🎉
Ha! Yup. ;)
Shift: not so much 'strategy' as 'expedient' - something inadequate,as in make-shift.
Don't know anyone supporting the KJB only who cares what they thought at the time.
Perhaps they ought to, my friend.
@@wardonwords I don't see any reason we ought to. They didn't need to know God was working through them to preserve his word.
I find it interesting that most Bible versions were translated from the Latin Vulgate, including KJV. I agree that NKJV is easier to read, but more modern versions, though simpler, often change, add, or subtract from this text. If you cant understand KJV read it side by side with a version you CAN understand. You will learn the "voice" of scripture and understanding will come.
My friend, no Protestant versions in English are translated from the Latin Vulgate. Even the Catholics don’t do that anymore.
The KJV translators used the TR and rejected the critical text.
The Critical Text hadn't been compiled at the time.
I’ve learned that the KJV translators used Erasmus and others in their work and the TR came AFTER the KJV and was translated from the KJV. Something you will want to research because this has helped me in my understanding of the history of the KJV translation.
@@cwalters77 The Scrivener edition of the TR is an attempt to reconstruct where the KJV's translators used Beza and where they used Stephanus. But all of those scholarly editions (and the original editions by Erasmus) can be called the TR.
@@curtthegamer934The early Christians were persecuted. Clearly the world wanted to burn the old TR manuscripts and leave a counterfeit discovered by unbelievers burning in Hell. While the KJV translators were not Baptist, they were Christian’s.
@@cwalters7795% of existing manuscripts agree with TR. Why base your faith on 5%? The Oneness Pentecostals who believe baptism is necessary for salvation only base it on a couple of verses taking it out of context ignoring many verses that teach salvation by Faith Alone. I simply cannot believe that the critical text was was rediscovered by unbelievers in the 1800s is the true text. That is double inspiration on the critical text side.
Protestant denominations are state governed.
I was raised with NIV, ESV & NKJV. Took me throwing everyone's feelings away & just seeking truth myself that lead to knowing the true Bible is the KJB.
Please interact with the arguments made in the video.
Saint feast days in the 1611😂