@filoIII Thankyou for this information. I will be more careful when comparing the NKJV in future with the Authorised Version. What are you thoughts on the New American Standard Version or the World English Bible as a back-up to the AV. What about the King James Version East Read and the 21st Century King James Version? I still think we need some sort of back-up to the AV and if there is not one yet, we need to be working on it.
Your comment just proved my point so having a program where you can call for free and have direct communication with him is unwilling to examine dissenting views? but not having youtube comments means he is unwilling to examine dissenting views?
Luke 7:50; Luke 8:48; Luke 18:42; Romans 1:17; Romans 3:22; Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. These are just a few clear references in the KJV that clearly teach that we are saved by faith alone. Repentance is of course implied and obedience will follow if a person is truely saved by faith. Which bible are you reading?
@seanpaynedotnet memory buffer size exceeded at the 45 minute mark. Maybe if you recorded at lower quality you may have gotten the whole debate. I hope you can record more of these. Thank you for this upload.
"The Comma Johanneum is a comma (a short clause) in the First Epistle of John (1 John 5:7-8). This text is variously referred to as the Comma Johanneum, the Johannine Comma, the Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John 5:7 or 1 John v:7." WikiPedia
Gregg Settle how do you get past 2 Peter 1:19-21, for it expressly forbids 'private interpretations' for the reason that 'holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost', and all Revised Versions are copyrighted proving, by definition, that they are not only the Biblically forbidden'private interpretations' but also that copyrights defines even legally that such translations are the word of man so much that that man may sue any unauthorized public use of that translation.I challenge
Fascinating debate! Thank you for posting it. However it saddens me that most Christians would rather argue with other believers than devote that passion and energy to bringing the gospel to the world... Matthew 9:37-38.
The BEST comment so far on this website. It's sad that "Christians" are acting like little immature children, and accusing their brothers and sisters in Christ -- this is a clear sign of spiritual immaturity. Another tactic from the Devil to keep Christians from spreading the Gospel to the lost.
@UCsaWFhT7ZEO8YCkSMsb3aXQ very true! Years ago, I attended a church which ended up splitting over kjv-onlyism. Debate between Christians does have a place but by and large I still think that it would be better if the energy used on Facebook, for example, was turned instead to apologetics AND the proclamation of law and gospel to our unbelieving neighbors.
If your interested in what versions James likes, you can go to his youtube channel. He has a rather lengthy talk about it lately. I think it was about a month back. He does read his KJV version as well as Greek and other translations.
The Greek church I was referring to was 1st Century Church, not the modern Greek orthodox Church. You clearly don't believe that the received text was receieved from the modern Greek Church. If the devils deleted the verse in Matthew, then why didn't they delete it in the paralell passage in Mark? You say that missing verses in the NIV proved the text wrong. But where are they missing from? How do you know they weren't added to the KJV, making it wrong?
One question asked by an email read out in the debate, which was not answered, is concerning verses like Jer. 34:16 or Nah. 3:16. The Oxford and the Cambridge Editions of the KJB differ. My belief is that the Cambridge Edition gets those verses right, and that these (as incorrectly presented in the Oxford) are only printing or editorial issues, and are not actual real changes to the King James Bible. Of course, I uphold correctness, so I think people should use the Pure Cambridge Edition.
In your last post you mentioned only Ephesians 2:8 which I addressed. I also addressed James 2:24 in an earlier post when I said that in context the passage is referring to showing others your faith by your works, not God. Abraham never actually killed his son, but God saw his heart and his actions proved his faith in God. By the way, I'm sure you wouldn't say that Abraham was not saved prior to his obedience. Compare this passage with Romans 5:1-5. I'll comment on this in my next post.
Notice that the passage in Romans is referring to the same man when it says in vs3 Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. vs4 says that if you work it is not grace, but debt (Ephesians 2:9- Not of works, lest any man should boast). vs 5 Says clearly that to him that worketh not, but believeth on him (faith) that justifieth the ungodly his "faith" is counted for righteousness. We can only conclude that we are justified by faith, not works.
I'm glad to hear we are on the same side. Also, I appreciate your respectful communications. I've observed people on both sides of this issue engaging in rude, accusatory and harsh words. You have not done that. Although I studied Greek and was translating the NT fairly accurately up to second and third declensions, I try to avoid the battle of the manuscripts, as few people can actually read Greek. Still, I am familiar, to some degree, with problems associated with various textual streams.
That is because the word 'alma is translated that way in other places the word is used in both the KJV and the NIV. The main interpretation in the NIV says virgin so I don't see what the problem is.
The AuthorizedKingJamesVersion is in many ways no way a private interpretation, for instance, not only was gospel order observed in the employment of three groups of men known to be both devout righteous men of greatBiblical scholarship,but after cross checking each others' work the work was thrown open for the inspection of the whole realm before being accepted. f one used, without authorization of the owner of the copyright which is upon every revised version, they could be sued( Peter 1:19-21
@Mencel89 If Erasmus was sooo "Catholic" and his text sooo "Catholic," then who were the enemies of the Roman church? And why was Erasmus' manuscript never adopted by Rome? Why did Luther refer to Erasmus' second edition as "my wife" if Erasmus was so Catholic? Erasmus' Greek New Testament was placed on Rome's Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Trent, which meant that it is forbidden for Catholics to even read it without approval from their bishop upon pain of mortal sin.
I have the standard scholarly Greek New Testament NA27 and it shows only 1 John 5:7 as being added it makes no mention of 1 john 5:8 being added and i posted 1 john 5:8 it speaks nothing of Father,Son,Holy Spirit
I agree. This was an extremely good discussion from both sides. We should simply think about it, what was discussed here, and decide what God is actually saying in his infallable word.
Sean, Thx so much for the video. I love the clarity of James White. Jack Moorman did a good job, but he never varied from the baseless problems of KJV ONLYISM, not KJV readers. I appreciate that both men responded in a civil way.
Jack Moorman is a true Christian and a humble man, who speaks the truth with authority, as he did in this debate. God will honour him for his humility and for his stand for the truth. Some of the comments here have a certain hallmark: pride. Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. Proverbs 16:18 The first attack against God's words happened in Eden with the words of the serpent, ' ... Yea, hath God said, ...' Genesis 3:1 The attack continues today! For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12 Jesus is Lord.
Kjv isn't going anywhere or away. Ppl are lazy and don't even read the new English ones. I understand both sides of this debate which isn't really a debate to me but more of both sides of a coin.
Iw8343 you asked for citations etc... so I did three posts to refer you to scholarly works which fulfill that better than I can, but even better than this is I think what I am about to say myself with a simple appeal to wisdom. All Revised Versions are copyrighted in the sense if you publicly use them without permission they can sue you, so they are all the word of the finite human holders of their copyright, rather than the Word of God, which alone can supply the faith of Hebrews 11:6. Also
Erasmus published his text multiple times, and what do you think about the last six verses in chapter 22 of Revelation that he translated into Greek straight from the Latin Vulgate. 1) Any orthodox Christian can read a modern version of the Bible and arrive at the same central Christian Doctrines. 2) Of thousands of Greek manuscripts no doctrine is deleted or distorted. 3) We can defend our faith with the NASB, ESV, or even NIV just as well as with the KJV.
there is no way they would be given their copyright, so there is no question that all revised versions are the 'forbidden' private interpretations of 2 Peter 1:20. Worse still, however, is that such a presumptuous sin, seems to constitute a sin against the Holy Ghost for the following verse 21 declares, "For holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." This is more likely than not the sin unto death which 1 JOh 5:16 refers to, for I can testify personally that what upsets me most
Praise God for James and people like him,he has a way of making things very understandable to the non-intellectuals,such as myself.The King James Bible is a fine translation,but it too is only a translation,it's God who supernaturally causes His people to understand the things of God and leads all His people into all truth ultimately.
Everyone involved in this debate ought to read Dr James White's book on the KJV Only controversy, even though my own views are more with Jack Moorman. What we have done is to recommend to our members that they use either the Authorised Version or the New King James Version, either on their own or together. That way all Christians can get the benefit of two really sound versions, in 1611 or modern format; and in the case of the NKJV you also have the alternative textual critical views.
@HeroOfChristArchives Since when is NT scripture not found in the Dead Sea Scrolls??what did you think only OT? Yes, anytime you use the vanticus-- your going to have to argue Alexandria or Antioch validity of texts
James White Feb 2, 2011 debate Time: 30:12-30:26 “I did want to correct just one misapprehension. Sinaiticus was not found in or near a trashcan. That is a common myth, but it’s untrue. All you have to do is read Constantine von Tischendorf’s own first-hand account of his discovery of the manuscript. A monk brought it out of the closet, the cell, wrapped in red cloth. Folks, people in monasteries do not wrap garbage in red cloths, O.K? This is a text that had been in use for 1500 years.” ======================== This error by James White in the debate continues his 20 year blunder where he has accused others of dishonesty and having no credibility .. based on his own errors in using the secondary source of Metzger and then mangling the Metzger account in his book. And then claiming his own book (1995 and 2009) as the authority. Pure Bible Forum (full account) James White boomerang - any “scholar” who can’t even get this story straight ... www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?p=629 [TC-Alternate-list] James White factual / historical errors - #1 waste-basket - #2 nomina sacra Steven Avery - Feb 12, 2011 groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TC-Alternate-list/conversations/messages/3947 Facebook - Pure Bible (this post) facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/996595167099039/ ======================== any "scholar" who can't even get this story straight is not really worth reading, to be honest - James White 3/15/2006 ======================== Steven Avery Dutchess County, NY
Sure. (1866) When Were Our Gospels Written? An Argument by Constantine Tischendorf. With a Narrative of the Discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript Constantine Tischendorf rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/tischendorf-sinaiticus.html books.google.com/books?id=7UlVAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA24 " In visiting the library of the monastery, in the month of May, 1844, I perceived in the middle of the great hall a large and wide basket full of old parchments; and the librarian, who was a man of information, told me that two heaps of papers like these, mouldered by time, had been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament in Greek, which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient that I had ever seen. The authorities of the convent allowed me to possess myself of a third of these parchments, or about forty-three sheets, all the more readily as they were destined for the fire. But I could not get them to yield up possession of the remainder. The too lively satisfaction which I had displayed had aroused their suspicions as to the value of this manuscript. I transcribed a page of the text of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and enjoined on the monks to take religious care of all such remains which might fall in their way. .... ... [1859] ... After having devoted a few days in turning over the manuscripts of the convent, not without alighting here and there on some precious parchment or other, I told my Bedouins, on the 4th February, to hold themselves in readiness to set out with their dromedaries for Cairo on the 7th, when an entirely fortuitous circumstance carried me at once to the goal of all my desires. On the afternoon of this day I was taking a walk with the steward of the convent in the neighbourhood, and as we returned, towards sunset, he begged me to take some refreshment with him in his cell. Scarcely had he entered the room, when, resuming our former subject of conversation, he said: "And I, too, have read a Septuagint"--i.e. a copy of the Greek translation made by the Seventy. And so saying, he took down from the corner of the room a bulky kind of volume, wrapped up in a red cloth, and laid it before me. I unrolled the cover, and discovered, to my great surprise, not only those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament complete, and, in addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and a part of the Pastor of Hermas. " ========================= Please take special note to: "not only those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket" Those were Sinaiticus "fragments" (about 130 leaves) that Tischendorf claimed were in the process of being burned. Granted, Tischendorf was lying when he made up this cover story, but he did claim to save Sinaiticus from the fire in his 1844 visit. ======================== any "scholar" who can't even get this story straight is not really worth reading, to be honest - James White 3/15/2006 ======================== Remember, for all his railing accusation against others, James White never quoted the above section, he simply quoted the 1900s summary of Bruce Metzger. By not having the precision of the primary source, James White got the story totally crooked. What made this a humorous situation was his boomerang attack, which was all based on his own lack of understanding. any "scholar" who can't even get this story straight is not really worth reading, to be honest Which, if you agree with James White, means that James White is not really worth reading. And voilà, we have a variant of the liar's paradox. ======================== Steven Avery Dutchess County, NY
Let's start with one, due to limitations. Matthew 5:22 KJV "...whosoever is angry without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment." (justifiable anger, such as Jesus chasing out the money lenders. This verse is conditional.) Matthew 5:22 NIV "...whosoever is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment." (no anger is justifiable. All anger is subject to judgment. This verse is absolute. If Jesus actually said this (NIV), then he condemned himself to judgment.
One issue I have with chapter 17 of Revelation in the KJV is that it says "seven mountains" rather than "Hills" like in some other versions. Of course, as informed and knowledgeable people we can take the prohphesy to be saying that indeed it is the city on seven hills, or Rome, which is the site of the whore of Babylon in the endtimes, and clearly says that the seven kings it would put up all serve the beast.
Great debate! I'm just sorry that it wasn't more formal with cross examinations and such. Sorry you had technical trouble about halfway through! :( Everyone, at about 45 minutes in you will need to watch this in full screen mode to be able to have decent sized video window.
original spouse still lives, as adultery, even for the innocent spouse in a divorce granted on grounds of adultery, "Whosoever putteth away his wife and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away from her husband committeth adultery." "esus Chrsit, the same yesterday, today and forever," Hebrews 13:8, tells us today, as surely as He told Joshua that if we allow covenant breakers to remain in our midst, he will no longer be with us, Joshua 7:12. If you truly
Help me to understand your position. We are not saved by faith and we are not saved by works, right? Assuming that by grace you mean we are saved by God's unmerited favor, how then are we saved? Are we saved automatically? How to you understand the words of Christ when he said thy faith hath saved thee?
I until just now was a very deep believer that the KJV was the superior New Testament translation. I must admit that James White introduced some very new information to my ears and I have been persuaded to consider otherwise.
@blueblue1891 Thanks for your informative response. I'd like to know where you get your definitions for Unicorns and Dragons at the time the King James was published. I've heard all kinds of theories about what those words might mean,but so for nobody has ever been able to academically justify the kind of claims you're making. And to the contrary period artwork depicts dragons and unicorns as the ferry-tale critters most people associate with those same words today.
There is no variant in 1 john 5:8 the variant is only in 1 john 5:7 Matthew 28:19 says baptize them in the name(Singular) of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit" So these three names are equal and one hence one name three names. Does the bible have to say God is father, Son,HS?
(cont. again) Also Vaticanus is only called that because that's where it resides. They are not "catholic manuscripts" whatever that's supposed to mean they're Christian manuscripts and thank God that he did preserve them. We have about 5000 manuscripts of NT books in Greek, some are single books or parts of books, some are just the Gospels or the Epistles of Paul, and some although rare are the entirety of the NT and they all agree on all points of central Christian Doctrine.
The KJV translators stated in the preface that most likely it will need to be updated. If they were inspired in the text, would it not carry to their preface? I prefer the KJV, I do believe it is better than the others. Why can we not replace the antiquated words with synonyms? There are a few such as the KJ21 in print, also the AKJ which can be found on bible Gateway. We can look back at the original language to use the best synonyms, then update to at least the 1960's language.
Lol the sources you cited was wikipedia and you misquoted NET Bible, the sources i am quoting is from the standard Greek New testament and both bruce metzger and phillip comfort commentary on the greek new testament text
mathematical context describes an infinite straight line, and with reference to Romans 1:20 where it declares that there is no excuse for us even knowing the Godhead for it is written in creation, so that just as the term cube refers to the ideal relationship between three infinite straight lines, so also the term God refers to the ideal relationship and unity between three infinite and uncreate Alpha and Omegas.
Isaiah 7:14 (NIV 1984 and 2011), "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child (or conceive) and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." the Hebrew 'alma is used 6 times in the OT, in the NIV it is translated 2 times as virgin (including Is 7:14) and also as maiden and girl. In the KJV it is translated 3 times as virgin and also as maid and damsel. so what exactly is your point?
@Mencel89 Are you speaking of Erasmus. He was not a good catholic and denounced the pope. He was clearly a Reformer at heart. Erasmus constantly criticized the doctrinal and practical errors of Rome and its Bible, the Latin Vulgate, which he rejected. Martin Luther used Erasmus to translate his German New Testament. Would Luther have used a Roman Catholic text to translate a Protestant Bible? Erasmus died among Protestant friends, outside of the Catholic Church.
@SkiesVibrant "For goodness sakes, she even said that Jacob Arminius and John Calvin had a great debate. That's a good trick. Arminius was only 4 years old when Calvin died." That's what made it so great!
Dr. Frank Logsdon, member of the translation committee for the (NASB), has denounced his work on that Bible and urged all Christians to return to the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Bible. Logsdon wrote, "I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard" due to the catholic manuscripts it is based upon.
Hi Brother Rondale! I have been reading your comments related tyo the King James Version and I want to tell you that I support and agree 100% with what you've said! What kind of surprise me is how much "SkiesVibrant" Lack wisdom and understanding. They way he speak, you can feel the "Anger" in his voice which a normal behavior for Follower of Christ called Christian! The only bible I read and trust is the KJV and nobody will change my mind on that. GBU for staying Bold...
Romans 4:1-5 states: 4 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Luthamf that's totally false.... John 3:16 in the original language has the believing in a present tense that remains constant. Which means only those who accept Jesus is Lord and continue believing are saved. Then John 3:18 clarifies.
If you compare certain scripture verses in the modern translations to the same verses in the King James Bible, you will find they are diametrically opposed. I think this is the real issue. It is a good idea to do your own research and from that decide for yourself which version most accurately represents the gospel.
You did not reply to the passage in my last post that states as follows: Luke 7:50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace. This passage agrees with Ephesians 2:8 in that she was indeed saved by the grace of God, but she received this grace through her faith in the Messiah. Faith is indeed the conduit through which we receive grace. Good works should follow once a person has received the grace of God because of the changed heart via the work of the Holy Spirit.
Honestly, It's called the critical text because Bible scholars seek to reconstruct the original autographs as closely as possible by identifying and removing transcription errors, and comparing the variant readings of the oldest extant copies. Siniaticus is the oldest copy of the entire New Testament in the world as well as being the oldest substantial book to survive antiquity. Vaticanus also dates back to the 4th century before the Church at Rome was the Roman Catholic Church.
No disrespect intended, but I believe you are the one who has completely missed the point. The textus receptus is not the majority text. There are over 1800 differences between the TR and the majority text. By the way, if majority does not mean truth, then the majority text is not necessarily the best text.
Even if there was a place in the OT prophecy of the newer versions that called Mary a maiden it still says in Matthew 1:25 “But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.” Christians don't need to fight over which version of the Bible is more inspired. There is no conspiracy here. I believe in and defend the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible and can defend any central Christian doctrine from the ESV and NASB as well the KJV.
about revised versions is what they take away from the Word of God even more than what they add,withRevelation22:19 telling us,"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy,God shall take away his part out of the book of life,and out of the holy city, nd from the things which are written in this book."In the case of theHolyCity it is our ark to survive theLake ofFire which will cover the earth to cleanse it for Christ's new creation which the righteous will witness.
Huckster white failed to mention the difficult words in the niv. filigree Ex 28:20 enclosings(AV) brood(niv) Isa 57:4 children(AV) forded(niv) Josh 2:23 passed over(AV) Forded???
1 John 5.7-8 INCLUSIVELY, not just 1 verse; check your sources. Mat 28.19 does not say God is 3 Persons Just because it names Father, Son, HS. It does not say God IS Father, Son, HS. BIG DIFFERENCE.
@HeroOfChristArchives I am confused are you saying men of God, who interpreted the the Bible just made up the Comma Johanneum? Why? And if so--are you saying Satan inspired the KJV?- If No is your answer than listen to Micheal Maynard's defense of the Comma-J
@sinktool33 "The Holy Spirit had to have inspired the King James Translation" The above assumes that that particular bible is the inspired translation. However, what is the evidence that it was that particular one? "The Bible warns us of "scholars and wise men" "Scholars and wise men" translated created the translation that became known as the King James Bible. The King James bible translators themselves were not KJV Onlyists. Please read the introduction to the 1611 KJV Bible.
Ugg does saying "THIS TEXT" help the argument at all.If he was typing everything would be in bold."THIS TEXT"IS "FROM"A"GOOD PLACE"THAT"TEXT"IS FROM A "BAD PLACE"BECAUSE "NOTHING GOOD"CAN COME FROM "EGYPT"hummm I've heard this before somewhere...oh thats right, they also said ,"can anything good come from Nazareth".YEP
I was never aware how far that "KJV Only" goes. I'm German, I always thought it's the most "classic" one, like the Luther translation would be for us. The one you're used to hear. I personally can't imagine there's anything in the KJV which couldn't be done better today. We have more material now, we have better scholars.
Really? Did you watch the debate? Even Jack Moorman admitted that you can be saved by using other versions. You may have a different set of verses to support a doctrine, but all the doctrines are still there.
Anyone who says that there is only "one KJB" doesn't have a clue as to the history of the KJV. There were different editions from the very beginning, with the "he" and "she" Bibles printed in 1611 (over Ruth 3:15). Further, there was the major Blayney revision of 1769. Altogether, Blayney's 1769 text differed from the 1611 text in around 24,000 places. Since then, a few other changes have been been made and 30 of Blayney's proposed changes have subsequently been reverted.
I read the KJV but anyone who has ever spoke against it i say to them, "anyone who wants to dig deeper into scripture go the the source" i.e the greek and hebrew. I like these debates because there not as Heated as some of them get : ) we all belong to Christ in here so lets keep it cool : )
But the received text was not the text of the greek church. You are simply wrong to believe this. If you believe that this text was 'received' from the greek church you are in error. The JW interlinear utilises the Wescott & Hort text, but it was translated from this text as no JW translator was capable of this. The Mormons use the KJV. Should we reject the KJV on this basis? What do you mean that the NIV misses and deletes verses. From where did they delete?
That is the problem with kjv onlyism. In an attempt to have a perfect final authority, we attempt to justify even errors in the king james bible. I would say that you will get the same basic Christian doctrines from each of the major committee produced conservative translations. Each of these versions will reveal that it is wrong to commit adultery, lie, steal, kill, etc. Furthermore salvation through faith alone in Christ is in all of these versions. What's the problem again?
Once again 1 john 5:8 is not disputed among the manuscripts, John wrote 1 john 5:8 but 1 john 5:7 is not original it was added. Comma Johanneum is only 1 john 5:7 not 1 john 5:8
James White has a program that you can call for free, you can email him, twitter, Facebook But just because he disabled youtube comments he is not tolerant of others opinions?
I wouldn't say that this was a "good debate" because one man came totally prepared with evidence, reason, and knowledge of Greek and the manuscripts, James White, and the other, Jack Moorman, only had anecdotes. Moorman should be embarrassed for even showing up; he definitely was taken to school.
***** PROVE that the KJV is "perfect"! C'mon genius. You must know something that the 47 baby-sprinkling, praying for the dead, Mary-worshiping Anglican translators of the KJV didn't know, lol. Now, run along and read what these translators wrote about their own work.
***** Prove that what you are holding is "perfect". Otherwise, just go about your daily life and stop causing divisions based on the cultic superstitions of Onlyists.
***** No, only 47 actually showed up to work on the translation. This is common knowledge but you should check everything before hand. Their names and their backgrounds are all available. They were Anglicans and they accepted the Thirty Nine Articles of Anglicanism of 1604 which included infant baptism, prayers for the dead and Mary as mother of God. Take a look at an original 1611 and some early editions. They are filled with occultic drawings, references to Roman Catholic "holy days", and in their preface these guys cited "Saint Jerome" and "Saint Augustine" many times. They also cite the Septuagint that most KJV Onlyists claim never existed. You have much to learn.
James White is a very good speaker. He makes his arguments well and is enjoyable to listen to. However, I would be interested to know if his ministry is funded by publishing companies the sell the various modern translations?
That is so interesting you only take one way to interact with James White when i listed so many more than email, Can you show me one instance where James White Trashed Geisler and Hunt? Disagreeing and criticizing what they said with somebody is not trashing
James White made a good point I had not thought about. What Bibles were used by Christians from the time that the Book of Revelation was finished up until the KJV? It's not as if God left them cold without the word. That would make God a liar.
Grace by definition is unmerited favor. Ephesians 2:8-9 says:(King James Version) 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. This passage does not allow at all for works to be a conduit through which we obtain grace, only faith. If you believe we receive grace through works, then this is no longer grace, since grace by definition is unmerited favor.
God's word is not the KJV but the bible written in its original languages. They are not criticizing God's word, they are criticizing the translations of it. What evidence do you have to supports your claim that God chose the KJV to to translate the bible to common people? KJV was not the first translation either so I'm not sure where you get that from.
If the Majority Greek manuscripts are inferior to Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Codex Vaticanus (B), why did God allow Christians to use them for 1900 years? Why didn't God revealed Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Codex Vaticanus (B) sooner? By the way, I do not agree in KJVOnlyism but I do believe that the Majority Text was God’s preserved word in the original New Testament language.
The NIV is a dynamic equivalence translation where they try to translate the meaning of whole sentences. They just put the idea of what they think it's saying into modern English. I don't really like the NIV for that reason, but the point is that a bad translation doesn't mean the underlying text has anything to do with how people abuse the Bible. Sinners have and will always twist the Word to excuse and justify their sin no matter which translation they use. Sinners hate God's truth.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
@filoIII Thankyou for this information. I will be more careful when comparing the NKJV in future with the Authorised Version. What are you thoughts on the New American Standard Version or the World English Bible as a back-up to the AV. What about the King James Version East Read and the 21st Century King James Version? I still think we need some sort of back-up to the AV and if there is not one yet, we need to be working on it.
Your comment just proved my point so having a program where you can call for free and have direct communication with him is unwilling to examine dissenting views? but not having youtube comments means he is unwilling to examine dissenting views?
Thanks for uploading this brother.
Every blessing.
@newbirth35 Yeah, unfortunately it froze and wouldn't let me make it full screen again.
@Pursuitofwisdom
Yeah...I'd be interested in hearing that also...which show was it?
Luke 7:50; Luke 8:48; Luke 18:42; Romans 1:17; Romans 3:22; Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. These are just a few clear references in the KJV that clearly teach that we are saved by faith alone. Repentance is of course implied and obedience will follow if a person is truely saved by faith. Which bible are you reading?
@seanpaynedotnet memory buffer size exceeded at the 45 minute mark. Maybe if you recorded at lower quality you may have gotten the whole debate. I hope you can record more of these. Thank you for this upload.
"The Comma Johanneum is a comma (a short clause) in the First Epistle of John (1 John 5:7-8). This text is variously referred to as the Comma Johanneum, the Johannine Comma, the Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John 5:7 or 1 John v:7." WikiPedia
If you say so. Just trying to help. If you have something specific that you feel I haven't addressed, please state what it is.
Two words that Mr Moorman should NEVER again use in a Bible translation debate:
Mount Impassable!
Gregg Settle how do you get past 2 Peter 1:19-21, for it expressly forbids 'private interpretations' for the reason that 'holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost', and all Revised Versions are copyrighted proving, by definition, that they are not only the Biblically forbidden'private interpretations' but also that copyrights defines even legally that such translations are the word of man so much that that man may sue any unauthorized public use of that translation.I challenge
Fascinating debate! Thank you for posting it. However it saddens me that most Christians would rather argue with other believers than devote that passion and energy to bringing the gospel to the world... Matthew 9:37-38.
The BEST comment so far on this website. It's sad that "Christians" are acting like little immature children, and accusing their brothers and sisters in Christ -- this is a clear sign of spiritual immaturity. Another tactic from the Devil to keep Christians from spreading the Gospel to the lost.
@UCsaWFhT7ZEO8YCkSMsb3aXQ very true! Years ago, I attended a church which ended up splitting over kjv-onlyism. Debate between Christians does have a place but by and large I still think that it would be better if the energy used on Facebook, for example, was turned instead to apologetics AND the proclamation of law and gospel to our unbelieving neighbors.
If your interested in what versions James likes, you can go to his youtube channel. He has a rather lengthy talk about it lately. I think it was about a month back. He does read his KJV version as well as Greek and other translations.
The Greek church I was referring to was 1st Century Church, not the modern Greek orthodox Church. You clearly don't believe that the received text was receieved from the modern Greek Church.
If the devils deleted the verse in Matthew, then why didn't they delete it in the paralell passage in Mark?
You say that missing verses in the NIV proved the text wrong. But where are they missing from? How do you know they weren't added to the KJV, making it wrong?
Thank you so MUCH for posting this!
Can you please leave it on "FULL SCREEN" next time though?...
One question asked by an email read out in the debate, which was not answered, is concerning verses like Jer. 34:16 or Nah. 3:16. The Oxford and the Cambridge Editions of the KJB differ.
My belief is that the Cambridge Edition gets those verses right, and that these (as incorrectly presented in the Oxford) are only printing or editorial issues, and are not actual real changes to the King James Bible. Of course, I uphold correctness, so I think people should use the Pure Cambridge Edition.
Thank you for uploading this! It was very beneficial to me
In your last post you mentioned only Ephesians 2:8 which I addressed. I also addressed James 2:24 in an earlier post when I said that in context the passage is referring to showing others your faith by your works, not God. Abraham never actually killed his son, but God saw his heart and his actions proved his faith in God. By the way, I'm sure you wouldn't say that Abraham was not saved prior to his obedience. Compare this passage with Romans 5:1-5. I'll comment on this in my next post.
Notice that the passage in Romans is referring to the same man when it says in vs3 Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. vs4 says that if you work it is not grace, but debt (Ephesians 2:9- Not of works, lest any man should boast). vs 5 Says clearly that to him that worketh not, but believeth on him (faith) that justifieth the ungodly his "faith" is counted for righteousness. We can only conclude that we are justified by faith, not works.
Check the sources for yourself.
I'm glad to hear we are on the same side. Also, I appreciate your respectful communications. I've observed people on both sides of this issue engaging in rude, accusatory and harsh words. You have not done that. Although I studied Greek and was translating the NT fairly accurately up to second and third declensions, I try to avoid the battle of the manuscripts, as few people can actually read Greek. Still, I am familiar, to some degree, with problems associated with various textual streams.
Then why is the earliest manuscripts in Aramaic from 400AD?
James White absolutely nails it in this debate. We must love the Scriptures, not put a yoke upon them. Thank you Dr. White.
@patrikf81
The wrong text was lost?
What in the world are you talking about?
That is because the word 'alma is translated that way in other places the word is used in both the KJV and the NIV. The main interpretation in the NIV says virgin so I don't see what the problem is.
The AuthorizedKingJamesVersion is in many ways no way a private interpretation, for instance, not only was gospel order observed in the employment of three groups of men known to be both devout righteous men of greatBiblical scholarship,but after cross checking each others' work the work was thrown open for the inspection of the whole realm before being accepted. f one used, without authorization of the owner of the copyright which is upon every revised version, they could be sued( Peter 1:19-21
Thank you for upload
@Mencel89 If Erasmus was sooo "Catholic" and his text sooo "Catholic," then who were the enemies of the Roman church? And why was Erasmus' manuscript never adopted by Rome? Why did Luther refer to Erasmus' second edition as "my wife" if Erasmus was so Catholic? Erasmus' Greek New Testament was placed on Rome's Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Trent, which meant that it is forbidden for Catholics to even read it without approval from their bishop upon pain of mortal sin.
I have the standard scholarly Greek New Testament NA27 and it shows only 1 John 5:7 as being added it makes no mention of 1 john 5:8 being added and i posted 1 john 5:8 it speaks nothing of Father,Son,Holy Spirit
I agree. This was an extremely good discussion from both sides. We should simply think about it, what was discussed here, and decide what God is actually saying in his infallable word.
Sean,
Thx so much for the video. I love the clarity of James White. Jack Moorman did a good job, but he never varied from the baseless problems of KJV ONLYISM, not KJV readers. I appreciate that both men responded in a civil way.
Thanks for sharing Sean.
Jack Moorman is a true Christian and a humble man, who speaks the truth with authority, as he did in this debate. God will honour him for his humility and for his stand for the truth. Some of the comments here have a certain hallmark: pride. Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. Proverbs 16:18
The first attack against God's words happened in Eden with the words of the serpent, ' ... Yea, hath God said, ...' Genesis 3:1 The attack continues today!
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12
Jesus is Lord.
Kjv isn't going anywhere or away. Ppl are lazy and don't even read the new English ones. I understand both sides of this debate which isn't really a debate to me but more of both sides of a coin.
Iw8343 you asked for citations etc... so I did three posts to refer you to scholarly works which fulfill that better than I can, but even better than this is I think what I am about to say myself with a simple appeal to wisdom. All Revised Versions are copyrighted in the sense if you publicly use them without permission they can sue you, so they are all the word of the finite human holders of their copyright, rather than the Word of God, which alone can supply the faith of Hebrews 11:6. Also
Erasmus published his text multiple times, and what do you think about the last six verses in chapter 22 of Revelation that he translated into Greek straight from the Latin Vulgate.
1) Any orthodox Christian can read a modern version of the Bible and arrive at the same central Christian Doctrines.
2) Of thousands of Greek manuscripts no doctrine is deleted or distorted.
3) We can defend our faith with the NASB, ESV, or even NIV just as well as with the KJV.
there is no way they would be given their copyright, so there is no question that all revised versions are the 'forbidden' private interpretations of 2 Peter 1:20. Worse still, however, is that such a presumptuous sin, seems to constitute a sin against the Holy Ghost for the following verse 21 declares, "For holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." This is more likely than not the sin unto death which 1 JOh 5:16 refers to, for I can testify personally that what upsets me most
Praise God for James and people like him,he has a way of making things very understandable to the non-intellectuals,such as myself.The King James Bible is a fine translation,but it too is only a translation,it's God who supernaturally causes His people to understand the things of God and leads all His people into all truth ultimately.
Everyone involved in this debate ought to read Dr James White's book on the KJV Only controversy, even though my own views are more with Jack Moorman. What we have done is to recommend to our members that they use either the Authorised Version or the New King James Version, either on their own or together. That way all Christians can get the benefit of two really sound versions, in 1611 or modern format; and in the case of the NKJV you also have the alternative textual critical views.
@HeroOfChristArchives Since when is NT scripture not found in the Dead Sea Scrolls??what did you think only OT?
Yes, anytime you use the vanticus-- your going to have to argue Alexandria or Antioch validity of texts
James White Feb 2, 2011 debate
Time: 30:12-30:26
“I did want to correct just one misapprehension. Sinaiticus was not found in or near a trashcan. That is a common myth, but it’s untrue. All you have to do is read Constantine von Tischendorf’s own first-hand account of his discovery of the manuscript. A monk brought it out of the closet, the cell, wrapped in red cloth. Folks, people in monasteries do not wrap garbage in red cloths, O.K? This is a text that had been in use for 1500 years.”
========================
This error by James White in the debate continues his 20 year blunder where he has accused others of dishonesty and having no credibility .. based on his own errors in using the secondary source of Metzger and then mangling the Metzger account in his book. And then claiming his own book (1995 and 2009) as the authority.
Pure Bible Forum (full account)
James White boomerang - any “scholar” who can’t even get this story straight ...
www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?p=629
[TC-Alternate-list] James White factual / historical errors - #1 waste-basket - #2 nomina sacra
Steven Avery - Feb 12, 2011
groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TC-Alternate-list/conversations/messages/3947
Facebook - Pure Bible (this post)
facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/996595167099039/
========================
any "scholar" who can't even get this story straight is not really worth reading, to be honest
- James White 3/15/2006
========================
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY
Sure.
(1866) When Were Our Gospels Written? An Argument by Constantine Tischendorf. With a Narrative of the Discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript
Constantine Tischendorf
rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/tischendorf-sinaiticus.html
books.google.com/books?id=7UlVAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA24
" In visiting the library of the monastery, in the month of May, 1844, I perceived in the middle of the great hall a large and wide basket full of old parchments; and the librarian, who was a man of information, told me that two heaps of papers like these, mouldered by time, had been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament in Greek, which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient that I had ever seen. The authorities of the convent allowed me to possess myself of a third of these parchments, or about forty-three sheets, all the more readily as they were destined for the fire. But I could not get them to yield up possession of the remainder. The too lively satisfaction which I had displayed had aroused their suspicions as to the value of this manuscript. I transcribed a page of the text of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and enjoined on the monks to take religious care of all such remains which might fall in their way. ....
... [1859] ... After having devoted a few days in turning over the manuscripts of the convent, not without alighting here and there on some precious parchment or other, I told my Bedouins, on the 4th February, to hold themselves in readiness to set out with their dromedaries for Cairo on the 7th, when an entirely fortuitous circumstance carried me at once to the goal of all my desires. On the afternoon of this day I was taking a walk with the steward of the convent in the neighbourhood, and as we returned, towards sunset, he begged me to take some refreshment with him in his cell. Scarcely had he entered the room, when, resuming our former subject of conversation, he said: "And I, too, have read a Septuagint"--i.e. a copy of the Greek translation made by the Seventy. And so saying, he took down from the corner of the room a bulky kind of volume, wrapped up in a red cloth, and laid it before me. I unrolled the cover, and discovered, to my great surprise, not only those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament complete, and, in addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and a part of the Pastor of Hermas. "
=========================
Please take special note to:
"not only those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket"
Those were Sinaiticus "fragments" (about 130 leaves) that Tischendorf claimed were in the process of being burned. Granted, Tischendorf was lying when he made up this cover story, but he did claim to save Sinaiticus from the fire in his 1844 visit.
========================
any "scholar" who can't even get this story straight is not really worth reading, to be honest
- James White 3/15/2006
========================
Remember, for all his railing accusation against others, James White never quoted the above section, he simply quoted the 1900s summary of Bruce Metzger. By not having the precision of the primary source, James White got the story totally crooked. What made this a humorous situation was his boomerang attack, which was all based on his own lack of understanding.
any "scholar" who can't even get this story straight is not really worth reading, to be honest
Which, if you agree with James White, means that James White is not really worth reading.
And voilà, we have a variant of the liar's paradox.
========================
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY
Let's start with one, due to limitations.
Matthew 5:22 KJV "...whosoever is angry without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment." (justifiable anger, such as Jesus chasing out the money lenders. This verse is conditional.)
Matthew 5:22 NIV "...whosoever is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment." (no anger is justifiable. All anger is subject to judgment. This verse is absolute. If Jesus actually said this (NIV), then he condemned himself to judgment.
One issue I have with chapter 17 of Revelation in the KJV is that it says "seven mountains" rather than "Hills" like in some other versions. Of course, as informed and knowledgeable people we can take the prohphesy to be saying that indeed it is the city on seven hills, or Rome, which is the site of the whore of Babylon in the endtimes, and clearly says that the seven kings it would put up all serve the beast.
Isaiah 14:7 NIV, "All the lands are at rest and at peace; they break into singing." Try again, what verse are you talking about?
Thanks for posting
Great debate! I'm just sorry that it wasn't more formal with cross examinations and such. Sorry you had technical trouble about halfway through! :( Everyone, at about 45 minutes in you will need to watch this in full screen mode to be able to have decent sized video window.
Praise God for this brother
original spouse still lives, as adultery, even for the innocent spouse in a divorce granted on grounds of adultery, "Whosoever putteth away his wife and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away from her husband committeth adultery." "esus Chrsit, the same yesterday, today and forever," Hebrews 13:8, tells us today, as surely as He told Joshua that if we allow covenant breakers to remain in our midst, he will no longer be with us, Joshua 7:12. If you truly
Help me to understand your position. We are not saved by faith and we are not saved by works, right? Assuming that by grace you mean we are saved by God's unmerited favor, how then are we saved? Are we saved automatically? How to you understand the words of Christ when he said thy faith hath saved thee?
I until just now was a very deep believer that the KJV was the superior New Testament translation. I must admit that James White introduced some very new information to my ears and I have been persuaded to consider otherwise.
@blueblue1891 Thanks for your informative response. I'd like to know where you get your definitions for Unicorns and Dragons at the time the King James was published. I've heard all kinds of theories about what those words might mean,but so for nobody has ever been able to academically justify the kind of claims you're making. And to the contrary period artwork depicts dragons and unicorns as the ferry-tale critters most people associate with those same words today.
There is no variant in 1 john 5:8 the variant is only in 1 john 5:7 Matthew 28:19 says baptize them in the name(Singular) of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit" So these three names are equal and one hence one name three names. Does the bible have to say God is father, Son,HS?
Remember to show love.
(cont. again) Also Vaticanus is only called that because that's where it resides. They are not "catholic manuscripts" whatever that's supposed to mean they're Christian manuscripts and thank God that he did preserve them. We have about 5000 manuscripts of NT books in Greek, some are single books or parts of books, some are just the Gospels or the Epistles of Paul, and some although rare are the entirety of the NT and they all agree on all points of central Christian Doctrine.
The KJV translators stated in the preface that most likely it will need to be updated. If they were inspired in the text, would it not carry to their preface? I prefer the KJV, I do believe it is better than the others. Why can we not replace the antiquated words with synonyms? There are a few such as the KJ21 in print, also the AKJ which can be found on bible Gateway. We can look back at the original language to use the best synonyms, then update to at least the 1960's language.
Lol the sources you cited was wikipedia and you misquoted NET Bible, the sources i am quoting is from the standard Greek New testament and both bruce metzger and phillip comfort commentary on the greek new testament text
I find no verses in good modern translations that are diametrically opposed to the KJV..........examples please?
mathematical context describes an infinite straight line, and with reference to Romans 1:20 where it declares that there is no excuse for us even knowing the Godhead for it is written in creation, so that just as the term cube refers to the ideal relationship between three infinite straight lines, so also the term God refers to the ideal relationship and unity between three infinite and uncreate Alpha and Omegas.
Isaiah 7:14 (NIV 1984 and 2011), "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child (or conceive) and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." the Hebrew 'alma is used 6 times in the OT, in the NIV it is translated 2 times as virgin (including Is 7:14) and also as maiden and girl. In the KJV it is translated 3 times as virgin and also as maid and damsel. so what exactly is your point?
@Mencel89 Are you speaking of Erasmus. He was not a good catholic and denounced the pope. He was clearly a Reformer at heart. Erasmus constantly criticized the doctrinal and practical errors of Rome and its Bible, the Latin Vulgate, which he rejected. Martin Luther used Erasmus to translate his German New Testament. Would Luther have used a Roman Catholic text to translate a Protestant Bible? Erasmus died among Protestant friends, outside of the Catholic Church.
@SkiesVibrant "For goodness sakes, she even said that Jacob Arminius and John Calvin had a great debate. That's a good trick. Arminius was only 4 years old when Calvin died."
That's what made it so great!
I think this was too short. They should have taken at least another half hour.
Dr. Frank Logsdon, member of the translation committee for the (NASB), has denounced his work on that Bible and urged all Christians to return to the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Bible. Logsdon wrote, "I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard" due to the catholic manuscripts it is based upon.
Hi Brother Rondale!
I have been reading your comments related tyo the King James Version and I want to tell you that I support and agree 100% with what you've said! What kind of surprise me is how much "SkiesVibrant" Lack wisdom and understanding. They way he speak, you can feel the "Anger" in his voice which a normal behavior for Follower of Christ called Christian! The only bible I read and trust is the KJV and nobody will change my mind on that. GBU for staying Bold...
Romans 4:1-5 states: 4 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Luthamf that's totally false.... John 3:16 in the original language has the believing in a present tense that remains constant. Which means only those who accept Jesus is Lord and continue believing are saved. Then John 3:18 clarifies.
Dr White's knowledge of church history and the Bible always astounds me.
If you compare certain scripture verses in the modern translations to the same verses in the King James Bible, you will find they are diametrically opposed. I think this is the real issue. It is a good idea to do your own research and from that decide for yourself which version most accurately represents the gospel.
You did not reply to the passage in my last post that states as follows: Luke 7:50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace. This passage agrees with Ephesians 2:8 in that she was indeed saved by the grace of God, but she received this grace through her faith in the Messiah. Faith is indeed the conduit through which we receive grace. Good works should follow once a person has received the grace of God because of the changed heart via the work of the Holy Spirit.
Honestly, It's called the critical text because Bible scholars seek to reconstruct the original autographs as closely as possible by identifying and removing transcription errors, and comparing the variant readings of the oldest extant copies. Siniaticus is the oldest copy of the entire New Testament in the world as well as being the oldest substantial book to survive antiquity. Vaticanus also dates back to the 4th century before the Church at Rome was the Roman Catholic Church.
No disrespect intended, but I believe you are the one who has completely missed the point. The textus receptus is not the majority text. There are over 1800 differences between the TR and the majority text. By the way, if majority does not mean truth, then the majority text is not necessarily the best text.
Even if there was a place in the OT prophecy of the newer versions that called Mary a maiden it still says in Matthew 1:25 “But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.”
Christians don't need to fight over which version of the Bible is more inspired. There is no conspiracy here. I believe in and defend the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible and can defend any central Christian doctrine from the ESV and NASB as well the KJV.
about revised versions is what they take away from the Word of God even more than what they add,withRevelation22:19 telling us,"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy,God shall take away his part out of the book of life,and out of the holy city, nd from the things which are written in this book."In the case of theHolyCity it is our ark to survive theLake ofFire which will cover the earth to cleanse it for Christ's new creation which the righteous will witness.
Huckster white failed to mention the difficult words in the niv. filigree Ex 28:20 enclosings(AV) brood(niv) Isa 57:4 children(AV) forded(niv) Josh 2:23 passed over(AV) Forded???
the man who asked the first question had me rolling. lol
1 John 5.7-8 INCLUSIVELY, not just 1 verse; check your sources. Mat 28.19 does not say God is 3 Persons Just because it names Father, Son, HS. It does not say God IS Father, Son, HS. BIG DIFFERENCE.
James White had the better points and arguments. It was good to see it stay cordial.
"5.7-8...The PASSAGE is absent from every known Greek manuscript..." Metzger, A Textual Commentary, p 715.
@HeroOfChristArchives I am confused are you saying men of God, who interpreted the the Bible just made up the Comma Johanneum? Why? And if so--are you saying Satan inspired the KJV?- If No is your answer than listen to Micheal Maynard's defense of the Comma-J
@sinktool33 "The Holy Spirit had to have inspired the King James Translation"
The above assumes that that particular bible is the inspired translation. However, what is the evidence that it was that particular one?
"The Bible warns us of "scholars and wise men"
"Scholars and wise men" translated created the translation that became known as the King James Bible. The King James bible translators themselves were not KJV Onlyists. Please read the introduction to the 1611 KJV Bible.
Ugg does saying "THIS TEXT" help the argument at all.If he was typing everything would be in bold."THIS TEXT"IS "FROM"A"GOOD PLACE"THAT"TEXT"IS FROM A "BAD PLACE"BECAUSE "NOTHING GOOD"CAN COME FROM "EGYPT"hummm I've heard this before somewhere...oh thats right, they also said ,"can anything good come from Nazareth".YEP
I was never aware how far that "KJV Only" goes. I'm German, I always thought it's the most "classic" one, like the Luther translation would be for us. The one you're used to hear.
I personally can't imagine there's anything in the KJV which couldn't be done better today. We have more material now, we have better scholars.
Really? Did you watch the debate? Even Jack Moorman admitted that you can be saved by using other versions. You may have a different set of verses to support a doctrine, but all the doctrines are still there.
Anyone who says that there is only "one KJB" doesn't have a clue as to the history of the KJV.
There were different editions from the very beginning, with the "he" and "she" Bibles printed in 1611 (over Ruth 3:15). Further, there was the major Blayney revision of 1769. Altogether, Blayney's 1769 text differed from the 1611 text in around 24,000 places. Since then, a few other changes have been been made and 30 of Blayney's proposed changes have subsequently been reverted.
I read the KJV but anyone who has ever spoke against it i say to them, "anyone who wants to dig deeper into scripture go the the source" i.e the greek and hebrew. I like these debates because there not as Heated as some of them get : ) we all belong to Christ in here so lets keep it cool : )
where does the NIV say Jesus was born of a young maiden and not a virgin? How about giving proper info when making a statement?
But the received text was not the text of the greek church. You are simply wrong to believe this. If you believe that this text was 'received' from the greek church you are in error.
The JW interlinear utilises the Wescott & Hort text, but it was translated from this text as no JW translator was capable of this. The Mormons use the KJV. Should we reject the KJV on this basis?
What do you mean that the NIV misses and deletes verses. From where did they delete?
That is the problem with kjv onlyism. In an attempt to have a perfect final authority, we attempt to justify even errors in the king james bible. I would say that you will get the same basic Christian doctrines from each of the major committee produced conservative translations. Each of these versions will reveal that it is wrong to commit adultery, lie, steal, kill, etc. Furthermore salvation through faith alone in Christ is in all of these versions. What's the problem again?
Once again 1 john 5:8 is not disputed among the manuscripts, John wrote 1 john 5:8 but 1 john 5:7 is not original it was added. Comma Johanneum is only 1 john 5:7 not 1 john 5:8
James White has a program that you can call for free, you can email him, twitter, Facebook But just because he disabled youtube comments he is not tolerant of others opinions?
Dr. White was certainly quite effective in the debate. Dr. Moorman frankly got trounced in this debate.
I wouldn't say that this was a "good debate" because one man came totally prepared with evidence, reason, and knowledge of Greek and the manuscripts, James White, and the other, Jack Moorman, only had anecdotes. Moorman should be embarrassed for even showing up; he definitely was taken to school.
***** Yeah right, and you are a Sardisian. Go critique yourself, Critic, and examine yourself as to whether you are in the faith or under a delusion.
***** PROVE that the KJV is "perfect"! C'mon genius. You must know something that the 47 baby-sprinkling, praying for the dead, Mary-worshiping Anglican translators of the KJV didn't know, lol.
Now, run along and read what these translators wrote about their own work.
***** Prove that what you are holding is "perfect". Otherwise, just go about your daily life and stop causing divisions based on the cultic superstitions of Onlyists.
***** What did the 47 Anglican translators of the KJV say about this?
***** No, only 47 actually showed up to work on the translation. This is common knowledge but you should check everything before hand. Their names and their backgrounds are all available.
They were Anglicans and they accepted the Thirty Nine Articles of Anglicanism of 1604 which included infant baptism, prayers for the dead and Mary as mother of God.
Take a look at an original 1611 and some early editions. They are filled with occultic drawings, references to Roman Catholic "holy days", and in their preface these guys cited "Saint Jerome" and "Saint Augustine" many times. They also cite the Septuagint that most KJV Onlyists claim never existed.
You have much to learn.
James White is a very good speaker. He makes his arguments well and is enjoyable to listen to. However, I would be interested to know if his ministry is funded by publishing companies the sell the various modern translations?
That is so interesting you only take one way to interact with James White when i listed so many more than email, Can you show me one instance where James White Trashed Geisler and Hunt? Disagreeing and criticizing what they said with somebody is not trashing
James White made a good point I had not thought about. What Bibles were used by Christians from the time that the Book of Revelation was finished up until the KJV? It's not as if God left them cold without the word. That would make God a liar.
Grace by definition is unmerited favor. Ephesians 2:8-9 says:(King James Version) 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. This passage does not allow at all for works to be a conduit through which we obtain grace, only faith. If you believe we receive grace through works, then this is no longer grace, since grace by definition is unmerited favor.
God's word is not the KJV but the bible written in its original languages. They are not criticizing God's word, they are criticizing the translations of it. What evidence do you have to supports your claim that God chose the KJV to to translate the bible to common people? KJV was not the first translation either so I'm not sure where you get that from.
If the Majority Greek manuscripts are inferior to Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Codex Vaticanus (B), why did God allow Christians to use them for 1900 years? Why didn't God revealed Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Codex Vaticanus (B) sooner? By the way, I do not agree in KJVOnlyism but I do believe that the Majority Text was God’s preserved word in the original New Testament language.
I was hoping to see a Jack Mormon face off against James White and I get James White vs Jack Moormon. Damn.
The NIV is a dynamic equivalence translation where they try to translate the meaning of whole sentences. They just put the idea of what they think it's saying into modern English. I don't really like the NIV for that reason, but the point is that a bad translation doesn't mean the underlying text has anything to do with how people abuse the Bible.
Sinners have and will always twist the Word to excuse and justify their sin no matter which translation they use. Sinners hate God's truth.
That's mean!!! You witness to them, and pray they see the truth. Not threaten them like that! Shame, shame!!!