Cultish is a 100% crowd funded ministry made possible by viewers like you. Partner with us and be part of the mission to change lives - donorbox.org/cultish
The KJV was called the bible for 300+ years. It's the only version that doesn't remove entire KEY salvation verses like Acts 8:37 and quite a few more KEY ones, it also doesn't remove thousands of KEY words like Jesus (I think that's important right?) and is the only version that doesn't completely distort KEY verses when comparing them to 95%+ of elder manuscripts. So unless you're dumb, delusional or ignorant and can't compare the KJV vs any other version (especially the NIV, ESV, NKJV) on hundreds of websites that compare versions and see for yourself, than you're just a lying apostate. You have nothing on the KJV. Often duplicated, never imitated.
This is such a false witness video. It's not by tradition at all why people read KJV only. It's because the Knowledge, Wisdom, and Understanding of God comes from the KJV which is the Word of God. I was ministering healing to a fellow Christian and the Spirit of God out of my own mouth said, "My way is the King James Version Bible." That was the Spirit of God. So people can indeed read whatever they want, but the KJV is indeed the Word of God. Also, you can read the KJV with a proper dictionary like Noah Webster 1828 dictionary app so there is nothing misunderstood. Wes likes to argue that KJV is hard to understand some words so don't read it, but if you use a proper dictionary for the very few words you may need assistance with then he doesn't have a valid argument. KJV is about you walking by Faith and having more Knowledge of God when you read it by Faith. This whole video is just carnal minded argument against God's Word. ROMANS 8:7 "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."
This is such a false witness video. It's not by tradition at all why people read KJV only. It's because the Knowledge, Wisdom, and Understanding of God comes from the KJV which is the Word of God. I was ministering healing to a fellow Christian and the Spirit of God out of my own mouth said, "My way is the King James Version Bible." That was the Spirit of God. So people can indeed read whatever they want, but the KJV is indeed the Word of God.
Also, you can read the KJV with a proper dictionary like Noah Webster 1828 dictionary app so there is nothing misunderstood. Wes likes to argue that KJV has some words that may be hard to understand so don't read it. But if you use a proper dictionary for the very few words you may need assistance with then Wes doesn't have a valid argument. KJV is about you walking by Faith and having more Knowledge of God when you read it by Faith. This whole video is so carnally minded it's very sad. ROMANS 8:7 "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."
Host literally says at the end, "Theres a difference between thinking about this argument to figure out why you disagree... versus finding a meme to confirm your bias." See how thinking is his answer, not walking by Faith, but carnally minded thinking. 1 TIMOTHY 4:1-2 "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;"
Amen!!! Wes now went on PBD podcast after Joe Rogan with Mark Minard! Epic. Can't wait for that to drop too!! Im a Christian UA-cam Creator too and a full time street evangelist and university missionary too!
The KJV translators were humble and realistic about the limitations of their work. They never claimed that their translation was perfect or divinely inspired, and they acknowledged the inherent challenges in translating ancient texts into English. They believed that no translation could fully capture the richness of the original languages and saw their translation as one in a series of efforts to make God’s Word accessible to English speakers. They encouraged the use of multiple translations and recognized that language would continue to evolve, implying that further revisions and translations would be needed in the future.
And the ancient languages also, though sufficient, are not nearly as rich as the mind of the One who condescended to use human tongues to communicate with us!
I grew up kjv only. I hated reading the bible until i read a version i could understand better. Now I'm always having to endure passive-aggressive remarks from my kjvo mom anytime we talk about the bible. It's crazy how insane people get over the kjv. Like people are literally dying without Christ and christians are being nasty over translations.
If you like the kjv and want to stick with it, that's great. But saying other translations are corrupt and actually losing Friendships or telling others they are being misled if they read other translations is insane.
Amen! I love what you said there, people are dying and going to hell while we wanna argue about translations!! Sharing the gospel should def be top priority!
@ no definitely, I agree. His blowing up led him to Joe Rogan. But I would call that a mini explosion, leading up to being on the largest podcast on earth.
I've Been praying for Joe Rogan to come to christ for a long time. Im a Christian UA-cam Creator too and been making LOTS of videos avout carson and wesley and joe rogan haha. I also have the full 3 hour Rogan and Wes Huff interview and reaction here on my channel 😊
It is called the Barbara Streisand effect. Wes’ challenger did so bad in that debate, he didn’t want it to air, tried to block it. It did the opposite. Wes channel viewership went right up into the stratosphere
It definitely does sound cool when reading it, lol. But it’s not all about feeling good. It’s actually about fully understanding what is being said. For that, you need it in a language that is used today, as Old English words have many false friends in Modern English.
So long as you study for understanding and aren't making an idol of one version, I'm happy you have a version you enjoy reading since that is what will keep you in His Word.
I agree I do love it. I’m Baptist so I do love it. But this is shameful to admit this but it’s tough language is part of the reason I never read it much for like ten years. It felt like such a brain puzzle for me and I focused so much in trying to understand it that I was lost in the forest looking at the trees. Now I have kjv/nkjv/esv/niv (which I didn’t love) / and a NLT and a NET. I read thought for thought bibles for enjoyment and I study and deep dive in word for word. And I compare verses in multiple of them. And recently allowing myself to read these other bibles I’ve made it farther into the word than I ever did when I was sticking to just the kjv. ❤ but the old language for memory verses does just strike a chord from the kjv.
God sovereignly preserved His word to us in such amazing ways. The far flung availability of hundreds of manuscripts, far outnumber any book from antiquity. The Gospel spread rapidly based on the spread of Scripture. The amazing grace and goodness of our King!
He sure did, by the ministry of the Holy Spirit God handed the Jews the oracles of God all of Jesus was told to holy men moved by the Spirit to write the very words of God in Greek Hebrew and Aramaic, praise God to him be the glory alone
And God preserves His Word. Deuteronomy 32:8 Masoretic text says “the sons of Israel”. The LXX and Dead Sea Scrolls (older than the Codex Leningrad) say “Sons/angels of God). See Dr. Michael S. Heiser’s “The Unseen Realm”
@@JesusSavesandRomeEnslaveswith the questions that Wes was responding do he had no chance to explicitly outline the gospel in its entirety. That being said, what he did say about Jesus and the proofs he shared about Christianity were excellent.
@@a.w.virella7011 🤔 Who would be destroyed? Pastor Kim uses the seventh Bible translated into English so I’m assuming you’re referring to Huff. Psalms 12 KJV 6 The words of the LORD _are_ pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Ecclesiastes 8 KJV 👑 4 Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?
The KJV translators acknowledged that every translation, including their own, has its shortcomings. They stated that even the best translations are “the word of God” but also recognized that they are subject to human error: • “No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.” • They acknowledged that every human translation, no matter how diligent, would still contain imperfections because translation itself is an interpretive act.
*Some" KJV translators did, but not all. There were some fanatics who literally believed that many of the translators were divinely inspired just as Apostles were. There will always be fanatics, but God will bring out good from "idiots".
I'm a missionary in Korea and there's the same issue in churches here. They all uses the oldest version although people, especially young people and people who didn't grow up in church, but even many who did, struggle to understand. Many people have told me that they couldn't understand the Bible, then I will show them a modern Korean translation and they were shocked because they didn't know another translation existed. It's crazy that humans continuously keep making the same mistake in different cultures and putting up barriers to the Gospel.
oh wow this is super interesting. it’s funny how this is not just an english thing, people all over the world are doing the same thing and having similar issues.
@@fruitsnacks155 KJV & all other modern "translations" are translations or different source texts. Either Bid preserved his word down the generations to make the KJV or people didn't have his real word for hundreds of years until those older, but different, documents were found. Those against the KJV remind me a lot of theistic evolutionists.
@@fruitsnacks155 KJV & all other modern "translations" are translations or different source texts. Either God preserved his word down the generations to make the KJV or people didn't have his real word for hundreds of years until those older, but different, documents were found.
I was only given the King James until I was an adult. My only large problem was John 3:16 - “only begotten son.” This worried me all through my childhood. I knew what begotten meant. I had read all the genealogies in the Old Testament. Not until I was in my later adulthood, listening to many Greek scholars. The word “begotten” in the Greek was translated incorrectly - the Greek word actually means “one, only & unique.” I love my KJV, but I also love my ESV/NASB/etc.
One and only is not correct. I'm saved. That makes me a son of God. So, one and only Son is not accurate. Only begotten of the Father is correct. Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power >>to become the sons of God,>the only begotten of the Father,
I love the KJV. I love the ESV. I love the NASB. I love the LSB. I love the CSB. I love the NKJV. I love God’s Word. All of the above mentioned versions are faithful to God’s Word.
No one is saying it's not a valid translation. The problem comes from the idea that "If it's good enough for Paul, it's good enough for me". I've actually had people say that to me and it is just ignorant.
Good stuff! The key is staying grounded in the truth of God’s Word without drifting into man-made doctrines or interpretations that deviate from His intended message. The Holy Spirit guides us into all truth, and as long as we remain centered on Jesus and the core of the Gospel, minor translation differences shouldn’t distract us. It’s about cultivating a relationship with Him, not getting caught up in intellectual “rightness” that can pull us away from the heart of the faith. Truth and relationship should always take precedence over legalism or confusion! God’s power is far greater than many realize, and He delights in giving good gifts to His children-never something harmful. Unfortunately, too many Christians today admit they’re not reading their Bibles, often citing the excuse that it’s too difficult to understand or read (KJV). For the vast majority of people, this excuse no longer holds weight, thanks to the availability of audio versions and a wide variety of accessible translations.
1 Peter 1 KJV 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 24 For all flesh _is_ as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. 1 Corinthians 15 KJV ✝️🩸 1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: Ecclesiastes 8 KJV 👑 4 Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?
@@AlexanderBrown77we aren’t muslims. We aren’t Mormons.But KJVO certainly does behave like them. The word has been preserved but it’s not in an exact translation. That’s not how Christians defend the inerrancy is that He gave us only a single language and translation that is word for word exact to one specific translation. You sound like a muslim defending their quran .
The translators encouraged the use of multiple translations to gain a fuller understanding of the Scriptures. They recognized that a single translation cannot capture every nuance or meaning from the original languages: • “Variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures.” • This admission shows their humility and openness to the idea that future translations or existing ones in other languages can offer additional clarity.
1 Peter 1 KJV 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 24 For all flesh _is_ as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. 1 Corinthians 15 KJV ✝️🩸 1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 1 Peter 4 KJV 17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
The KJV translators did not see their translation as completely new but as a revision of earlier translations, including the Tyndale Bible, Geneva Bible, and others. They respected the work of earlier translators and did not view their translation as a complete replacement but as part of an ongoing process of refining and improving English translations: • “Truly (good Christian reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one… but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against.” • This humility demonstrates their view that their work was a continuation of the translation process, not the final or perfect version
1 Peter 1 KJV 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 24 For all flesh _is_ as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. 1 Corinthians 15 KJV ✝️🩸 1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: Romans 2 KJV 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
Who's the final authority, translators or God? I dont believe God kept the real Bible from people for hundreds of years. It was preserved & passed down to the KJB.
@@AlexanderBrown77 those verses say nothing that it's only in the KJV. If that's the case, even the original audience didn't have the Word of God. You're making a BIG assumption there.
@@jonathanchaney5896 🤔 Remember, You’re god is not even powerful enough to give you a perfect Bible in English. John 1 KJV 2 The same was in the beginning with God.
@@AlexanderBrown77 KJV Onlyism is a scary thing. If you're wrong about my view, even in the least, you are blaspheming. I wouldn't want that on my head. I pray God has mercy on you.
Former KJV onlyist here. 4 years ago I was in a church that preach KJV only. I was saved and began my faith journey at 12 and used the NIV married into a KJV only church. 7 year in and experience such spiritual abuse that I found myself crying out to God. He showed me the truth through his HS and I began studying the KJV and looking up Greek definition and hebrew using Bible hub. Soon learn about the false friends. I love KJV it's my favorite but the teaching is so bad that anyone who doesn't use KJV only is seen as an unbeliever, also anyone that doesn't go tho this church denomination was seen as an unbeliever as well. If you were to recommend a video like this, they would not watch it or receive it because they're taught to not listen to anyone with opposing views no matter the history or fact behind how translations work. The best way I have found to witness is to infact use the KJV. There so much I can say here but I end with a Thank you for sharing cause it helpful for those coming out of this mindset!
I escaped the Vatican, and you are being taken back straight into it. The King James Bible is God's Perfect, Preserved and Inspired Word, which was revealed to me by the Holy Spirit, He is the Spirit of Truth, He is the Spirit of God.
The Bible is meant to be understood. While I do love the KJV, it is more important that readers understand what the Bible teaches, and English has changed a lot since 1619.
1 Peter 1 KJV 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 24 For all flesh _is_ as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. 1 Corinthians 15 KJV ✝️🩸 1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: Romans 2 KJV 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
Unfortunately, the majority of people who argue for the KJV in public are fringe adherents who have poor arguments and very limited or incorrect knowledge. Any time you have an unusual belief or one that is not popular with academia, you'll often attract kind of strange individuals who have odd motivations. There are more limited and humble arguments for the texts behind the KJV, the translation itself, and a different sort of philosophy behind textual criticism. But people with more constrained views generally hold them as a side portion of what they think about and hold to, it does not take up a central focus of their lives, or they even may stay silent because they wish to avoid division or distraction from the propagation of the Gospel. Because of this, they are less likely to be making videos and putting out arguments. This leads to a generally off-kilter perspective between what KJV people think and what the general perception of what they think is. I've never heard of Kim, but his argument about "book" vs "manuscript" was silly and I've never heard it before.
What are you talking about. Im sorry but to be blunt, KJV onlyist, come off displaying the B.I.T.E model of a cult. Behavior control, Information control, Thought control and Emotional control. Take that anyway you like.@@vashmatrix5769
@RansomedSoulPsalm49-15 Hey, me too .... However, when those GB "notes" admit things like indentifying Jesus Chirst as the actual Archangel Michael at Rev. 12:7-9 and Dan. 12:1. Or Christ is the personified "Wisdom" of Prov. 8:22 and linking this Wisdom's identity to "the Word" at Jn. 1:1. I can't then honestly criticize other religious groups like JWs and SDAs for believing it. ....
@@antonioterrell354 Mike Winger's Hebrews series has a video discussing the "Michael" bit, not specifically from the Geneva- but from figures like Calvin, Spurgeon, and Wesley; their beliefs (of which Calvin would influence the Geneva) regarding Michael were essentially the opposite of the way that JWs and SDAs would put it. JW/SDA would say that Jesus was actually a mere angel Calvin, et al. would say that Michael the archangel was actually a title for Jesus, the divine Son. Mike clarifies the view, but doesn't hold it or think it should be the norm. Christ is the wisdom of Prov. 8:22 though, JW/SDA just have logic problems with how they take the passage
@shadosnake ; Thanks... And while I will never as only a "puny human" in comparison. Dare disrespect God's chief of the angelic host and messenger par excellence with the disparaging description of only "a mere angel." And if Christ is indeed the personified Wisdom described in Prov. 8:22-31. Then it's inescapable he must be a created being produced by God as the first of his works. As there's no other reasonable way to make sense of the discourse then. I may give Winger's series a listen. Even though I do have differences with his views.
Really enjoyed this and Wes’s explanation, I love the KJV primarily because that was what I was raised with, I still believe it’s a good translation, I’ve recently bought an ESV and planning on reading through that as well, good program thank you
This is the perfect way to look at it. The KJV is important and holds a special place in history and what it did for the world. Its also just one of many amazing translations of the word of God. I hope you enjoy your time in the ESV its a great translation.
They're completely different source texts. Stick to the real Bible & throw the English Substandard Version back in the garbage where it's source texts came from.
Missed the opportunity to use the good ole preacher vid that went viral where he said "i can correct the greek with the king james bible" as the intro clip for this podcast 😂
As an undergrad in 1973 I began with Classical Greek taught by a wonderful believer, Dr. Harry A Sturz who later wrote "The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism" which I picked up years later in Seminary with Kione Greek. His thesis is that in rejecting these medieval manuscripts as 'secondary' in the practice of textual criticism is flawed. He shows that the Byzantine text should be considered as neither primary or secondary, but an independent witness to an early form of the New Testament text. It appears to me that KJO advocates are laying false claims to the only 'authentic' text which in reality was also subject to 'criticism' in its academic sense. That being said, I also do agree with them that there really are men who are involved who are nefarious in that they are unbelievers, like possibly Westcott and Hort if their quoted statements are true. I do not think that textual critics who truly don't believe the Word (all the inspired manuscripts) for what it collectively says are objective but instead lean toward alternative wordings that wedge the door open for others to make truth questionable, and bring chaos rather than confidence. It is direction that can affect the destination. This is why comparing things is the regulatory method that exposes the errors of such men.
That is your take on Codex 2427 known as “Archaic Mark” which was listed as category 1 in importance by Kurt and Barbara Aland of the Nestle Aland Greek text. Later it was discovered to be a forgery. It fooled them and they are responsible for constructing the critical Greek text. What probability do you place on any text or translation?
Interesting... Did Dr. Sturz ever present any actual manuscript evidence of this supposed "early form of NT text" to support this thesis of his? And in all fairness, unless one can clearly show that a scholar's personal views or conduct wrongly influenced or biased their work somehow. What they did or do in their personal lives is not relevant to the quality and integrity of their scholarship.
@@antonioterrell354 Extensively, giving excellent documentation by many other scholars (providing quotes, and manuscripts, and the Greek texts). He gives 4 lists of Papyrus with distinctively Byzantine alignment and who acknowledges it, along with a list of ones the Westcott and Hort hesitantly acknowledged. He goes through tables of the manuscripts with lists and charts, and 41 pages of bibliographies and lists all of the persons and subjects found in his text. He was a true scholar, and knowing him I bear witness for his love for the Word of the Lord, and the Lord of the Word.
@craigchambers4183 ; Again, "very" interesting .... You mean there are actually very early Byzantine papyrii of the same age or earlier than the famous Alexandrian type. That read differently from the Alexandrian manuscripts and contain the "missing verses" not in the Alexandrian text, but in the later majority text? As I've never heard of anything like that before, as I was always taught the Byzantine manuscript corpus were all circa 9th century CE and older. Can you name perhaps a few examples of these manuscripts so I can study this further?
@@antonioterrell354 You need to reread what I wrote. The BT ought to be considered as a witness to the original manuscripts (of which none survive) just like the other text types. The construction of your questions indicate sarcasm, not a real discussion as to merit. I'm not interested in this.
Hey!! You guys FINALLY GOT WES HUFF ON YOUR PODCAST!!! love your podcasts guys! Wes and Joe Rogan interview was EPIC! Im a Christian Im a Christian UA-cam Creator too and been making LOTS of videos avout carson and wesley and joe rogan haha. I also have the full 3 hour Rogan and Wes Huff interview and reaction here on my channel 😊
This is text, so I can’t sense intention or attitude. Are you saying it in a mocking way? Or are you genuinely curious? The words themselves make you seem pretty arrogant. But I could be wrong.
@@siegistic Apologia are presuppers. I've not heard Wes discuss or utilize presupp (I have heard Durbin), maybe you are aware of where he has and you can point me in that direction, i would appreciate that. Same thing with White- he confesses it but I've never heard him use it. It's frustration; i'm not sure about why it seems arrogant to say that.
Blokes a crackpot and refused a free ticket, hotel and 45 minutes to give his argument of textual criticism against the KJV at PBI. He knew even Dr. Ruckman’s first year students could pick apart whites dubious arguments.
Does Wes have any misgivings or concerns about modern leaders in textual criticism? For just one example, Bruce Metzger questioned the authorship, dates, and inspiration for several books of the Bible, claimed that that the O.T. contains "a matrix of myth, legend, and history", called Jonah a "popular legend", and on and on. Yet he was one of the longtime key editors of the NA/UBS Greek text -- the text used by all modern translators today. This level of unbelief DOES impact your work. One specific example: Metzger justified excluding the word "yet" from John 7:8 ("I go not up *yet* unto this feast"), which is found in 96.5% of all Greek manuscripts including even Codex Vaticanus(!), knowing it made Christ a liar (since he did go to the feast a few verses later), by reasoning that the reading "not yet" was introduced at an early date in order to alleviate the inconsistency. In other words, Metzger *preferred* the contradiction as a matter of principle. This contradiction then ends up being reflected in all modern versions.
Also on the UBS team was Cardinal Carlo Martini, slated to be the next Pope at the time. And Kurt Aland, at least as heretical as Metzger. Read about him online at the Trinitarian Bible Society web-site. From day one, the critical text has been strenuously supported by heretics. The cultish guys and Wes are in seriously dubious company.
I've read Metzgers work, he was not a great scholar and constantly makes false and misleading statements and flip flops on what he says, yet every modern text critic (Wallace, White, etc) repeats his comments. Modern textual criticism is in a horrible state not using the TR
Agreed. The same could be said about the Alands', Black, Martini, and the rest of Metzger's colleagues and predecessors. I think for most skeptics and rationalists, speaking with a forked tongue is a well-established habit.
As a preteen all I had was the KJV but can't really say I looked at it again for 30 years after I got an NIV as a teenager and later moved to the early NASB in college. A few years ago a KJVO Baptist friend sparked my interest in reading KJV again. I have since found I prefer to use the KJV when I am simply reading. However, for church and bible study I benefit in understanding by using ESV & NASB. For ease of reading in modern English, I recommend the CSB over the NIV. I do wish the ESV had, like the NASB, included in [brackets] the phrases/verses they determined were not in the original texts instead of just leaving them out.
I’m not KJVO, but some of the main objections to modern translations are based on the apparent dubious nature of Hort & Wescott the main translators of the critical text, because they had links to Roman Catholicism. Even though they were technically Protestant. They in their own writings admitted to starting spiritualist societies and engaging with the spirits (not God) and one of them wrote about not believing in the resurrection. So investigation beyond the text is also important as a discussion point.
Ecclesiastes 8 KJV 👑 4 Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou? ♥️ Remember, the KJV Is the seventh Bible translated into English. Psalms 12 KJV 6 The words of the LORD _are_ pure words: _as_ silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. 1 Corinthians 15 KJV ✝️🩸 1-4
Ya I would love it if Wes went into Wescott and Hort and the Jesuits like Nestly and why combinded the Vaticanus and Sanaiticus to make the critical texts
@@AlexanderBrown77 I prefer the Geneva Bible myself. It’s translators put their necks on the line. That means something for a translation. The KJV guys weren’t in that situation, they were the Kings translators. I don’t have a problem with KJV, just find King James himself to be a dubious figure with dubious motives.
@@lukespowerart ♥️ Remember. 3 Times in the Bible, it says man shall not live by bread alone, but every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. If you add up those three verses, it equals 1611 The exact year The KJV Bible came out. Matthew 4 KJV 4 Luke 4 KJV 4 Deuteronomy 8 KJV 3 If you add up the chapters that equals 16 . If you are at the verses, it equals 11 . 👑 KJV 1611 has every word of God. 👑 Matthew 4 KJV 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Luke 4 KJV 4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Deuteronomy 8 KJV 3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every _word_ that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.
Wes would destroy both of them. Line up Keith Gomez, Jack Trieber, Paul Chappell, Sam Davis, all of the mainline IFB leaders. They could not stand this level of debate.
My KJVO wasn’t so much for the reasons as most… but Dr White was instrumental in educating my ignorance. I knew about him before I knew who he was. I only put 2 & 2 together years after listening to him… I thought, “wait, is he the same guy going at it with Gail Riplinger back in the day?” & sure enough 😂
@ bro, you open scripted up to more doubt and ridicule by insisting on KJV only. If you hold KJV tot he same scrutiny as the others you can’t be KJV only.
KJV only movement can go to such an extreme, I know someone that their pastor said they can’t fellowship with anyone that doesn’t read KJV as that means they are not really saved. Although that is extreme, not majority.
I was somewhere where the pastor was close to that view. Anyone who didn’t read KJV he would say they need to get a Bible. I once commented that someone reading a different translation is growing more than someone with a dusty KJV, he has no response to that
@@elisemaiolo4352 1 Peter 1 KJV 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 24 For all flesh _is_ as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. Romans 2 KJV 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. 1 Corinthians 15 KJV ✝️🩸 1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: ♥️
Would you guys call Dan 3:25 and Acts 8:37 inconsequential? Both of which point to the deity of Christ and is incorrect or omitted in most modern versions?
No but dan 3:25 is significant because it points te the fact that Christ is eternal in the OT. Moreover whould you want a Bible that MORE clearly shows Christ's deity or less? Even if it is just one verse?
@@robbieheuer4473 do you know anything about Hebrew? The word there is Elohim. It’s a plural noun, which can be equally translated as God or gods. There was no capital/lowercase in Hebrew. So it’s all by context to discern the correct translation. But there’s nothing actually wrong, language wise, with either translation. The king is a pagan, so would he know the One True God? That could be debated. But you said shouldn’t we want a translation that more clearly shows the deity of Christ? Then if that’s the case, do you accept the modern translations reading of John 1:18, 2 Peter 1:1, Titus 2:13, John 14:14, 1 Peter 3:15, and Jude 1:4. Just for a few examples that are more clear. So are you ready to affirm these verses? You said even one was worth it. I gave 6.
@@robbieheuer4473 are you familiar with Hebrew by chance? The word is Elohim, which is a plural noun but also used for God Himself. So it can be translated as God or gods. There is no capital/lowercase in Hebrew. So translators have to use context to figure out which it is. Did a pagan king know God at this point? That’s debatable. But the translation isn’t wrong in itself.
@@robbieheuer4473 are you familiar with Hebrew by chance? The word is Elohim, which is a plural noun but also used for God Himself. So it can be translated as God or gods. There is no capital/lowercase in Hebrew. So translators have to use context to figure out which it is. Did a pagan king know God at this point? That’s debatable. But the translation isn’t wrong in itself.
What your not told is the differences between the KJV and the new versions is primarily due to just two manuscripts Vaticanus & Sinaiticus, study those manuscripts they are indeed corrupt, therefore the Bible translations that proceed from them are also.
Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A foundational error with the scholarship-only crowd is that science falsely so called becomes the judge of the scripture. Final authority is not in the book of the LORD, but in philosophy of men. Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
@@EleazarDuprees the KJV translators were literally the highest of scholarship for their time. They did textual criticism of a handful of sources Greek/Latin/English to come up with the KJV reading. If you knock scholarship, then you must also knock the KJV.
@@jonathanchaney5896They were not running chemical analysis of the ink on manuscripts to date them. And they believed they had by faith in Gods “singular care and providence” by which he “kept pure in all ages” these same Greek (including Mk.16:9-20 and Jn.7:53-8:11) and Hebrew books (Old and New Testament). The self attesting nature of scripture is appealed to by John Calvin in his Institutes (Book 1 Ch.VII sec.4-5, Ch.VIII sec.1,V), the Westminster confession (IV, VIII,IX, X), Belgic confession (Articles5 and 7) the 1689 London Baptist Confession, also in the larger Westminster catechism (question4) the 1658 Savoy Declaration #5. So, they thought they had them and critical scholars today say they were misled because they didn't have the critical Greek text they have collated.
@@jonathanchaney5896Among the KJV translators were scholars fluent in every ancient scriptural language, so they referenced a lot more texts than "a handful in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, ad and English."
@@jonathanchaney5896 "For their time" No one in scholarly circles today takes the KJV only position seriously, and for good reason. There have been thousands of manuscripts discovered since 1611.
At the end of the day, God either preserved His words, plural, every jot and tittle, to every generation, or He's a liar. Compare Psalm 12:6-7, Psalm 138:2, and Acts 8:37 in a King James to say, an ESV. Those are just 3 of hundreds of verses, not exaggerating.
But that's just the thing. There are readings in the KJV that didn't exist for the previous generations. So you can't say that God preserved those exact readings to every generation. The KJV falls under the weight of its own argument.
@ How so? Obviously the New Testament didn't exist in the time of the Old Testament, so the idea that we received the text progressively is obvious. But as the text was received and was galvanized into the final canon, everything received up to that point remained and has remained. The argument that fully fails is the modern view that ONLY "the originals" were perfect scripture. None of the originals exist today. So right there that calls God a liar. Yet people claim inerrancy. It is an intangible unprovable view because you cannot produce the original and put them in my hand. And advocates for Alexandrian text bibles got on that train post-1881 with the invention of the revised version, which by and large deletes and changes the text, citing a couple documents from 1500 years prior as the validation for their deletion of scripture, and then adamantly defending their deletions. All the while these same folks will admit that mankind does not have a perfect complete Bible that can be placed in my hand. They'll tell an unbeliever God's word is true and perfect, but in the privacy of their seminary or on this UA-cam video, they admit that all the Bible translations are flawed, and that the LORD dropped the ball with preserving his word after he inspired its writing.
@@Isaiah_50_7 as the text was received and galvanized into the final canon - you have to explain more here because, even if we just look at Erasmus, he had 5 editions of his Greek. Not to mention all the TRs that followed. Throw in the difference in the reformation English translations, the different vulgates, and how not even a single Byzantium manuscript completely agrees with another. And there's no Greek manuscript that reads like the KJV so Scrivener had to create one. To say it has been "perfectly preserved" through the ages while poopoo-ing the modern text is simply closing your eyes and ears to what happened throughout church history with the text. I'm not arguing for errancy or anything like that. I fully affirm the reliability and authority of Scripture. Plus the whole argument about "a bible in my hand" is exactly what what Huff addressed here. What you are asking for, again, simply ignores centuries and centuries of how Scripture has been used and shared.
@@Isaiah_50_7 You said: "the text was received and was galvanized into the final canon" - I think there is further explanation that is needed. Because there hasn't been a single text, just since Erasmus started in 1516. He had like 5 editions, then you had Stephanos, Beza. Not to mention the Complutensian Polyglot, the various Vulgates, throw in Luther, Wycliffe, Tyndale, all the English Reformation Bibles, and all the manuscripts and papyri before any of that. Include the fact that not a single Byzantine manuscript perfectly matches another. Then once you get to the KJV, there's not a single Greek manuscript that reads how it reads, so Scrivener had to make one. So to say that everything has "remained" isn't actually looking at the transmission of Scripture through the generations. As far as "bible in your hand" this is exactly what Wes is talking about. This claim closes ones eyes and ears to history and how Scriptures are transmitted and read. What the KJVO demands now is not something that Christians for centuries would have even had, and so therefore, that means they didn't actually have the word of God? Any claim that implies that is preposterous to me.
@ Thanks for a real comment finally. The issue isn't that prior versions to the 414 year old King James aren't scripture, if they source from Antioch they are God's word. But as with things progressively received , they are given perfectly for what is given, but not in a completed state, but at some point the progression reaches the final draft. The tangible evidence supporting that the King James is the final draft is the main point. There is a ton of evidence to observe. I really am humbly asking you to look at the evidence with fresh eyes and a humble heart. That's it. The current view by most seminaries and churches is that God dropped the ball in preserving his word, and one must take Hebrew and Greek and become a textual critic and an archeologist to try to find the remnant of what may be the closest oldest doc to the original. That is completely against all of the verses in the Bible that speak to God preserving every word, heaven and earth shall pass away, the grass withereth and the flower faideth, etc. Look at the reality, objectively, of what is happening. It is an unaware frog caught in a pot of water on the stove top. That's all I have time for, but I encourage everyone to look into this matter. A good book to start with is called "The revision revised."
3:30ish - host says he has never encountered a “KJVOist”. It’s pretty obvious NONE of these guys have! Very weak arguments that have been disproven many , many times.
Furthermore, Apologia is supposed to be presuppositionalists and they don't understand the textual criticism they love invalidates the presuppositionalism they also love. They subordinate scripture to 'scientists' and philosophy for confirmation. Final authority resides in textual critics for them.
Also, it's much easier to believe in inspiration in a translation than to do the work to understand the textual issues and how those issues don't weaken the reliability of the Bible, but rather strengthens it. We want clean when history and the transmission of the text is MESSY, we don't like that on its face.
History can only provide probabilities. If we follow the Bart Ehrmans and Dan Wallaces of the world we have a 'generally reliable' word of God. Also, we encounter forgeries as Codex 2427 known as “Archaic Mark” listed as a category 1 in importance by Kurt and Barbara Aland. Not real reassuring for eternal life.
This is the part that really frustrates, even angers me. It's one thing not to know these things. I certainly am no expert. But I have listened to information about it and always seek to deepen my understanding. Many of the KJVO cultists refuse to do so. And then they're proud of it! Willful ignorance is not a biblical virtue. It makes all Christians look like idiots. Worst of all, it makes Christ look that way too.
@Yesica1993 I agree there is ignorance and stubbornness in both camps, but to accept Bart Ehrman types as our leaders on textual issues is like accepting Richard Dawkins on the biological possibility of Jesus' resurrection.
KJVO is based in fear. KJVO is wrong. Anti KJV is also wrong. KJVO talk a lot about the “omissions” like it is a conspiracy, but do not talk about the many clear interpolations (adding). Great translating considers both and carefully considers all the data. Also, no language can be perfectly translated into another language. Perfect for God’s purposes, but there is also always a human element involved.
😂 DIPs (Deflect, Insult, Project) is what we expect from people who aren't following Christ. It looks like you've never even heard someone properly defend the KJV.
Can someone please tell me what Acts 8 esv 37 says? 2 Corinthians 2 KJV 17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
Thou hast spouted thee truth peradventure, they that worship their book in stead of thine God arest in error of thost cults that believeth thee book defines thoust belief and not thee object of Thee book, ourest Lord Jesus.
♥️ Remember. 3 Times in the Bible, it says man shall not live by bread alone, but every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. If you add up those three verses, it equals 1611 The exact year The KJV Bible came out. Matthew 4 KJV 4 Luke 4 KJV 4 Deuteronomy 8 KJV 3 If you add up the chapters that equals 16 . If you are at the verses, it equals 11 . 👑 KJV 1611 has every word of God. 👑 Matthew 4 KJV 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Luke 4 KJV 4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Deuteronomy 8 KJV 3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.
@@JesusSavesandRomeEnslaves you know the Muslims have their magic number too. It’s 19, even though it’s really just in their heads. I don’t worship #1611, I worship our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the only number I need is 3/1
@@JesusSavesandRomeEnslaves so we're doing gematria to justify the KJV now? you realize that chapter and verse numbers are an editorial note added way after the text was written
In before KJV-only defenders. I’ve found it difficult to speak with them in the past, even moreso than some Mormons and Catholics. A-historical defense of it and judaised arguments for following old festivals and traditions/laws.
Yes I have found them to be very arrogant and can be down right nasty. Hard to detect any fruits of the Spirit from the ones I’ve come into contact with, they seem more concerned with making you feel stupid.
I think we can defo have a translation that can speak to us on a deeper level just as a preference. I struggle with my KJV personally but I get that off the ESV.
At about @39:38 into the video, regarding someone quoting Hebrews 10:7 in the KJV as "in the volume of the book" and talking about it as if it were a kind of book we're familiar with, is in fact, in the Greek; including the TR versions I looked at , not simply "book" but rather "scroll of the book" ("ἐν κεφαλίδι βιβλίου" or "en kephalidi bibliou"; "in, scroll/roll, of book"). So it's NOT referring to complete collection of all the books of what we call the Bible, nor one "volume" of the whole Bible, but rather a scroll that contained the Psalm Jesus was quoting from; and most synagogues rarely had what we would say were ALL of the Scriptures! Although it's a bit ambiguous at first in Luke 4:20, where the Greek has "πτύξας τὸ βιβλίον" ("ptuxas to biblion") that word 'ptuxas' ("πτύξας") has the meanings of not only "to close" BUT ALSO "fold up (as with clothes)" and "roll up (a scroll)". And from all the archaeological and written data we have of the life and times of Jesus, they all confirm this would have to be a "scroll" which contained Isaiah 61, since Biblical manuscripts in the form of a codex (a "book" as we would call it today) did not exist at that time.
KJO is one of the least wacky things, Gene Kim teaches, ; ) Just read some of his video titles. I wouldn't be surprised to hear him teach on Sasquatch, lol.
I truly believe that we are to go from glory to glory and as technology and more new evidence of deeper findings of written materials of scriptures we get a better translation of what scriptures mean even more. I love the king James as well but I also use other resources and not limit myself
@@vashmatrix5769 you need Jesus honestly. Go seek him yourself, people don’t want Jesus because of all the excuses they can make. Why it’s always the excuse to remain unchanged
If anyone hasn’t heard of bloodbought testimony go listen to it. Former backslider and die and went to hell. His testimony is being shared all over and it’s a warning for all believers and Mormons as well
Mormons are KJV is the word of God wherein it is translated correctly. Which means except where it disagrees with their Mormon doctrines. AND if it disagrees with their writings Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrines and Covenants. But thanks for comparing Bible believers with followers of Joseph Smith.
Psalms 119:89 For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven. Keep in mind my KJVO brothers, God’s word has a higher dimension than human linguistic. Human bibles we have is “dual” authorship between the Holy Spirit and the writers themselves. Gods word is eternal and it’s settled in Heaven. Reason we have so many secondary disagreements from so many translations has a lot to do with sanctification. Focus on Jesus grace, his bodily resurrection, and the divinity of the three persons.
@JadDragon : Yep ... So according to the mentality of KJVOs, Christ and the apostles under inspiration must have used "inferior translations" as well. Since they frequently quoted from the Greek LXX, which is a "translation" of the Hebrew-Aramaic OT.
@@antonioterrell354 see, this is why I'm GNVO. Matthew 28:18-20 GNV 18 And Iesus came, and spake vnto them, saying, All power is giuen vnto me, in heauen, and in earth. 19 Go therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and the Sonne, and the holy Ghost, 20 Teaching them to obserue all things, whatsoeuer I haue commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, vntill the ende of the worlde, Amen. If you aren't reading in the _pure_ English that Iesus spake what are you even doing?? Perfectly legible and no reason to update as language evolves.
@@antonioterrell354 this is why I'm GNVO. Matthew 28:18-20 GNV And Iesus came, and spake vnto them, saying, All power is giuen vnto me, in heauen, and in earth. Go therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and the Sonne, and the holy Ghost, Teaching them to obserue all things, whatsoeuer I haue commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, vntill the ende of the worlde, Amen. The language Iesus Himself spake. Perfect and no need to improve!
I was in your camp for years - I argued my way through the 4 year religion program at PLU and defended the faith from your exact position for years - I’ll pray that your eyes get opened. Brother, you are doing good things for the faith but in matters of scriptural authority, you’ve taken the bait, hook, line, and sinker of the Laodecian apostate church. Amos 8:11-12 is written directly to you.
A few weeks ago a pastor in my church said KJV was inspired. My husband's uncle is the same. If that were true, why do those pastors give the modern words that appear in the NKJV?
Find another church, if that was said and not immediately corrected publicly then that pastor has an idol and the other leaders are either there with him or afraid to correct error.
I feel like some bad comparisons are being made at the start. First off comparing Greek to Latin and back is different than one English translation to another. Also saying Latin Vulgate was made in "everyday Latin" but the king James was made for accuracy and poetics. Like pronouns in order to distinguish between the second-person singular (thou, thee, thy, thine) and the second-person plural (ye, you, your, yours). I like Wes Huff but I'm not sure he even believes some of the bible like the Jonah and the whale story he keeps referencing but I could be wrong. Also from what I catch he differs from people at apologia like James White and Jeff where he, I believe, thinks the NIV is a good translation and they do not. I do not necessarily believe KJV only. I think God has the power to save with any translation or no translation and I believe other Textus Receptus translation in other lanquages can be good for speakers and readers of the languages. I do however believe the KJV is the best english translation and the best in general other than maybe the original greek. Its not just about the KJV being good but it is about the sinaiticus and vaticanus being bad. Even the NASB, which is considered the most accurate, is closer to the KJV rather than the NIV. There is also evidence that the "missing verses" are supposed to be included. Some KJV only people may get more "cultish" than others but the NIV, which Wes Huff says is good, is basically an interpretation of the bible and not the Bible for you to interpret. I know he is popular and very smart but people should take what they hear from ANYONE with a grain of salt and do your own research. Look at arguments from both sides and come to your own conclusion based on evidence. God Bless.
@@vashmatrix5769 What translation did people read before the King James? The Ethiopian Bible is older than the King James. Christianity was in Africa before it was in Europe. Did the Ethiopians not have a correct translation of the Bible, then? Should different language translations only be based on one of the King James versions? The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible from the original Biblical Hebrew) preceded the KJV.
@@jeannet7443 It comes from their Textus Receptus line. I believe God preserved his word in what would become the world's main language & most popular Bible, which has since been translated into more languages than any other. Have you looked into the Ethiopian "Bible"? It probably got a lot right, but not many would consider that authoritative. It's has books that aren't accepted as cannon scripture.
@@vashmatrix5769 What translations were Christians using who did not read or speak Hebrew, Greek, Latin, or English, before the various English King James translations, if they had access to a Bible? I have no problem using a KJV or NKJV. I have both, and I use them (the Strong's Concordance and Lexicon I refer to is based on the KJV). It made the Bible accessible to English speakers. For comparison, I also use the ESV, CSB, NASV, and the more recent LSB, which uses "Yahweh" in the OT. That the Ethiopian Bible has additional books is a valid point. We know they are not part of the canon. However, the Ethiopians did not speak English. By the way, the fact that the Ethiopian Bible existed before the KJV (English) translations and Christianity was in Africa before it was in Europe, is a good defense to use with those who claim that Christianity is the "white man's religion" or that Europeans forced Christianity on the African continent.
Phyllis I listened to the whole video and in all honesty you're extremely smart you know your stuff but one thing you clearly do not know is the preservation of scripture and the Perfection of God's word in English found only in the King James Bible. Your problem is an authority problem what is your Authority the King James Bible or man's interpretation of what God's word should be According to some Professor or some historian or let's just be honest some Catholic manuscript that attacks the very deity of Christ it's not worth arguing with you you will not see the truth but my prayer is that you will see the truth. Every modern Bible version since 1881 is a satanic distraction from God's perfect preserved pure words in English found only in the King James Bible have a wonderful afternoon and I do pray that you see the error of your way
Its more than missing verses in the modern translations. Its also deleted words. Words taken out of the modern translations along with words inserted that mean the opposite of what words and verses in the KJV are saying so as to negatively affect both narrative and doctrine.
You are acting as though the KJV is the default and the newer versions are aberrations. This is a fallacy. Those verses and words aren't in newer translations because they don't exist in the oldest texts. Also, the English language has changed since 1611. Many words today simply don't have the same meaning they did back then. The changes you mention are really just necessary updates to reflect modern English.
@brianstringfellow3670 Comparatively, the words subtracted from and added to the modern translations amount to a watering down of the Faith, and an opposite narrative from what the KJV is saying and amounts to a tampering with doctrine. Yes, the KJV for me and many of God's people throughout the ages is the default Word of God in English and there's no way, not a snowball's chance in Hell I would abandon it for any of the modern versions none of which hold my interest or affection. I understand the language of the KJV because I grew up spiritually on it. My permanent attitude and affection for it is that of the Psalmist in Psalm 119 who delights in the law and statutes of God's Word which in English is the KJV.
@@brianstringfellow3670 What oldest texts? You mean the forgery found in a trash bin and the Catholic manuscript found in the Vatican? Those older and more reliable manuscripts? I find it odd that those who claim to be Reformed prefer to drink their milk from the teat of Rome.
Even though I love the KJV, there's several important things in this discussion that KJV-only people cannot ignore. Firstly, the Bible wasn't originally written in 17th century, Elizabethan English, but was written in Hebrew and partially Aramaic in the Old Testament and Koine Greek in the New Testament, so our ultimate appeal or authority are the original language manuscripts, not an English translation from the early 1600s, as great as it is. Secondly, the Church existed 1,600 years without the KJV, so it's like we need it to say that we have the Word of God, as the church has always possessed the scriptures. Thirdly, what about Christians in other countries who don't even speak English? Can't they read the word of God in their own language, or do they have to learn English and then read the KJV to truly read God's Word? If it's the latter, then most non-English speaking Christians are left in the dark. Lastly, the KJV translators would staunchly be against this idea of KJV-onlyism or that their translation was the only legitimate translation. Here's what Miles Smith wrote on behalf of the translators in the Translators to the Readers Preface in the original 1611 edition: "we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest (i.e. mediocre) translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For what ever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded." From this quote, we can glean a few things. Firstly, they considered translations before them to be the Word of God. Secondly, a translation didn't have to perfect to be considered the Word of God, even having blemishes and imperfections. Thirdly, what was truly perfect was what the Apostles themselves originally penned down, so they didn't consider their work perfect for a second. Fourthly, using multiple translations can be useful, particularly when you come across difficult to translate passages, which is why they put different renderings in the margin throughout the original 1611.
It seems that the primary driver of obstruction to newer translations has and I primarily been gatekeeping; both unintentional & intentional. There are those that are satisfied with what they’ve learned and don’t want to be troubled with change. Then there are those that are threatened by change; typically because within the translation they’re using, they’ve contrived theological positions or teachings that hinge upon word usage/parlance/usage that are actually a creep from original meaning and with which they’ve established an exclusivity that won’t stand against sincere exegesis.
@ none of the modern English bibles are ‘good faith’. They are corrupt, money making scams. Ye shall know them by their fruit. They are rooted in the apostate critical text theories, which are as truthful as the theory of evolution. They keep making the same lying claims against the word of God and justify their ever increasing proliferation. All while there are many languages with no Bible translations.
SO THEN AFTER THE LORD HAD SPOKEN UNTO THEM, HE WAS RECIEVED UP INTO HEAVEN, AND SAT ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD." Mark 16:19 KJB This is the only gospel out of the four that attests to the fact that the Lord, after He was risen and appeared unto witnesses, was recieved up into heaven and sat on the right hand of God. All other versions omit verses 9-20 at the end of Mark or cast doubts in their footnotes regarding whether these verses were in the original. Satan at work again, casting doubts --- " YEA, HATH GOD SAID...?" Genesis 3:1
There is a presuppositional issue with accepting new bibles based on the "science" of textual criticism. You simultaneously accept a philosophy of science that is independent of the God of scripture as you validate scripture using your science.
@@tempstep4058Let me illustrate it another way. Can you apply a 100 percentage of assurance to any verse in any version? If so, why? And a corollary- what percentage of assurance do you apply to the resurrection of Christ from the dead? What is it based on?
Scientific method, that is still in use, was invented by Christians and is based on Christian understanding of God and nature. In fact, there is nothing in any other religion or atheistic worldviews (like naturalism) that would lead humanity to scientific method. And while science can be misused by wicked people (just as the Bible can be), scientific methold itself is good and the Bible approves of it. No other religion or worldview even thinks that humans are capable of uncovering secrets of the natural world. Christianity ENCOURAGES it. Romans 1:20. Issue with KJV only people is that do you think that only English-speaking people are saved? What about the billions of people who can't read KJV?
Texas recptus makes me think of a large dinosaur like T-rex lol. But I like your road runner connection too Jeremiah, lol. Deeply spiritual i know! Lol
I'm not a KJV onlyist, but unicorns do exist. They just aren't horses with a horn. Nor does any of the versions of the Bible claim it's a horse-like creature
The KJV Only movement is a pervasive movement that is bent on tearing Churches down and attacking other translations of the Bible and their main appeal is to get people to rely on emotions rather than documented facts. I know this because I used to be KJV Only and used all the same tactics. Modern translations (NASB, ESV etc…) are more accurate because they translate the words more accurately and intend to communicate the author’s intent rather than just the words that we can then misinterpret.
@Yesica1993Me too. Honestly, just being willing to be educated on how we got our Bibles was all I needed to get out of it. Most KJVO’s are given a revision of history and Bible transmission but once you actually study the history and documentation, it is intellectually dishonest to remain a KJVO.
@@ReformedChristianStudy or people truly believe they have the pure words of God that have been preserved for them just like the Almighty promised they would be. You people have itching ears and love to heap to yourselves teachers that tell you what you want to hear out of a Bible that has been watered down and when you don’t like what you hear you switch to another one. This will all come out at the judgement seat so heed this warning to examine your own heart. God has given us his perfect word 7 times purified so id tread carefully spending so much time and effort of your life trying to cut it down.
@@Tango_Yankee7Your assertion is simply your opinion with nothing to substantiate your claim. The fact of the matter is, the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus and the Textus Receptus is based on specific copies of Codex Basilensis all of which date from 12th century to the 15th century. Even the Textus Receptus disagrees with the Majority text in over 2,000 places. The fact of the matter is, there are readings in the KJV that have never been seen at all in Church History until 1,000 years after Christ and the Apostles. That should be very alarming for any Bible believer.
I respect Wes a lot but he doesn't mention one of the main reasons for being KJV... God provides many clues to the KJV being the perfect word - if you listen to Brandon Peterson's many proofs it is impossible to argue. I would love to see Wes do so. God Bless all.
Even Mark Ward has already debunked Brandon's numerology. The Quran can do the same thing with the number 19. It's all superstitious and should not be used as any kind of support for the reliability or authenticity of Scripture. 🤦♂
Wes is just becoming an idol to many now. One should not be wise in their own conceits. He might have knowledge in certain areas but he's not right about everything. I've seen other bible versions twist scripture and try to diminish the power of the scripture that's found in the KJV text.
That doesn’t make any sense dude. We have the manuscripts used to make it + thousands more to make a more accurate and modern version. The ESV of today is much more beneficial to the modern reader than the KJV.
What do ya'll think- Josh McDowell in 'The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict', to prove the authenticity of "the bible" pointed to as evidence the bible is' 1. Unique in its influence on civilization pg.15 2. Unique in its influence upon Literature pg.14 (and the English language) 3. Unique in its survival through criticism pg.9 4. Unique in its circulation pg.7-8 His reasonable conclusion was not that this proves the bible is the word of God, but superior to all other books. Couldn't these also point to KJV?
Every word in the KJV is 100% inspired and preserved by God himself. Others are all counterfeit. You guys are looking towards man and what they say and did, and not toward what God says about his word and his book.
Which KJV are you referring to? Do you mean the original which contained the apocrypha, or the later revisions which were updated for an evolving English language? If the update in 1769 is permissible in your view, what would be the problem with simply using the New King James version?
@@brianstringfellow3670 The Apocrypha in the 1611 King James Bible was placed in a separate appendix between the Old and New Testaments and not with the rest of the text; thus the KJV translators did not actually consider the Apocrypha as sacred Scripture. Your second point is true though and causes major problems with a radical KJVO position.
It's suspicious to me that the people who reject the KJV likewise reject every version in every language and every Greek & Hebrew text as erroneous. Scholarship-onlyism is their alternative.
@@TheRedpillExperiment The attacks started back with critical scholars in the mid 1800's wanting to eliminate the TR as authoritative without their input.
@@Mustachedmystyerioso where it lines up with the kjv is fine. In terms of verses not taken out and the meaning of the verse is not altered. For example John 1:1 reads the same in almost every English version that’s still the word of God regardless but in verses like 1 Tim 3:16 where God is changed to He those are important changes if you care at all but many don’t. The reason people hold to the kjv is mainly because the church has given over the authority of holding the scriptures to textual critics who tell us now which verses should and shouldn’t belong in the Bible. And their methods are never conclusive and can never produce a stable text for the past 100 years it keeps changing. In 50 years the new modern translation will have verses removed which are in your Bible today. Even a verse pole John 3:16 is subject to be removed if they found an old manuscript without it. Further dumbing down words to make it ‘easier’ for modern readers is not the right approach. Yes there are hard words in the KJV but instead of dumbing it down we should level our selves up and learn it. Millions read the KJV and learn its word it’s not a foreign language like people make it out to be. And you the modern readers are not as dumb as these people make it sound where you’re not capable of learning/ reading the KJV. Further the words in the KJV sound more authoritative words like therin whereby are legal terms etc. we wouldn’t want to dumb down things like our constitution or Shakespeare etc. I know not everyone is at the level to read a KJV you can’t teach calculus to some one that doesn’t know how to add. But instead we should grow in knowledge and learn. Also having unity of Bible helps a lot as everyone is quoting the same verse in the same phrasing etc. for example you always hear “the love of money is the root of all evil” while that verse is not phrased like that in any modern translation only the kjv. But it’s outlandish to consider this position a cult lol. There’s no cult leader or anything. There’s no idolatry no one bows down to the kjv. There’s bad apples in every group which you can’t control. But saying it’s a cult it’s unfair representation. Many people that are anti kjv are literally just “modern version only” which one can say is a cult that bows down to the textual critics.
The Ethiopian Bible is older than the KJV. (Christianity was in Africa before it was in Europe.) 😊 I love the LSB, which uses "Yahweh" in the OT. I also use ESV and NASB as well as CSB. I do not care for the NIV. I use Strong's Concordance, which is based on the KJV, to understand the meaning of words in the Hebrew and Greek in any specific verse. Hebrew is an amazing language. For one thing, Hebrew has many words for one word in English, and I believe it is important to understand the deeper meaning of these words, which gives us illumination into what the writers are trying to convey. Furthermore, since God is the Author and the originator of the Hebrew language and its alphabet, He is the one who chose the specific Hebrew words (as well as the Aramaic and Greek) in every verse.
Cultish is a 100% crowd funded ministry made possible by viewers like you. Partner with us and be part of the mission to change lives - donorbox.org/cultish
The KJV was called the bible for 300+ years. It's the only version that doesn't remove entire KEY salvation verses like Acts 8:37 and quite a few more KEY ones, it also doesn't remove thousands of KEY words like Jesus (I think that's important right?) and is the only version that doesn't completely distort KEY verses when comparing them to 95%+ of elder manuscripts. So unless you're dumb, delusional or ignorant and can't compare the KJV vs any other version (especially the NIV, ESV, NKJV) on hundreds of websites that compare versions and see for yourself, than you're just a lying apostate. You have nothing on the KJV. Often duplicated, never imitated.
This is such a false witness video. It's not by tradition at all why people read KJV only. It's because the Knowledge, Wisdom, and Understanding of God comes from the KJV which is the Word of God. I was ministering healing to a fellow Christian and the Spirit of God out of my own mouth said, "My way is the King James Version Bible." That was the Spirit of God. So people can indeed read whatever they want, but the KJV is indeed the Word of God. Also, you can read the KJV with a proper dictionary like Noah Webster 1828 dictionary app so there is nothing misunderstood. Wes likes to argue that KJV is hard to understand some words so don't read it, but if you use a proper dictionary for the very few words you may need assistance with then he doesn't have a valid argument. KJV is about you walking by Faith and having more Knowledge of God when you read it by Faith. This whole video is just carnal minded argument against God's Word. ROMANS 8:7 "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."
This is such a false witness video. It's not by tradition at all why people read KJV only. It's because the Knowledge, Wisdom, and Understanding of God comes from the KJV which is the Word of God. I was ministering healing to a fellow Christian and the Spirit of God out of my own mouth said, "My way is the King James Version Bible." That was the Spirit of God. So people can indeed read whatever they want, but the KJV is indeed the Word of God.
Also, you can read the KJV with a proper dictionary like Noah Webster 1828 dictionary app so there is nothing misunderstood. Wes likes to argue that KJV has some words that may be hard to understand so don't read it. But if you use a proper dictionary for the very few words you may need assistance with then Wes doesn't have a valid argument. KJV is about you walking by Faith and having more Knowledge of God when you read it by Faith. This whole video is so carnally minded it's very sad. ROMANS 8:7 "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."
Host literally says at the end, "Theres a difference between thinking about this argument to figure out why you disagree... versus finding a meme to confirm your bias." See how thinking is his answer, not walking by Faith, but carnally minded thinking. 1 TIMOTHY 4:1-2 "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;"
Just love it Wes is making his rounds in another favorite podcast. ❤️
Amen!!! Wes now went on PBD podcast after Joe Rogan with Mark Minard! Epic. Can't wait for that to drop too!! Im a Christian UA-cam Creator too and a full time street evangelist and university missionary too!
@FriendlyEvangelist subbed man. Glad to see more growing Christian evangelist accounts
hes been here before!
Ikr he's everywhere😂
Ugh, at one point I tried watching and learning from that Asian guy but it didn't work out.
The KJV translators were humble and realistic about the limitations of their work. They never claimed that their translation was perfect or divinely inspired, and they acknowledged the inherent challenges in translating ancient texts into English. They believed that no translation could fully capture the richness of the original languages and saw their translation as one in a series of efforts to make God’s Word accessible to English speakers. They encouraged the use of multiple translations and recognized that language would continue to evolve, implying that further revisions and translations would be needed in the future.
God bless, a sound comment from someone who understands
And the ancient languages also, though sufficient, are not nearly as rich as the mind of the One who condescended to use human tongues to communicate with us!
whats it matter what they claimed?
I have an awesome friend who thinks the KJV corrects the original Greek/Hebrew
Couldn’t be more wrong
I grew up kjv only. I hated reading the bible until i read a version i could understand better. Now I'm always having to endure passive-aggressive remarks from my kjvo mom anytime we talk about the bible. It's crazy how insane people get over the kjv. Like people are literally dying without Christ and christians are being nasty over translations.
That's what gets me most about this whole thing. I'm sorry you have to endure this.
If you like the kjv and want to stick with it, that's great. But saying other translations are corrupt and actually losing Friendships or telling others they are being misled if they read other translations is insane.
This is what actually proves that kjvo isn’t from the Spirit
Amen! I love what you said there, people are dying and going to hell while we wanna argue about translations!! Sharing the gospel should def be top priority!
frfr
Definitely recorded before the Joe Rogan interview, so good on you guys grabbing Wes before he blew up! Very informative, as always
he "blew up" months ago. hence his going on rogan. you have your chronology mixed up
@ no definitely, I agree. His blowing up led him to Joe Rogan. But I would call that a mini explosion, leading up to being on the largest podcast on earth.
I've Been praying for Joe Rogan to come to christ for a long time. Im a Christian UA-cam Creator too and been making LOTS of videos avout carson and wesley and joe rogan haha.
I also have the full 3 hour Rogan and Wes Huff interview and reaction here on my channel 😊
Misinformative.
He was on Joe Rogan like 3 years ago as well. He actually blew up bc of the billy carson fiasco and that is why Joe had him on again.
Wes is my new favourite fellow Christian (that I've never met).
You need to go out in real life sometime
@@CarmenCastillewhy….when the internet can do all the walking?
It is called the Barbara Streisand effect. Wes’ challenger did so bad in that debate, he didn’t want it to air, tried to block it. It did the opposite. Wes channel viewership went right up into the stratosphere
Something about the language in KJV still feels better to me. I love it. God bless✌️
It definitely does sound cool when reading it, lol. But it’s not all about feeling good. It’s actually about fully understanding what is being said. For that, you need it in a language that is used today, as Old English words have many false friends in Modern English.
@@TheDavidBarrazaif you can’t understand the kjv you need be more intelligent
So long as you study for understanding and aren't making an idol of one version, I'm happy you have a version you enjoy reading since that is what will keep you in His Word.
Nah. Don't make it an idol. Wes is right. I like EsV and CSB better because it's modern and scholarly.
I agree I do love it. I’m Baptist so I do love it. But this is shameful to admit this but it’s tough language is part of the reason I never read it much for like ten years. It felt like such a brain puzzle for me and I focused so much in trying to understand it that I was lost in the forest looking at the trees. Now I have kjv/nkjv/esv/niv (which I didn’t love) / and a NLT and a NET. I read thought for thought bibles for enjoyment and I study and deep dive in word for word. And I compare verses in multiple of them. And recently allowing myself to read these other bibles I’ve made it farther into the word than I ever did when I was sticking to just the kjv. ❤ but the old language for memory verses does just strike a chord from the kjv.
God sovereignly preserved His word to us in such amazing ways. The far flung availability of hundreds of manuscripts, far outnumber any book from antiquity. The Gospel spread rapidly based on the spread of Scripture. The amazing grace and goodness of our King!
He sure did, by the ministry of the Holy Spirit God handed the Jews the oracles of God all of Jesus was told to holy men moved by the Spirit to write the very words of God in Greek Hebrew and Aramaic, praise God to him be the glory alone
And God preserves His Word. Deuteronomy 32:8 Masoretic text says “the sons of Israel”. The LXX and Dead Sea Scrolls (older than the Codex Leningrad) say “Sons/angels of God). See Dr. Michael S. Heiser’s “The Unseen Realm”
Gene Kim vs. Wes Huff Debate - LET'S GOOO!!!
Dang, that would be awesome!
Gene Kim would actually give out the gospel in the first 2 minutes of JRE with the potential millions of souls who could hear it and get saved.
@@JesusSavesandRomeEnslaveswith the questions that Wes was responding do he had no chance to explicitly outline the gospel in its entirety. That being said, what he did say about Jesus and the proofs he shared about Christianity were excellent.
He won't do it, he will get destroyed.
@@a.w.virella7011 🤔 Who would be destroyed? Pastor Kim uses the seventh Bible translated into English so I’m assuming you’re referring to Huff.
Psalms 12 KJV 6 The words of the LORD _are_ pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Ecclesiastes 8 KJV 👑
4 Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?
Back to back Rogan + Cultish with Wes Huff!
The KJV translators acknowledged that every translation, including their own, has its shortcomings. They stated that even the best translations are “the word of God” but also recognized that they are subject to human error:
• “No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.”
• They acknowledged that every human translation, no matter how diligent, would still contain imperfections because translation itself is an interpretive act.
Love the knowledge here! This is true!
@Sspatty between 50 & 53 scholars translated the KJV (depending on what sources you use) over 7 years under King James, whom was a scholar himself.
Amen thanks for commenting and giving others feedback I a gree with u
@Sspatty in my opinion it's the MOST ACCURATE BIBLE WE HAVE
*Some" KJV translators did, but not all. There were some fanatics who literally believed that many of the translators were divinely inspired just as Apostles were. There will always be fanatics, but God will bring out good from "idiots".
Interesting seeing folks praise a version of scripture and how it changed their life. It wasn't the version, but the message of scripture itself.
Yes. Christ and no matter what translation because the bible never saved anyone. JESUS SAVES BY WHAT HE DID...DONE DEAL❤❤❤
Where does the message come from?
The Bible is Gods word speaking to Us, that’s where we get the message
😂 The false Bibles have removed entire verses.
@@vashmatrix5769no… the KJV has added verses. see how easy that is to reverse.
I'm a missionary in Korea and there's the same issue in churches here. They all uses the oldest version although people, especially young people and people who didn't grow up in church, but even many who did, struggle to understand. Many people have told me that they couldn't understand the Bible, then I will show them a modern Korean translation and they were shocked because they didn't know another translation existed. It's crazy that humans continuously keep making the same mistake in different cultures and putting up barriers to the Gospel.
And when they find errors in your false translations it will make them doubt the Bible. Those other source texts were not passed down for good reason.
oh wow this is super interesting. it’s funny how this is not just an english thing, people all over the world are doing the same thing and having similar issues.
@@vashmatrix5769bro this comment is mashed potatoes. what are you talking about?
@@fruitsnacks155 KJV & all other modern "translations" are translations or different source texts. Either Bid preserved his word down the generations to make the KJV or people didn't have his real word for hundreds of years until those older, but different, documents were found. Those against the KJV remind me a lot of theistic evolutionists.
@@fruitsnacks155 KJV & all other modern "translations" are translations or different source texts. Either God preserved his word down the generations to make the KJV or people didn't have his real word for hundreds of years until those older, but different, documents were found.
I was only given the King James until I was an adult. My only large problem was John 3:16 - “only begotten son.” This worried me all through my childhood. I knew what begotten meant. I had read all the genealogies in the Old Testament. Not until I was in my later adulthood, listening to many Greek scholars. The word “begotten” in the Greek was translated incorrectly - the Greek word actually means “one, only & unique.” I love my KJV, but I also love my ESV/NASB/etc.
One and only is not correct. I'm saved. That makes me a son of God. So, one and only Son is not accurate. Only begotten of the Father is correct.
Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power >>to become the sons of God,>the only begotten of the Father,
I love the KJV.
I love the ESV.
I love the NASB.
I love the LSB.
I love the CSB.
I love the NKJV.
I love God’s Word. All of the above mentioned versions are faithful to God’s Word.
They're all different so they can't be the same and can't be the word of God.
I love the KJV! God has used it to bless my life and bring me to himself.
Good for you! What does that have to do with this video?
No one is saying it's not a valid translation. The problem comes from the idea that "If it's good enough for Paul, it's good enough for me". I've actually had people say that to me and it is just ignorant.
Aren’t you an Arian?
@@fordhughes who are you talking to?
@@bonkmiester the Arian who made the original comment
The kjb editors admitted that it was not inspired or perfect. The fact that people argue for that amazes me
😂 Their opinion doesn't trump God. It shouldn't be a shock that God can use people in ways they don't understand.
@@vashmatrix5769dude where did God say it then😂😂
@@fruitsnacks155 Psalms 12: 6-7 KJV
@ The “them” is psalm 12 is the “us” 4 words later.
But if you wanna say it’s the words then it’s actually referring to the ESV there.
@@fruitsnacks155 You're cutting the context then. The KJV has it right.
Good stuff! The key is staying grounded in the truth of God’s Word without drifting into man-made doctrines or interpretations that deviate from His intended message. The Holy Spirit guides us into all truth, and as long as we remain centered on Jesus and the core of the Gospel, minor translation differences shouldn’t distract us. It’s about cultivating a relationship with Him, not getting caught up in intellectual “rightness” that can pull us away from the heart of the faith. Truth and relationship should always take precedence over legalism or confusion! God’s power is far greater than many realize, and He delights in giving good gifts to His children-never something harmful.
Unfortunately, too many Christians today admit they’re not reading their Bibles, often citing the excuse that it’s too difficult to understand or read (KJV). For the vast majority of people, this excuse no longer holds weight, thanks to the availability of audio versions and a wide variety of accessible translations.
1 Peter 1 KJV 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
24 For all flesh _is_ as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass.
The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
1 Corinthians 15 KJV ✝️🩸
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
Ecclesiastes 8 KJV 👑
4 Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?
@@AlexanderBrown77we aren’t muslims. We aren’t Mormons.But KJVO certainly does behave like them. The word has been preserved but it’s not in an exact translation. That’s not how Christians defend the inerrancy is that He gave us only a single language and translation that is word for word exact to one specific translation. You sound like a muslim defending their quran .
Except thise others are translations of completely different source texts.
The translators encouraged the use of multiple translations to gain a fuller understanding of the Scriptures. They recognized that a single translation cannot capture every nuance or meaning from the original languages:
• “Variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures.”
• This admission shows their humility and openness to the idea that future translations or existing ones in other languages can offer additional clarity.
1 Peter 1 KJV 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
24 For all flesh _is_ as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
1 Corinthians 15 KJV ✝️🩸
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
1 Peter 4 KJV
17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
I can't wait to watch this! 😍 Thank you for sharing!
The KJV translators did not see their translation as completely new but as a revision of earlier translations, including the Tyndale Bible, Geneva Bible, and others. They respected the work of earlier translators and did not view their translation as a complete replacement but as part of an ongoing process of refining and improving English translations:
• “Truly (good Christian reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one… but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against.”
• This humility demonstrates their view that their work was a continuation of the translation process, not the final or perfect version
1 Peter 1 KJV 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
24 For all flesh _is_ as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
1 Corinthians 15 KJV ✝️🩸
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
Romans 2 KJV
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
Who's the final authority, translators or God? I dont believe God kept the real Bible from people for hundreds of years. It was preserved & passed down to the KJB.
@@AlexanderBrown77 those verses say nothing that it's only in the KJV. If that's the case, even the original audience didn't have the Word of God. You're making a BIG assumption there.
@@jonathanchaney5896 🤔 Remember,
You’re god is not even powerful enough to give you a perfect Bible in English.
John 1 KJV
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
@@AlexanderBrown77 KJV Onlyism is a scary thing. If you're wrong about my view, even in the least, you are blaspheming. I wouldn't want that on my head. I pray God has mercy on you.
Thank you Lord Jesus Christ for the king James version 🙏🏼 Amen
LOL!
Have you ever read the Geneva?
@@joelcatlin7246Geneva is cool but it’s some real bad Fumbles. King James Version is King .
@revcanada2147 Can you share reference(s) to the fumbles?
@@Mightydisciple777you're clueless 😅😅😅
.it's nowhere near most accurate 😅😅😅
You don't understand it for sure
Former KJV onlyist here. 4 years ago I was in a church that preach KJV only. I was saved and began my faith journey at 12 and used the NIV married into a KJV only church. 7 year in and experience such spiritual abuse that I found myself crying out to God. He showed me the truth through his HS and I began studying the KJV and looking up Greek definition and hebrew using Bible hub. Soon learn about the false friends. I love KJV it's my favorite but the teaching is so bad that anyone who doesn't use KJV only is seen as an unbeliever, also anyone that doesn't go tho this church denomination was seen as an unbeliever as well. If you were to recommend a video like this, they would not watch it or receive it because they're taught to not listen to anyone with opposing views no matter the history or fact behind how translations work. The best way I have found to witness is to infact use the KJV. There so much I can say here but I end with a Thank you for sharing cause it helpful for those coming out of this mindset!
I escaped the Vatican, and you are being taken back straight into it. The King James Bible is God's Perfect, Preserved and Inspired Word, which was revealed to me by the Holy Spirit, He is the Spirit of Truth, He is the Spirit of God.
@@childofthelight888what is your view of the Bible for the first 1600 years after Christ?
@@wd3338well didn’t you know Christ spoke Olde English, silly goose😂. They found that out at the same time of their private revelation.
“If the king ain’t on it the king ain’t in it!” -someone’s grandpa
😂😂
The Bible is meant to be understood. While I do love the KJV, it is more important that readers understand what the Bible teaches, and English has changed a lot since 1619.
You just need to get saved, and then you can understand it.
Wes Buff💪 hatching 🪓those KJVO arguments in half 💔🪓
1 Peter 1 KJV 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
24 For all flesh _is_ as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
1 Corinthians 15 KJV ✝️🩸
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
Romans 2 KJV 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
😂 You write as well as those false translations they promote
Unfortunately, the majority of people who argue for the KJV in public are fringe adherents who have poor arguments and very limited or incorrect knowledge. Any time you have an unusual belief or one that is not popular with academia, you'll often attract kind of strange individuals who have odd motivations.
There are more limited and humble arguments for the texts behind the KJV, the translation itself, and a different sort of philosophy behind textual criticism. But people with more constrained views generally hold them as a side portion of what they think about and hold to, it does not take up a central focus of their lives, or they even may stay silent because they wish to avoid division or distraction from the propagation of the Gospel. Because of this, they are less likely to be making videos and putting out arguments.
This leads to a generally off-kilter perspective between what KJV people think and what the general perception of what they think is.
I've never heard of Kim, but his argument about "book" vs "manuscript" was silly and I've never heard it before.
Wow so much great information!
It's spelled "misinformation"
@ 🤣 would love to see what he got wrong
@@JMoneyUSA He's against the real Bible. That's a pretty big error.
What are you talking about. Im sorry but to be blunt, KJV onlyist, come off displaying the B.I.T.E model of a cult.
Behavior control, Information control, Thought control and Emotional control. Take that anyway you like.@@vashmatrix5769
Would love to hear a conversation about the Geneva Bible
I enjoy all the little notes in it
@RansomedSoulPsalm49-15
Hey, me too ....
However, when those GB "notes" admit things like indentifying Jesus Chirst as the actual Archangel Michael at Rev. 12:7-9 and Dan. 12:1.
Or Christ is the personified "Wisdom" of Prov. 8:22 and linking this Wisdom's identity to "the Word" at Jn. 1:1.
I can't then honestly criticize other religious groups like JWs and SDAs for believing it. ....
@@RansomedSoulPsalm49-15 Thoughts on the note for Psalm 150:3?
@@antonioterrell354 Mike Winger's Hebrews series has a video discussing the "Michael" bit, not specifically from the Geneva- but from figures like Calvin, Spurgeon, and Wesley; their beliefs (of which Calvin would influence the Geneva) regarding Michael were essentially the opposite of the way that JWs and SDAs would put it.
JW/SDA would say that Jesus was actually a mere angel
Calvin, et al. would say that Michael the archangel was actually a title for Jesus, the divine Son.
Mike clarifies the view, but doesn't hold it or think it should be the norm.
Christ is the wisdom of Prov. 8:22 though, JW/SDA just have logic problems with how they take the passage
@shadosnake ;
Thanks...
And while I will never as only a "puny human" in comparison. Dare disrespect God's chief of the angelic host and messenger par excellence with the disparaging description of only "a mere angel."
And if Christ is indeed the personified Wisdom described in Prov. 8:22-31. Then it's inescapable he must be a created being produced by God as the first of his works.
As there's no other reasonable way to make sense of the discourse then.
I may give Winger's series a listen. Even though I do have differences with his views.
Really enjoyed this and Wes’s explanation, I love the KJV primarily because that was what I was raised with, I still believe it’s a good translation, I’ve recently bought an ESV and planning on reading through that as well, good program thank you
This is the perfect way to look at it. The KJV is important and holds a special place in history and what it did for the world. Its also just one of many amazing translations of the word of God. I hope you enjoy your time in the ESV its a great translation.
They're completely different source texts. Stick to the real Bible & throw the English Substandard Version back in the garbage where it's source texts came from.
Missed the opportunity to use the good ole preacher vid that went viral where he said "i can correct the greek with the king james bible" as the intro clip for this podcast 😂
Ah yes. Taking more out of context would really sell their heracy. 🤦
I won't read nothing but the King James Bible but this is interesting it ain't going to change my thoughts God bless you all
As an undergrad in 1973 I began with Classical Greek taught by a wonderful believer, Dr. Harry A Sturz who later wrote "The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism" which I picked up years later in Seminary with Kione Greek. His thesis is that in rejecting these medieval manuscripts as 'secondary' in the practice of textual criticism is flawed. He shows that the Byzantine text should be considered as neither primary or secondary, but an independent witness to an early form of the New Testament text.
It appears to me that KJO advocates are laying false claims to the only 'authentic' text which in reality was also subject to 'criticism' in its academic sense.
That being said, I also do agree with them that there really are men who are involved who are nefarious in that they are unbelievers, like possibly Westcott and Hort if their quoted statements are true. I do not think that textual critics who truly don't believe the Word (all the inspired manuscripts) for what it collectively says are objective but instead lean toward alternative wordings that wedge the door open for others to make truth questionable, and bring chaos rather than confidence. It is direction that can affect the destination. This is why comparing things is the regulatory method that exposes the errors of such men.
That is your take on Codex 2427 known as “Archaic Mark” which was listed as category 1 in importance by Kurt and Barbara Aland of the Nestle Aland Greek text. Later it was discovered to be a forgery. It fooled them and they are responsible for constructing the critical Greek text. What probability do you place on any text or translation?
Interesting...
Did Dr. Sturz ever present any actual manuscript evidence of this supposed "early form of NT text" to support this thesis of his?
And in all fairness, unless one can clearly show that a scholar's personal views or conduct wrongly influenced or biased their work somehow. What they did or do in their personal lives is not relevant to the quality and integrity of their scholarship.
@@antonioterrell354 Extensively, giving excellent documentation by many other scholars (providing quotes, and manuscripts, and the Greek texts). He gives 4 lists of Papyrus with distinctively Byzantine alignment and who acknowledges it, along with a list of ones the Westcott and Hort hesitantly acknowledged. He goes through tables of the manuscripts with lists and charts, and 41 pages of bibliographies and lists all of the persons and subjects found in his text. He was a true scholar, and knowing him I bear witness for his love for the Word of the Lord, and the Lord of the Word.
@craigchambers4183 ;
Again, "very" interesting ....
You mean there are actually very early Byzantine papyrii of the same age or earlier than the famous Alexandrian type. That read differently from the Alexandrian manuscripts and contain the "missing verses" not in the Alexandrian text, but in the later majority text?
As I've never heard of anything like that before, as I was always taught the Byzantine manuscript corpus were all circa 9th century CE and older.
Can you name perhaps a few examples of these manuscripts so I can study this further?
@@antonioterrell354 You need to reread what I wrote. The BT ought to be considered as a witness to the original manuscripts (of which none survive) just like the other text types. The construction of your questions indicate sarcasm, not a real discussion as to merit. I'm not interested in this.
Hey!! You guys FINALLY GOT WES HUFF ON YOUR PODCAST!!! love your podcasts guys! Wes and Joe Rogan interview was EPIC!
Im a Christian Im a Christian UA-cam Creator too and been making LOTS of videos avout carson and wesley and joe rogan haha.
I also have the full 3 hour Rogan and Wes Huff interview and reaction here on my channel 😊
hes been on before lol
I would like to hear a conversation between Dr. James White and Wes!
I'd rather hear someone explain presuppositional apologetics to Wes and ask White why he never utilizes it in his debates.
This is text, so I can’t sense intention or attitude. Are you saying it in a mocking way? Or are you genuinely curious?
The words themselves make you seem pretty arrogant. But I could be wrong.
@@siegistic Apologia are presuppers. I've not heard Wes discuss or utilize presupp (I have heard Durbin), maybe you are aware of where he has and you can point me in that direction, i would appreciate that. Same thing with White- he confesses it but I've never heard him use it. It's frustration; i'm not sure about why it seems arrogant to say that.
@ I gotcha. No, I’m not aware of anything to point you too. I get the frustration. I guess I just misread you. My bad. :)
Blokes a crackpot and refused a free ticket, hotel and 45 minutes to give his argument of textual criticism against the KJV at PBI. He knew even Dr. Ruckman’s first year students could pick apart whites dubious arguments.
James White’s “The King James Only Controversy” is an excellent source of information on this subject…
I think James White's view on preservation also amounts to a position of faith, and in that respect is no different from the view he criticizes.
😂 It's the purely subjective opinion of a heretic
@@williamtoney2599 definitely recommended reading to see what a satanic, heretical joke book it is.
Compared to Burgon, James White is a non-starter. Check out 'The Revision Revised'.
@ they won’t touch his stuff.
Does Wes have any misgivings or concerns about modern leaders in textual criticism? For just one example, Bruce Metzger questioned the authorship, dates, and inspiration for several books of the Bible, claimed that that the O.T. contains "a matrix of myth, legend, and history", called Jonah a "popular legend", and on and on. Yet he was one of the longtime key editors of the NA/UBS Greek text -- the text used by all modern translators today. This level of unbelief DOES impact your work.
One specific example: Metzger justified excluding the word "yet" from John 7:8 ("I go not up *yet* unto this feast"), which is found in 96.5% of all Greek manuscripts including even Codex Vaticanus(!), knowing it made Christ a liar (since he did go to the feast a few verses later), by reasoning that the reading "not yet" was introduced at an early date in order to alleviate the inconsistency. In other words, Metzger *preferred* the contradiction as a matter of principle. This contradiction then ends up being reflected in all modern versions.
Right on. Text criticism leads to trusting the expert not God.
Also on the UBS team was Cardinal Carlo Martini, slated to be the next Pope at the time. And Kurt Aland, at least as heretical as Metzger. Read about him online at the Trinitarian Bible Society web-site. From day one, the critical text has been strenuously supported by heretics. The cultish guys and Wes are in seriously dubious company.
I've read Metzgers work, he was not a great scholar and constantly makes false and misleading statements and flip flops on what he says, yet every modern text critic (Wallace, White, etc) repeats his comments. Modern textual criticism is in a horrible state not using the TR
Agreed. The same could be said about the Alands', Black, Martini, and the rest of Metzger's colleagues and predecessors. I think for most skeptics and rationalists, speaking with a forked tongue is a well-established habit.
As a preteen all I had was the KJV but can't really say I looked at it again for 30 years after I got an NIV as a teenager and later moved to the early NASB in college. A few years ago a KJVO Baptist friend sparked my interest in reading KJV again. I have since found I prefer to use the KJV when I am simply reading. However, for church and bible study I benefit in understanding by using ESV & NASB. For ease of reading in modern English, I recommend the CSB over the NIV. I do wish the ESV had, like the NASB, included in [brackets] the phrases/verses they determined were not in the original texts instead of just leaving them out.
I’m not KJVO, but some of the main objections to modern translations are based on the apparent dubious nature of Hort & Wescott the main translators of the critical text, because they had links to Roman Catholicism. Even though they were technically Protestant. They in their own writings admitted to starting spiritualist societies and engaging with the spirits (not God) and one of them wrote about not believing in the resurrection. So investigation beyond the text is also important as a discussion point.
Ecclesiastes 8 KJV 👑
4 Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?
♥️ Remember, the KJV Is the seventh Bible translated into English.
Psalms 12 KJV
6 The words of the LORD _are_ pure words: _as_ silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
1 Corinthians 15 KJV ✝️🩸
1-4
Ya I would love it if Wes went into Wescott and Hort and the Jesuits like Nestly and why combinded the Vaticanus and Sanaiticus to make the critical texts
H P Blavatsky was a fan of Westcott and Hort as well.
@@AlexanderBrown77 I prefer the Geneva Bible myself. It’s translators put their necks on the line. That means something for a translation. The KJV guys weren’t in that situation, they were the Kings translators. I don’t have a problem with KJV, just find King James himself to be a dubious figure with dubious motives.
@@lukespowerart ♥️ Remember. 3 Times in the Bible, it says man shall not live by bread alone, but every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.
If you add up those three verses, it equals 1611 The exact year The KJV Bible came out.
Matthew 4 KJV 4
Luke 4 KJV 4
Deuteronomy 8 KJV 3
If you add up the chapters that equals 16 .
If you are at the verses, it equals 11 .
👑 KJV 1611 has every word of God. 👑
Matthew 4 KJV 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Luke 4 KJV
4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Deuteronomy 8 KJV
3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every _word_ that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.
Look forward to the chopping wood meme. 😂
I’m not KJVO but I believe KJV is the unequivocal master of Bible translations.
❤
KJV is said to be 82 +% Tyndale. He gave his life for it.
I would like to see wes huff debate Sam Gipp and gene Kim. That would be interesting
Maybe they take it easy on him cause he’s just a young buck😮
Wes would destroy both of them. Line up Keith Gomez, Jack Trieber, Paul Chappell, Sam Davis, all of the mainline IFB leaders. They could not stand this level of debate.
@@Maximus_W truth, trump‘s textual critics.
@@Maximus_W Thanks for the Christian love my brother. Would you Pray for us poor KJV Only ignorant folks.
They'd rather sit in the safety of their echo chamber & get people to doubt scripture.
My KJVO wasn’t so much for the reasons as most… but Dr White was instrumental in educating my ignorance. I knew about him before I knew who he was. I only put 2 & 2 together years after listening to him… I thought, “wait, is he the same guy going at it with Gail Riplinger back in the day?” & sure enough 😂
He's a heretic
I grew up with the false Bibles & thank God he revealed to me the KJV is his preserved word.
@ bro, you open scripted up to more doubt and ridicule by insisting on KJV only. If you hold KJV tot he same scrutiny as the others you can’t be KJV only.
@@seeqr9 Wrong. See, I actually took the time to look. We're talking about translations of completely different source texts.
@ yeah.. I was KJV only first… then looked into it. I know what you’re talking about. By there’s no good reason to reject the sources you do.
KJV only movement can go to such an extreme, I know someone that their pastor said they can’t fellowship with anyone that doesn’t read KJV as that means they are not really saved. Although that is extreme, not majority.
I was somewhere where the pastor was close to that view. Anyone who didn’t read KJV he would say they need to get a Bible. I once commented that someone reading a different translation is growing more than someone with a dusty KJV, he has no response to that
@@elisemaiolo4352 1 Peter 1 KJV
23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
24 For all flesh _is_ as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
Romans 2 KJV 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
1 Corinthians 15 KJV ✝️🩸
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
♥️
Would you guys call Dan 3:25 and Acts 8:37 inconsequential? Both of which point to the deity of Christ and is incorrect or omitted in most modern versions?
Do you think there is no other verse that says Jesus is the Son of God in the rest of a modern translation?
No but dan 3:25 is significant because it points te the fact that Christ is eternal in the OT. Moreover whould you want a Bible that MORE clearly shows Christ's deity or less? Even if it is just one verse?
@@robbieheuer4473 do you know anything about Hebrew? The word there is Elohim. It’s a plural noun, which can be equally translated as God or gods. There was no capital/lowercase in Hebrew. So it’s all by context to discern the correct translation. But there’s nothing actually wrong, language wise, with either translation. The king is a pagan, so would he know the One True God? That could be debated.
But you said shouldn’t we want a translation that more clearly shows the deity of Christ? Then if that’s the case, do you accept the modern translations reading of John 1:18, 2 Peter 1:1, Titus 2:13, John 14:14, 1 Peter 3:15, and Jude 1:4. Just for a few examples that are more clear. So are you ready to affirm these verses? You said even one was worth it. I gave 6.
@@robbieheuer4473 are you familiar with Hebrew by chance? The word is Elohim, which is a plural noun but also used for God Himself. So it can be translated as God or gods. There is no capital/lowercase in Hebrew. So translators have to use context to figure out which it is. Did a pagan king know God at this point? That’s debatable. But the translation isn’t wrong in itself.
@@robbieheuer4473 are you familiar with Hebrew by chance? The word is Elohim, which is a plural noun but also used for God Himself. So it can be translated as God or gods. There is no capital/lowercase in Hebrew. So translators have to use context to figure out which it is. Did a pagan king know God at this point? That’s debatable. But the translation isn’t wrong in itself.
What your not told is the differences between the KJV and the new versions is primarily due to just two manuscripts Vaticanus & Sinaiticus, study those manuscripts they are indeed corrupt, therefore the Bible translations that proceed from them are also.
Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A foundational error with the scholarship-only crowd is that science falsely so called becomes the judge of the scripture. Final authority is not in the book of the LORD, but in philosophy of men.
Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
@@EleazarDuprees the KJV translators were literally the highest of scholarship for their time. They did textual criticism of a handful of sources Greek/Latin/English to come up with the KJV reading. If you knock scholarship, then you must also knock the KJV.
@@jonathanchaney5896They were not running chemical analysis of the ink on manuscripts to date them. And they believed they had by faith in Gods “singular care and providence” by which he “kept pure in all ages” these same Greek (including Mk.16:9-20 and Jn.7:53-8:11) and Hebrew books (Old and New Testament).
The self attesting nature of scripture is appealed to by John Calvin in his Institutes (Book 1 Ch.VII sec.4-5, Ch.VIII sec.1,V), the Westminster confession (IV, VIII,IX, X), Belgic confession (Articles5 and 7) the 1689 London Baptist Confession, also in the larger Westminster catechism (question4) the 1658 Savoy Declaration #5.
So, they thought they had them and critical scholars today say they were misled because they didn't have the critical Greek text they have collated.
@@jonathanchaney5896Among the KJV translators were scholars fluent in every ancient scriptural language, so they referenced a lot more texts than "a handful in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, ad and English."
@@jonathanchaney5896
"For their time"
No one in scholarly circles today takes the KJV only position seriously, and for good reason. There have been thousands of manuscripts discovered since 1611.
At the end of the day, God either preserved His words, plural, every jot and tittle, to every generation, or He's a liar. Compare Psalm 12:6-7, Psalm 138:2, and Acts 8:37 in a King James to say, an ESV. Those are just 3 of hundreds of verses, not exaggerating.
But that's just the thing. There are readings in the KJV that didn't exist for the previous generations. So you can't say that God preserved those exact readings to every generation. The KJV falls under the weight of its own argument.
@ How so? Obviously the New Testament didn't exist in the time of the Old Testament, so the idea that we received the text progressively is obvious. But as the text was received and was galvanized into the final canon, everything received up to that point remained and has remained.
The argument that fully fails is the modern view that ONLY "the originals" were perfect scripture. None of the originals exist today. So right there that calls God a liar. Yet people claim inerrancy. It is an intangible unprovable view because you cannot produce the original and put them in my hand. And advocates for Alexandrian text bibles got on that train post-1881 with the invention of the revised version, which by and large deletes and changes the text, citing a couple documents from 1500 years prior as the validation for their deletion of scripture, and then adamantly defending their deletions. All the while these same folks will admit that mankind does not have a perfect complete Bible that can be placed in my hand. They'll tell an unbeliever God's word is true and perfect, but in the privacy of their seminary or on this UA-cam video, they admit that all the Bible translations are flawed, and that the LORD dropped the ball with preserving his word after he inspired its writing.
@@Isaiah_50_7 as the text was received and galvanized into the final canon - you have to explain more here because, even if we just look at Erasmus, he had 5 editions of his Greek. Not to mention all the TRs that followed. Throw in the difference in the reformation English translations, the different vulgates, and how not even a single Byzantium manuscript completely agrees with another. And there's no Greek manuscript that reads like the KJV so Scrivener had to create one. To say it has been "perfectly preserved" through the ages while poopoo-ing the modern text is simply closing your eyes and ears to what happened throughout church history with the text. I'm not arguing for errancy or anything like that. I fully affirm the reliability and authority of Scripture.
Plus the whole argument about "a bible in my hand" is exactly what what Huff addressed here. What you are asking for, again, simply ignores centuries and centuries of how Scripture has been used and shared.
@@Isaiah_50_7 You said: "the text was received and was galvanized into the final canon" - I think there is further explanation that is needed. Because there hasn't been a single text, just since Erasmus started in 1516. He had like 5 editions, then you had Stephanos, Beza. Not to mention the Complutensian Polyglot, the various Vulgates, throw in Luther, Wycliffe, Tyndale, all the English Reformation Bibles, and all the manuscripts and papyri before any of that. Include the fact that not a single Byzantine manuscript perfectly matches another. Then once you get to the KJV, there's not a single Greek manuscript that reads how it reads, so Scrivener had to make one. So to say that everything has "remained" isn't actually looking at the transmission of Scripture through the generations.
As far as "bible in your hand" this is exactly what Wes is talking about. This claim closes ones eyes and ears to history and how Scriptures are transmitted and read. What the KJVO demands now is not something that Christians for centuries would have even had, and so therefore, that means they didn't actually have the word of God? Any claim that implies that is preposterous to me.
@ Thanks for a real comment finally. The issue isn't that prior versions to the 414 year old King James aren't scripture, if they source from Antioch they are God's word. But as with things progressively received , they are given perfectly for what is given, but not in a completed state, but at some point the progression reaches the final draft. The tangible evidence supporting that the King James is the final draft is the main point. There is a ton of evidence to observe. I really am humbly asking you to look at the evidence with fresh eyes and a humble heart. That's it. The current view by most seminaries and churches is that God dropped the ball in preserving his word, and one must take Hebrew and Greek and become a textual critic and an archeologist to try to find the remnant of what may be the closest oldest doc to the original. That is completely against all of the verses in the Bible that speak to God preserving every word, heaven and earth shall pass away, the grass withereth and the flower faideth, etc. Look at the reality, objectively, of what is happening. It is an unaware frog caught in a pot of water on the stove top. That's all I have time for, but I encourage everyone to look into this matter. A good book to start with is called "The revision revised."
3:30ish - host says he has never encountered a “KJVOist”. It’s pretty obvious NONE of these guys have! Very weak arguments that have been disproven many , many times.
Furthermore, Apologia is supposed to be presuppositionalists and they don't understand the textual criticism they love invalidates the presuppositionalism they also love. They subordinate scripture to 'scientists' and philosophy for confirmation. Final authority resides in textual critics for them.
Original language
@@jeremynethercutt206 The reason this is an issue is because of 'original language' variants.
Yup. They're just enjoying their echo chamber.
People fear things they can't control and don't understand. Most people hate change.
Also, it's much easier to believe in inspiration in a translation than to do the work to understand the textual issues and how those issues don't weaken the reliability of the Bible, but rather strengthens it. We want clean when history and the transmission of the text is MESSY, we don't like that on its face.
History can only provide probabilities. If we follow the Bart Ehrmans and Dan Wallaces of the world we have a 'generally reliable' word of God. Also, we encounter forgeries as Codex 2427 known as “Archaic Mark” listed as a category 1 in importance by Kurt and Barbara Aland. Not real reassuring for eternal life.
This is the part that really frustrates, even angers me. It's one thing not to know these things. I certainly am no expert. But I have listened to information about it and always seek to deepen my understanding. Many of the KJVO cultists refuse to do so. And then they're proud of it! Willful ignorance is not a biblical virtue. It makes all Christians look like idiots. Worst of all, it makes Christ look that way too.
@Yesica1993 I agree there is ignorance and stubbornness in both camps, but to accept Bart Ehrman types as our leaders on textual issues is like accepting Richard Dawkins on the biological possibility of Jesus' resurrection.
"Wherefore wilt thou run, my son, seeing that thou hast no tidings ready?" 2 Samuel 18:22.
KJVO is based in fear. KJVO is wrong. Anti KJV is also wrong. KJVO talk a lot about the “omissions” like it is a conspiracy, but do not talk about the many clear interpolations (adding). Great translating considers both and carefully considers all the data. Also, no language can be perfectly translated into another language. Perfect for God’s purposes, but there is also always a human element involved.
😂 DIPs (Deflect, Insult, Project) is what we expect from people who aren't following Christ. It looks like you've never even heard someone properly defend the KJV.
Can someone please tell me what
Acts 8 esv 37 says?
2 Corinthians 2 KJV
17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
It’s weird KJV only became a thing when the KJV we have isn’t even the original KJV. In terms of how it read in 1600
Thou hast spouted thee truth peradventure, they that worship their book in stead of thine God arest in error of thost cults that believeth thee book defines thoust belief and not thee object of Thee book, ourest Lord Jesus.
♥️ Remember. 3 Times in the Bible, it says man shall not live by bread alone, but every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.
If you add up those three verses, it equals 1611 The exact year The KJV Bible came out.
Matthew 4 KJV 4
Luke 4 KJV 4
Deuteronomy 8 KJV 3
If you add up the chapters that equals 16 .
If you are at the verses, it equals 11 .
👑 KJV 1611 has every word of God. 👑
Matthew 4 KJV 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Luke 4 KJV
4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Deuteronomy 8 KJV
3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.
@@JesusSavesandRomeEnslaves you know the Muslims have their magic number too. It’s 19, even though it’s really just in their heads. I don’t worship #1611, I worship our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the only number I need is 3/1
@@JesusSavesandRomeEnslaves so we're doing gematria to justify the KJV now?
you realize that chapter and verse numbers are an editorial note added way after the text was written
Fantastically nerdy!!!!!
Too much of a heretical echo chamber
In before KJV-only defenders. I’ve found it difficult to speak with them in the past, even moreso than some Mormons and Catholics. A-historical defense of it and judaised arguments for following old festivals and traditions/laws.
I went to a church like that for 8 years & read whatever version helped me understand God's Word bc it's MY relationship with Him, not theirs! ✝️
@@xx_Agent_Carolina Show me one place in the Bible that talks about having a "relationship" with God. It must not be in my King James lol
Yes I have found them to be very arrogant and can be down right nasty. Hard to detect any fruits of the Spirit from the ones I’ve come into contact with, they seem more concerned with making you feel stupid.
@@mikep4957 Ex. 33 :11, Ps. 68:5-6, Isa. 54:3, etc. I hope that inspired u enuf to correct urself w/ more research. 😇
@@Sspatty A real Christian wouldn't have a screen name like yours, TROLL. Blocked & reported!
Almost fooled me with that A logo on the shirt, i tought it was from Timothy Alberino 😅
TO me the KJV, just has a stronger or power to it at times. To my soul or deeper.
The Bible was not written in KJ English. Or any English, since English did not even exist at that time.
I think we can defo have a translation that can speak to us on a deeper level just as a preference. I struggle with my KJV personally but I get that off the ESV.
Indeed. The Spirit witnesses with our spirit, that it is the word of God.
The modern versions are corrupt junk, with little or no power.
At about @39:38 into the video, regarding someone quoting Hebrews 10:7 in the KJV as "in the volume of the book" and talking about it as if it were a kind of book we're familiar with, is in fact, in the Greek; including the TR versions I looked at , not simply "book" but rather "scroll of the book" ("ἐν κεφαλίδι βιβλίου" or "en kephalidi bibliou"; "in, scroll/roll, of book"). So it's NOT referring to complete collection of all the books of what we call the Bible, nor one "volume" of the whole Bible, but rather a scroll that contained the Psalm Jesus was quoting from; and most synagogues rarely had what we would say were ALL of the Scriptures!
Although it's a bit ambiguous at first in Luke 4:20, where the Greek has "πτύξας τὸ βιβλίον" ("ptuxas to biblion") that word 'ptuxas' ("πτύξας") has the meanings of not only "to close" BUT ALSO "fold up (as with clothes)" and "roll up (a scroll)". And from all the archaeological and written data we have of the life and times of Jesus, they all confirm this would have to be a "scroll" which contained Isaiah 61, since Biblical manuscripts in the form of a codex (a "book" as we would call it today) did not exist at that time.
KJVO is not good, and KJV-NO is just as bad
@@Luke_0 Lol well worded
Truly!!!
I’d say KJVO is definitely worse. ☺️
@@Sspatty care to explain?
@@Sspatty have you? It's a good enough translation, but there are better translations out there.
IF IT WAS FOOD ENOUGH FOR THE APOSTLE PAUL ITS GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME
KJO is one of the least wacky things, Gene Kim teaches, ; ) Just read some of his video titles. I wouldn't be surprised to hear him teach on Sasquatch, lol.
I truly believe that we are to go from glory to glory and as technology and more new evidence of deeper findings of written materials of scriptures we get a better translation of what scriptures mean even more. I love the king James as well but I also use other resources and not limit myself
Might as well add the book of Mormon too then. They're all different & only 1 can be true.
@ Book of Mormon has a different account to biblical texts and historical evidence.
@@Kmher90 No kidding. So do the texts they use for all these modern false Bibles. They weren't passed down.
@@vashmatrix5769 you need Jesus honestly. Go seek him yourself, people don’t want Jesus because of all the excuses they can make. Why it’s always the excuse to remain unchanged
If anyone hasn’t heard of bloodbought testimony go listen to it. Former backslider and die and went to hell. His testimony is being shared all over and it’s a warning for all believers and Mormons as well
Mormons are KJV is the word of God wherein it is translated correctly. Which means except where it disagrees with their Mormon doctrines. AND if it disagrees with their writings Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrines and Covenants. But thanks for comparing Bible believers with followers of Joseph Smith.
Thank you! 🕊️ 🔥 👏🏼
Psalms 119:89 For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.
Keep in mind my KJVO brothers, God’s word has a higher dimension than human linguistic. Human bibles we have is “dual” authorship between the Holy Spirit and the writers themselves. Gods word is eternal and it’s settled in Heaven.
Reason we have so many secondary disagreements from so many translations has a lot to do with sanctification. Focus on Jesus grace, his bodily resurrection, and the divinity of the three persons.
Funny how the KJV make that triune nature clear while the other false source texts removed 1 John 5: 7.
KJV definitely is the best translation on Gods earth
So Jesus used an inferior translation?
@JadDragon :
Yep ...
So according to the mentality of KJVOs, Christ and the apostles under inspiration must have used "inferior translations" as well.
Since they frequently quoted from the Greek LXX, which is a "translation" of the Hebrew-Aramaic OT.
@@JadDragon Jesus was reading exactly what the KJV says in the OT, this isn't hard to understand.
@@antonioterrell354 see, this is why I'm GNVO.
Matthew 28:18-20 GNV
18 And Iesus came, and spake vnto them, saying, All power is giuen vnto me, in heauen, and in earth.
19 Go therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and the Sonne, and the holy Ghost,
20 Teaching them to obserue all things, whatsoeuer I haue commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, vntill the ende of the worlde, Amen.
If you aren't reading in the _pure_ English that Iesus spake what are you even doing?? Perfectly legible and no reason to update as language evolves.
@@antonioterrell354 this is why I'm GNVO.
Matthew 28:18-20 GNV
And Iesus came, and spake vnto them, saying, All power is giuen vnto me, in heauen, and in earth. Go therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and the Sonne, and the holy Ghost, Teaching them to obserue all things, whatsoeuer I haue commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, vntill the ende of the worlde, Amen.
The language Iesus Himself spake. Perfect and no need to improve!
Never understood the kjv only argument although it is my preferred translation
I was in your camp for years - I argued my way through the 4 year religion program at PLU and defended the faith from your exact position for years - I’ll pray that your eyes get opened. Brother, you are doing good things for the faith but in matters of scriptural authority, you’ve taken the bait, hook, line, and sinker of the Laodecian apostate church. Amos 8:11-12 is written directly to you.
Thank you for making the point that even people that believe they have the perfect word of God still can stumble in historical exegesis.
A few weeks ago a pastor in my church said KJV was inspired. My husband's uncle is the same. If that were true, why do those pastors give the modern words that appear in the NKJV?
Good grief.
Find another church, if that was said and not immediately corrected publicly then that pastor has an idol and the other leaders are either there with him or afraid to correct error.
I feel like some bad comparisons are being made at the start. First off comparing Greek to Latin and back is different than one English translation to another. Also saying Latin Vulgate was made in "everyday Latin" but the king James was made for accuracy and poetics. Like pronouns in order to distinguish between the second-person singular (thou, thee, thy, thine) and the second-person plural (ye, you, your, yours). I like Wes Huff but I'm not sure he even believes some of the bible like the Jonah and the whale story he keeps referencing but I could be wrong. Also from what I catch he differs from people at apologia like James White and Jeff where he, I believe, thinks the NIV is a good translation and they do not. I do not necessarily believe KJV only. I think God has the power to save with any translation or no translation and I believe other Textus Receptus translation in other lanquages can be good for speakers and readers of the languages. I do however believe the KJV is the best english translation and the best in general other than maybe the original greek. Its not just about the KJV being good but it is about the sinaiticus and vaticanus being bad. Even the NASB, which is considered the most accurate, is closer to the KJV rather than the NIV. There is also evidence that the "missing verses" are supposed to be included. Some KJV only people may get more "cultish" than others but the NIV, which Wes Huff says is good, is basically an interpretation of the bible and not the Bible for you to interpret. I know he is popular and very smart but people should take what they hear from ANYONE with a grain of salt and do your own research. Look at arguments from both sides and come to your own conclusion based on evidence. God Bless.
I'm going to go ahead & say it. The cults are the ones who changed the Bible & argue against the KJV.
I like to read different translations KJV, NJKV, ESV, NASB - the only one I struggle with is NIV. I just find it to be not a very good translation.
Agree with you on the NIV.
They're different source texts. Stick to the real Bible, Authorized Version King James Bible.
@@vashmatrix5769 What translation did people read before the King James? The Ethiopian Bible is older than the King James. Christianity was in Africa before it was in Europe. Did the Ethiopians not have a correct translation of the Bible, then? Should different language translations only be based on one of the King James versions? The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible from the original Biblical Hebrew) preceded the KJV.
@@jeannet7443 It comes from their Textus Receptus line. I believe God preserved his word in what would become the world's main language & most popular Bible, which has since been translated into more languages than any other. Have you looked into the Ethiopian "Bible"? It probably got a lot right, but not many would consider that authoritative. It's has books that aren't accepted as cannon scripture.
@@vashmatrix5769 What translations were Christians using who did not read or speak Hebrew, Greek, Latin, or English, before the various English King James translations, if they had access to a Bible?
I have no problem using a KJV or NKJV. I have both, and I use them (the Strong's Concordance and Lexicon I refer to is based on the KJV). It made the Bible accessible to English speakers.
For comparison, I also use the ESV, CSB, NASV, and the more recent LSB, which uses "Yahweh" in the OT.
That the Ethiopian Bible has additional books is a valid point. We know they are not part of the canon. However, the Ethiopians did not speak English.
By the way, the fact that the Ethiopian Bible existed before the KJV (English) translations and Christianity was in Africa before it was in Europe, is a good defense to use with those who claim that Christianity is the "white man's religion" or that Europeans forced Christianity on the African continent.
Phyllis I listened to the whole video and in all honesty you're extremely smart you know your stuff but one thing you clearly do not know is the preservation of scripture and the Perfection of God's word in English found only in the King James Bible. Your problem is an authority problem what is your Authority the King James Bible or man's interpretation of what God's word should be According to some Professor or some historian or let's just be honest some Catholic manuscript that attacks the very deity of Christ it's not worth arguing with you you will not see the truth but my prayer is that you will see the truth. Every modern Bible version since 1881 is a satanic distraction from God's perfect preserved pure words in English found only in the King James Bible have a wonderful afternoon and I do pray that you see the error of your way
WHY don't you bring Gene KIM or another KJB believer on??
Its more than missing verses in the modern translations. Its also deleted words. Words taken out of the modern translations along with words inserted that mean the opposite of what words and verses in the KJV are saying so as to negatively affect both narrative and doctrine.
You are acting as though the KJV is the default and the newer versions are aberrations. This is a fallacy. Those verses and words aren't in newer translations because they don't exist in the oldest texts.
Also, the English language has changed since 1611. Many words today simply don't have the same meaning they did back then. The changes you mention are really just necessary updates to reflect modern English.
@brianstringfellow3670 Comparatively, the words subtracted from and added to the modern translations amount to a watering down of the Faith, and an opposite narrative from what the KJV is saying and amounts to a tampering with doctrine. Yes, the KJV for me and many of God's people throughout the ages is the default Word of God in English and there's no way, not a snowball's chance in Hell I would abandon it for any of the modern versions none of which hold my interest or affection. I understand the language of the KJV because I grew up spiritually on it. My permanent attitude and affection for it is that of the Psalmist in Psalm 119 who delights in the law and statutes of God's Word which in English is the KJV.
@@brianstringfellow3670 What oldest texts? You mean the forgery found in a trash bin and the Catholic manuscript found in the Vatican? Those older and more reliable manuscripts? I find it odd that those who claim to be Reformed prefer to drink their milk from the teat of Rome.
Even though I love the KJV, there's several important things in this discussion that KJV-only people cannot ignore.
Firstly, the Bible wasn't originally written in 17th century, Elizabethan English, but was written in Hebrew and partially Aramaic in the Old Testament and Koine Greek in the New Testament, so our ultimate appeal or authority are the original language manuscripts, not an English translation from the early 1600s, as great as it is.
Secondly, the Church existed 1,600 years without the KJV, so it's like we need it to say that we have the Word of God, as the church has always possessed the scriptures.
Thirdly, what about Christians in other countries who don't even speak English? Can't they read the word of God in their own language, or do they have to learn English and then read the KJV to truly read God's Word? If it's the latter, then most non-English speaking Christians are left in the dark.
Lastly, the KJV translators would staunchly be against this idea of KJV-onlyism or that their translation was the only legitimate translation. Here's what Miles Smith wrote on behalf of the translators in the Translators to the Readers Preface in the original 1611 edition:
"we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest (i.e. mediocre) translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For what ever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."
From this quote, we can glean a few things. Firstly, they considered translations before them to be the Word of God. Secondly, a translation didn't have to perfect to be considered the Word of God, even having blemishes and imperfections. Thirdly, what was truly perfect was what the Apostles themselves originally penned down, so they didn't consider their work perfect for a second. Fourthly, using multiple translations can be useful, particularly when you come across difficult to translate passages, which is why they put different renderings in the margin throughout the original 1611.
Nonsense
@@jonathanchaney5896 truth
You're just showing that you don't even understand the issues. That's expected when you're listening to an echo chamber like this.
@@jonathanchaney5896 I see the reason for their impatience.
@@vashmatrix5769 then respond to his points. His was well presented. Let’s hear your rebuttal.
Pastor gene Kim is a great pastor.
💀💀💀
Amen
Anyone know when the NA29 is supposed to be released?
When I was a child I was told the Freemasons corrupted the new translations.
Freemasons corruptrd which translations NIV? ESV? Living Bible?
@boromirofmiddleearth557 I do not know, I was a child when I was told that.
It seems that the primary driver of obstruction to newer translations has and I primarily been gatekeeping; both unintentional & intentional. There are those that are satisfied with what they’ve learned and don’t want to be troubled with change. Then there are those that are threatened by change; typically because within the translation they’re using, they’ve contrived theological positions or teachings that hinge upon word usage/parlance/usage that are actually a creep from original meaning and with which they’ve established an exclusivity that won’t stand against sincere exegesis.
Or their bibles are bad and real believers will continue to hold to the inspired words of God and reject bad, awful literary works.
@@simonhailes6580so no KJV only = not a real believer. 🤔
@@jonathanchaney5896 which bible do they believe IS the words of God?
@@simonhailes6580 any good faith translation that seeks to be faithful to the originals is the Word of God.
@ none of the modern English bibles are ‘good faith’.
They are corrupt, money making scams.
Ye shall know them by their fruit.
They are rooted in the apostate critical text theories, which are as truthful as the theory of evolution.
They keep making the same lying claims against the word of God and justify their ever increasing proliferation.
All while there are many languages with no Bible translations.
SO THEN AFTER THE LORD HAD SPOKEN UNTO THEM, HE WAS RECIEVED UP INTO HEAVEN, AND SAT ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD."
Mark 16:19 KJB
This is the only gospel out of the four that attests to the fact that the Lord, after He was risen and appeared unto witnesses, was recieved up into heaven and sat on the right hand of God.
All other versions omit verses 9-20 at the end of Mark or cast doubts in their footnotes regarding whether these verses were in the original.
Satan at work again, casting doubts ---
" YEA, HATH GOD SAID...?" Genesis 3:1
Please consider donating to Cultish!
There is a presuppositional issue with accepting new bibles based on the "science" of textual criticism. You simultaneously accept a philosophy of science that is independent of the God of scripture as you validate scripture using your science.
Translators always used the latest tools at their disposal. We have better tools nowadays to understand the Word better
@@tempstep4058Let me illustrate it another way. Can you apply a 100 percentage of assurance to any verse in any version? If so, why? And a corollary- what percentage of assurance do you apply to the resurrection of Christ from the dead? What is it based on?
Scientific method, that is still in use, was invented by Christians and is based on Christian understanding of God and nature. In fact, there is nothing in any other religion or atheistic worldviews (like naturalism) that would lead humanity to scientific method.
And while science can be misused by wicked people (just as the Bible can be), scientific methold itself is good and the Bible approves of it. No other religion or worldview even thinks that humans are capable of uncovering secrets of the natural world. Christianity ENCOURAGES it. Romans 1:20.
Issue with KJV only people is that do you think that only English-speaking people are saved? What about the billions of people who can't read KJV?
the KJV is a product of textual criticism as it's an eclectic text. So to knock criticism is to knock the very translation/translators of the KJV.
@@tempstep4058 I believe translators can be inspired by the Holy Spirit, just like those who wrote the holy scriptures.
Texas recptus makes me think of a large dinosaur like T-rex lol. But I like your road runner connection too Jeremiah, lol. Deeply spiritual i know! Lol
What if I like the idea of unicorns existing? #KJVONLY
I'm not a KJV onlyist, but unicorns do exist. They just aren't horses with a horn. Nor does any of the versions of the Bible claim it's a horse-like creature
The unicorns that science now says once existed look like rhinos.
It says the power of the unicorn. Or we would say the strength of a Rhino. Have you ever seen one of them? Nothing but muscle. Take care
@@danielbrowniel Ever seen a Narwhal? In the middle ages they'd sell their horns (tusk/tooth) as those of unicorns. ☹️
Unicorns in the Bible as a reference to single horn rhinoceros
The KJV Only movement is a pervasive movement that is bent on tearing Churches down and attacking other translations of the Bible and their main appeal is to get people to rely on emotions rather than documented facts. I know this because I used to be KJV Only and used all the same tactics. Modern translations (NASB, ESV etc…) are more accurate because they translate the words more accurately and intend to communicate the author’s intent rather than just the words that we can then misinterpret.
Glad to hear you got out of it! That gives me hope. I've not run into this issue in real life. (Yet.) I've just seen it online.
@Yesica1993Me too. Honestly, just being willing to be educated on how we got our Bibles was all I needed to get out of it. Most KJVO’s are given a revision of history and Bible transmission but once you actually study the history and documentation, it is intellectually dishonest to remain a KJVO.
@@ReformedChristianStudy or people truly believe they have the pure words of God that have been preserved for them just like the Almighty promised they would be. You people have itching ears and love to heap to yourselves teachers that tell you what you want to hear out of a Bible that has been watered down and when you don’t like what you hear you switch to another one. This will all come out at the judgement seat so heed this warning to examine your own heart. God has given us his perfect word 7 times purified so id tread carefully spending so much time and effort of your life trying to cut it down.
@@Tango_Yankee7Your assertion is simply your opinion with nothing to substantiate your claim. The fact of the matter is, the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus and the Textus Receptus is based on specific copies of Codex Basilensis all of which date from 12th century to the 15th century. Even the Textus Receptus disagrees with the Majority text in over 2,000 places. The fact of the matter is, there are readings in the KJV that have never been seen at all in Church History until 1,000 years after Christ and the Apostles. That should be very alarming for any Bible believer.
@@ReformedChristianStudy let me just ask you this. If the KJB is not God’s word, then which version is?
What about those who don’t understand English?
I respect Wes a lot but he doesn't mention one of the main reasons for being KJV... God provides many clues to the KJV being the perfect word - if you listen to Brandon Peterson's many proofs it is impossible to argue. I would love to see Wes do so. God Bless all.
Even Mark Ward has already debunked Brandon's numerology. The Quran can do the same thing with the number 19. It's all superstitious and should not be used as any kind of support for the reliability or authenticity of Scripture. 🤦♂
Wes is just becoming an idol to many now. One should not be wise in their own conceits. He might have knowledge in certain areas but he's not right about everything. I've seen other bible versions twist scripture and try to diminish the power of the scripture that's found in the KJV text.
@@jonathanchaney5896 If you don't believe God can preserve his words then what is your foundation of belief?
@ who said I believed God couldn’t preserve His words??
@ it’s ironic that KJV onlyism is talking about something being an idol. 🤔
If it was good enough for the apostle Paul its good enough for me😫😫
Kjv bible all the way! It's about the truth
There are so many mistakes, but it is a good translation
It's a decent translation but acting like it's THE WAY, is absolutely idolatry. You worship a physical book
That doesn’t make any sense dude. We have the manuscripts used to make it + thousands more to make a more accurate and modern version. The ESV of today is much more beneficial to the modern reader than the KJV.
Yeah sure, like if every Christian believer all speak English for all generations! C’mon man!
Which statement in this video did you disagree with and upon what biblical basis? Give the time stamp.
What do ya'll think- Josh McDowell in 'The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict', to prove the authenticity of "the bible" pointed to as evidence the bible is'
1. Unique in its influence on civilization pg.15
2. Unique in its influence upon Literature pg.14 (and the English language)
3. Unique in its survival through criticism pg.9
4. Unique in its circulation pg.7-8
His reasonable conclusion was not that this proves the bible is the word of God, but superior to all other books. Couldn't these also point to KJV?
Every word in the KJV is 100% inspired and preserved by God himself. Others are all counterfeit. You guys are looking towards man and what they say and did, and not toward what God says about his word and his book.
Amen!
Which KJV are you referring to? Do you mean the original which contained the apocrypha, or the later revisions which were updated for an evolving English language? If the update in 1769 is permissible in your view, what would be the problem with simply using the New King James version?
Fallible men translated the KJV too. By looking to the KJV alone you are also relying on man
@@brianstringfellow3670 The Apocrypha in the 1611 King James Bible was placed in a separate appendix between the Old and New Testaments and not with the rest of the text; thus the KJV translators did not actually consider the Apocrypha as sacred Scripture.
Your second point is true though and causes major problems with a radical KJVO position.
Is there a concordance similar to Strong's that isn't based in the KJV?
The fact that the KJV is so controversial tells me it’s the right one
It's suspicious to me that the people who reject the KJV likewise reject every version in every language and every Greek & Hebrew text as erroneous. Scholarship-onlyism is their alternative.
Something being controversial doesn't make it right.
@@athembelemabiza3377 I believe that was a tongue in cheek comment.
@ why is it the one everyone attacks?
@@TheRedpillExperiment The attacks started back with critical scholars in the mid 1800's wanting to eliminate the TR as authoritative without their input.
Everyone Loves the King James!!! Even Wes YAY 😂😂😂
He directs people to away from God's word. That's not love.
Considered a cult for not wanting keep change the Bible and believing God preserved his word in a book nice lol
The Bible was not written in King James English or any English because it did not exist lol
@ where is the Bible then? Do you believe any English Bible is the word of God?
Is there anything wrong with choosing a translation with more modern language if it is just as accurate as the KJV?
@@justinjustin4605"where is the Bible then" what language was it originally written in?
@@Mustachedmystyerioso where it lines up with the kjv is fine. In terms of verses not taken out and the meaning of the verse is not altered. For example John 1:1 reads the same in almost every English version that’s still the word of God regardless but in verses like 1 Tim 3:16 where God is changed to He those are important changes if you care at all but many don’t.
The reason people hold to the kjv is mainly because the church has given over the authority of holding the scriptures to textual critics who tell us now which verses should and shouldn’t belong in the Bible. And their methods are never conclusive and can never produce a stable text for the past 100 years it keeps changing. In 50 years the new modern translation will have verses removed which are in your Bible today. Even a verse pole John 3:16 is subject to be removed if they found an old manuscript without it.
Further dumbing down words to make it ‘easier’ for modern readers is not the right approach. Yes there are hard words in the KJV but instead of dumbing it down we should level our selves up and learn it. Millions read the KJV and learn its word it’s not a foreign language like people make it out to be. And you the modern readers are not as dumb as these people make it sound where you’re not capable of learning/ reading the KJV. Further the words in the KJV sound more authoritative words like therin whereby are legal terms etc. we wouldn’t want to dumb down things like our constitution or Shakespeare etc. I know not everyone is at the level to read a KJV you can’t teach calculus to some one that doesn’t know how to add. But instead we should grow in knowledge and learn. Also having unity of Bible helps a lot as everyone is quoting the same verse in the same phrasing etc. for example you always hear “the love of money is the root of all evil” while that verse is not phrased like that in any modern translation only the kjv.
But it’s outlandish to consider this position a cult lol. There’s no cult leader or anything. There’s no idolatry no one bows down to the kjv. There’s bad apples in every group which you can’t control. But saying it’s a cult it’s unfair representation. Many people that are anti kjv are literally just “modern version only” which one can say is a cult that bows down to the textual critics.
When was this taped?
@WesHuff do you have an infographic that shows the ancient manuscripts laid out chronologically showing when they were created or written?
I don't think so but he should make that! His info graphics are very nice
What about the NKJV??
The worst.
The Ethiopian Bible is older than the KJV. (Christianity was in Africa before it was in Europe.) 😊
I love the LSB, which uses "Yahweh" in the OT. I also use ESV and NASB as well as CSB. I do not care for the NIV.
I use Strong's Concordance, which is based on the KJV, to understand the meaning of words in the Hebrew and Greek in any specific verse. Hebrew is an amazing language. For one thing, Hebrew has many words for one word in English, and I believe it is important to understand the deeper meaning of these words, which gives us illumination into what the writers are trying to convey. Furthermore, since God is the Author and the originator of the Hebrew language and its alphabet, He is the one who chose the specific Hebrew words (as well as the Aramaic and Greek) in every verse.
LSB and KJB✌️
Soli Deo Gloria ☝️