Видео

I appreciate your openness to discussion, and it’s great that you grew up with the KJV. However, I’d challenge your view that the KJV isn’t “special.” The fact that it’s been trusted for over 400 years, leading countless people to Christ and being central to major revivals, speaks to its unique place in history. You mention the 1769 revision, but that update was primarily about standardizing spelling and punctuation, not changing the text or the meaning of Scripture. The underlying translation remains faithful to the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Text, which many believe are God’s preserved Word, unlike modern versions that rely on texts like the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus with omissions and contradictions. While it’s helpful to reference multiple versions for study, doesn’t using versions with significant differences introduce confusion? If God promised to preserve His Word (Psalm 12:6-7), wouldn’t it make sense that there’s one version that stands out as complete and unaltered-like the KJV? Knowing some Greek and Hebrew is valuable, but even the most skilled linguists recognize their limitations. God gave His Word to everyday people, not just scholars. The KJV’s accuracy and literary depth allow even those who don’t know the original languages to trust they’re holding the full counsel of God. What’s your take-if God preserved His Word, which version do you believe fulfills that promise without question?

Hi Glenn! It’s great to hear from someone who values reading Scripture across translations. Your observation about 1 Timothy 5:16 is really interesting and highlights why I hold to the KJV as the preserved Word of God. The KJV’s inclusion of “believing men and women” reflects the broad responsibility within the church, while modern translations like the NASB77 narrowing it to just “believing women” seems to miss the bigger picture. That difference might not seem huge at first, but doesn’t it raise the question: Why should modern versions alter such details if God’s Word is meant to be preserved faithfully? This reminds me of Jeremiah 23:29-30, where God says: “Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces? Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal my words every one from his neighbour.” These verses highlight how serious it is to tamper with God’s Word-removing or altering even the smallest details robs people of the full truth. This is why I stick with the KJV-it doesn’t rely on the same critical texts that modern translations use, which often contain omissions and changes. The KJV stands as a testament to God’s promise to preserve His Word for every generation (Psalm 12:6-7). I’d love to hear your thoughts-do you think these small changes in modern translations could impact how we understand Scripture?

@dantombs5697 Thanks for you reply. In answer to your question, yes I do. What I find troubling at times is when a version comes out saying that it is based on the TR and that it keeps with the KJV, just modernises the language, yet departs so far from it in translating such passages as Daniel 9:26. Most modern versions say that Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, which is very troubling. Even the MEV does this. The NKJV, to it's credit, keeps with the KJV rendering, which is quite legitimate and literal, "but not for himself". The phrase "for himself" is the translation of the Hebrew lo, which is used in Leviticus 16 to describe Aaron as offering a bull for himself as atonement for himself and his house. The KJV translators also offered that as a possible rendering in their margin, but obviously saw the significance of their rendering to fulfilment of this verse by Jesus. Another unfortunate translation issue us when they have neuteralised the use of gendered language in translation. One example is in Numbers 9:2, where the KJV says to keep the passover 'at his appointed season'. Whose appointed season? Jesus'! It was His season to be the slain as our passover lamb! What I love about the KJV is that they translate the same Hebrew words in different ways depending on context, and often deliberately to show the ambiguity of the words. And sometimes they are insightful, and make a connection with New Testament references that modern translations miss. For example, in Genesis 22:14, modern translations render jireh as provide. Although the KJV does translate jireh as "provide" in Genesis 22:8, in verse 14, they translate it as "seen". And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen. Interestingly enough, this connects with something Jesus says in John 8:56; Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Without that rendering in the KJV, a reader might not see that connection. That is one of the reasons I am KJV, becsuse it helps me see the connections more clearly, rather than obscuring them. What is important to remember is that Christ Jesus said His words would never pass away. The tragedy is that many modern translations do away with some of His words. How are we to obey Christ if we don't have His words! Thankfully though, He is the Word of god, and by Him, by faith in Him, we can know God. We can know Him and know His voice and follow Him. For reference, not boasting, since October 7th 2023 I have read on average the whole Bible cover to cover every month. So 15 times since then. 12 times in the KJV, twice in the NASB77, and once in the NIV. I did this at the Lord's instruction and by His strength, because I have no chance doing it in my own strength. So yes, thank you again for your comment. I don't like mudslinging, or throwing insults as that is totally antichrist. I'd rather bring His light into a dark place. Bless you

@@glennomac7499 Wow, thank you for your thoughtful reply! It’s amazing to hear how much time you’ve spent reading the Bible-Now that's incredible...15 times since October is incredible! That kind of dedication really shows your love for God’s Word, and I admire that. I completely agree with your concerns about modern translations changing key passages. Daniel 9:26 is a great one. The KJV’s “but not for himself” clearly shows Jesus’ sacrifice-it’s so powerful. Changing it to “and have nothing” in modern versions takes away that meaning and makes it harder to see Christ’s role as our Savior. Why would anyone want to water that down Hey? You’re also right about Genesis 22:14. The KJV’s “it shall be seen” connects so beautifully to Jesus’ words in John 8:56, where He says Abraham “saw my day and was glad.” Modern versions miss that connection- the KJV doesn’t just translate-it opens up deeper truths about Jesus that other translations hide. please check out my website theperfectbible.org I share your frustration with gender-neutral language in modern versions. When Numbers 9:2 says “his appointed season” in the KJV, it points to Jesus as the Passover Lamb. Changing that to something generic misses the big picture. It’s like modern versions are making it harder to see how the Bible all fits together. Most importantly, as you said, Jesus promised in Matthew 24:35 that His words would never pass away!!!. But modern translations keep removing or changing His words. How can we fully obey Him if we’re not even sure what His words are? That’s why I stick with the KJV-it’s trustworthy and doesn’t compromise. Thank you again for sharing your heart. Your love for God and His Word is clear, and I pray He continues to give you strength and deeper understanding as you bring His light to others. Keep up the amazing work, blessing dear brother!

Not buying your logic here, it was put in between the old and New Testament, it was never considered canon, and it wasn't towed as life-changing scriptures because we all know it contains lies and errors, but we understand some of the history that might have affected the early church.. They read it so they put it in for casual reading.

@ Don’t buy my logic if you like. But by doing so, you reject your own logic. I never said the Apocrypha was canonical. I merely stated that the KJV only crowd cannot claim to be KJV only if they use a KJV Bible without the Apocrypha. This is a historical fact. I leave it to the KJV only crowd to argue amongst themselves whether they are true KJV only, or Pseudo-KJV only. If, by their definition of KJV only, they use the KJV in it original form with the Apocrypha, in a proper context and not ignore it, then they can honestly claim to be KJV only. If they do not, then they are hypocritical Pseudo-KJV only, and should be completely ignored as completely ignorant of history.

@@stephenkneller9318 @stephenkneller9318 I see where you’re coming from, but your argument misses the historical context and intent behind the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the original KJV. The Apocrypha was included for historical reference, not as inspired Scripture. It was placed between the Old and New Testaments, clearly separated, and the translators explicitly stated it was not part of the canon. The KJV-only position is about the inspired, preserved Word of God, and even the original KJV translators didn’t consider the Apocrypha as such. By your logic, anyone using a KJV Bible today without the Apocrypha is somehow less faithful to the KJV’s legacy-but that’s like saying you’re not truly driving a Ford if it’s missing a model-specific accessory that Ford no longer endorses. If the Apocrypha was never considered canonical, and if its removal was a logical progression to align with the canon recognized by Jesus and the apostles, why would using a modern KJV without the Apocrypha make someone “hypocritical”? Wouldn’t it actually demonstrate faithfulness to the KJV’s purpose as the preserved Word of God? Let’s focus on what matters: the KJV has stood as the inspired Word of God for over 400 years, with or without the Apocrypha. Does your argument really discredit that legacy-or does it just CLOUD the real issue?

@ You are shifting the goal posts to maintain the argument. Does the original KJV include the Apocrypha? Yes. Can one claim to be KJV only by using a version of the KJV without the Apocrypha? No. That is where the hypocrisy lies. One can hold the Apocrypha as non-canonical, yet useful and good to read. The original translators of the KJV held the same view as Luther on the Apocrypha. Furthermore, the Apocrypha adds historical context to explain why the Old Testament has Levitical Priests, while the New Testament demonstrated differences such as Sadducees, Pharisees, and Samaritans, among other differences, differences which non-Apocrypha KJV only will admit, based upon the Apocrypha, while rejecting the same. One cannot claim to be KJV only if they do not include everything that was part of the original KJV. If they do so, they are hypocrites as well as historically ignorant. And the later seems to be the biggest problem for most KJV only people.

@@stephenkneller9318 You seem to misunderstand the distinction between being “KJV-only” and affirming every historical decision made in its original publication. Let’s clarify a few things: 1. Was the Apocrypha in the original KJV? Yes, but even the KJV translators explicitly stated it was not canonical, inspired Scripture. They included it for historical context, not as part of the preserved Word of God. The Apocrypha was treated as separate-unlike the Old and New Testaments-and its later removal was a natural step in refining the Bible’s alignment with the canon accepted by Jesus and the apostles. 2. Does removing the Apocrypha undermine KJV-onlyism? Not at all. Being “KJV-only” means affirming the KJV as the preserved Word of God, free from the doctrinal changes or omissions found in modern translations. Since the Apocrypha was never considered inspired, removing it doesn’t compromise the KJV’s role as God’s Word-it strengthens its focus on the canon. 3. Your “hypocrisy” argument falls flat. If the Apocrypha was included but clearly marked as non-canonical, how does its absence today make someone a hypocrite? By your logic, anyone not adhering to every historical decision of the KJV translators is disqualified from appreciating their work. Should we also insist on keeping the marginal notes they included? Finally, let’s not confuse appreciating historical context with elevating uninspired writings to a level of authority. The Apocrypha may add insights, but it’s not essential to understanding Scripture. Why hold onto something even the original translators admitted was not part of God’s preserved Word? If anything, recognizing this distinction shows a commitment to Scripture, not hypocrisy. What do you think? You a KJVO'r now?

Greetings, brother in Bangkok! It’s wonderful to see your love for the KJV and your dedication to sharing God’s Word with others. I appreciate your heart for helping Thai people understand Scripture-it’s clear you’re passionate about reaching others for Christ. That said, I’d encourage you to reflect on this: modern versions like the NASB and NKJV, while helpful in some ways, rely on different Greek texts (NA/UBS for the NASB and partially critical texts for the NKJV) than the KJV, which is based on the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus has been trusted by Christians for centuries as God’s preserved Word, while the critical texts often omit or change verses, as seen in passages like Matthew 18:11 (“For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost”), which is missing in many modern versions. Even when using modern versions for clarity, it’s worth asking: Do we risk introducing confusion or incomplete truth when relying on texts that differ from the Bible God has used to change lives for centuries? Jeremiah 23:30 reminds us of the danger of “stealing” God’s words, and that’s why I stay with the KJV-it’s preserved and unaltered. I’d love to hear your thoughts. Have you found differences between the NASB, NKJV, and KJV that make you pause and reflect on which one truly aligns with God’s promise to preserve His Word (Psalm 12:6-7)?

You know, love is not easily offended, and we seem to be harder with those that we feel our family. But his Christians, we believe some crazy things don't we, we believe that there's only one God all the rest of false, we believe there's only one religion all the rest of false, and I guess we only believe there's one holy and accurate Bible, all the rest are perversions. So instead of KJVO they could be called PPO's for version preferred onlyist, but in good love and in a sense of not cutting out their ears, we ought not do that. What do you think, dear brother?

There are extremists in every group. The trouble with extremists is they often don’t like being exposed.

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Romans 12:18 (KJV)

@@ApostolicReview77 I definitely like 2. & 3. on your list. If you get a chance, you should try the BSB and EHV.

I’ve heard of that one. I generally dislike a translation that has been “modernized.” Just use the NKJV.

I agree, the poetry is beautiful.

I am going to be "that guy" here . . . ahem . . . Yeah actually multiple bible translations can compare, more specifically, English translations made before the KJV. The Geneva can compare cuz it and the KJV are like 95% the same . . . and the Geneva came before the KJV. I do not read Hebrew but I would imagine to native speakers of Hebrew, who can also read ancient Hebrew, the original "sounds" better to them. The Bible is superior to other books in that it "sounds" beautiful no matter what language or dialect you put it in.

@@davidw6684 Dude, do you know who William Tyndale is. Yeah, your not that guy. Tyndale's translation predates the Geneva by, according to the English Hexapla i got in front of me, 33 years. But in a way you are correct, we must not forget those that influenced and gave their life so we could have the scriptures in English dispite the diabolical attempts of popery to stamp it out. But as we can plainly see today they still hate that book and its father, the honorable, pious, Christian Martyr, William Tyndale. We owe all our thanks for having the Scriptures in English to him and men like him.

And that strawman you set up about poetry in other languages, I agree 100%, man you crushed that guy bad. Good job!

@@davidw6684 Seems to me that one of my comments got deleted, specifically the one about the Geneva Bible being influenced by William Tyndale whose own translation (which predated the Geneva Bible, according to the English Hexapla i have in front of me, by 33 years.) served as the standard text for both the Geneva and AV. At least give credit where credit is due, to the brave pious martyr, William Tyndale who was murdered by popery because of his works, we owe him and those like him all our thanks for every version of the Holy Scriptures in English.

Did you even listen? I said the differences in the textual source are much ado about nothing. But go ahead wit yo bad self.

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I believe we have a responsibility to get it right and if there are multiple choices only one can be right.

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews And see that's why i'm being critical about your statement. There are textual sources and then there is the Word of God. Jesus talks about jots and tittles not passing away. That would suggest to me that he has preserved his word to the T, every I doted and every T crossed. There is the Word of God in English and then there's everything else. The Jewish scribes who over the millennia reproduced the books know what i'm talking about and i'm sure you do as well. Question, do you think God incapable of making an uncorrupt English version of his Word? And if so please let me know which version? I know RUclips comments can come off as combative and i assure you that is not my tone. Scholarly debate is healthy and edifying for all.

I'm remarkably surprised at how easy the NKJV reads.

Tell me you’re KJVo without telling me you’re KJVo.

@ dear brother, good job at bringing this topic up, and the one thing about believers are we were not easily offended. But I like talking about it and I think it’s important to really get out of our echo chambers and we can see all the sides clearly. If it’s an elephant, I don’t wanna think it’s a rhinoceros. How about you?

I mean not all of them. It depends on the extreme.

😮 not quite sure what you mean I’d be interested in knowing more about this. Are you talking about the Chinese government rewriting the Bible?

Well it actually doesn’t officially bear his name it is called the Authorized Version. Also King James had nothing to do with the translation. He was just the king when it was translated.

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I know. It's just creepy, that's all. There are other good translations.

You struggle to understand English? I would suggest a Dictionary but i don't know what language you speak.

Sons of God.

Here we gooooo!!

Did you even watch the video?

Always appreciate your comments Joe. And yes, the canon of the scripture was certainly not concrete it was also hardly as fluid as you describe. Translation of the New Testament has been going on for over 1700 years. I also think you overstate the variants between the textual sources to include the majority and its effect on inspiration.

God sees the beginning as easy as he see the end, as far as hes concerned there has never not been a English Bible. Have you ever attempted to accept the free gift of Grace? I couldn't hurt unless you are afraid of ridicule from your fellow lost souls.

Want to see something cool go to psalm 46 in your KJV count 46 words in from the beginning and 46 words in from the ending omitting selah. Supposedly Shakespeare put that in there himself but i don't know. Thinking about this makes me want to get a Tyndale Old testament and see if that still holds true. Never mind, it seems as if the popeist murdered him before he had a chance to interpret the Psalms.

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews Hugs to you Tim. And I bought a super cheap NKJ New Testament online for the textus rectus reference this time through the NT, it is on the way, but turns out I had an NKJV NT in the junk behind the seats of my trunk, found it looking for something else.. Inerrancy should be without error. It makes no matter to me, I bring it up because it is so often preached. For example, consider the long ending of Mark. No it does not change anything, but only one version is correct. The other is wrong, a mistake or intended, but whichever right make the other wrong and that text is not inerrant. Col 4:16 says: And when this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and see that you read also the letter from Laodicea. So to that early church, was the letter from Laodicea scripture? or was the letter to the Colossians not yet scripture? Because from what is written here, to omit that letter, after a directive to read it is suspect to my thinking. You can argue that God knew what would be included, but tell that to an illiterate church goer hearing the scripture read in the first century. He would have thought anything read from the pulpit scripture. To call something scripture, or the word of God, or inerrant, is problematic. It is said the first nearly complete collections of the NT were from about 200 ad. That means it is likely that there was a lot of other stuff floating around too, and not all churches would have agreed with that first lit. Again, it is very problematic to call something inerrant.

That is 200 years of other stuff being called scripture as well.

NASB Preaching Bible may be an option for you, but it’s a double column.

Then put me in the first camp, 😁

Isn’t that repeated elsewhere making it pretty much moot?

@@anickelsworthbiblereviewsI see what you’re saying and I agree, but after reading through the KJV last year it changed me on my thinking and now it just bothers me, so I decided to become a TR only person. I just like the NKJV to much to become a KJO person

The reason why most translations of Revelation 1:11 omit "I am the alpha and omega" is because that phrase only appears in the Textus Receptus version of Revelation. To the best of my knowledge, this phrase does not appear in any other Greek manuscript traditions (it is missing from both the Byzantine majority text type as well as the Alexandrian texts). It is also missing from the Latin Vulgate of Revelation 1:11. Based on this it seems very unlikely that this was part of the original text of Revelation 1:11 and was probably inserted there by a scribe based on the phrases' repeated appearances in Revelation 1:8, 21:6, 22:13.

Unfortunately the NKJV is double column.

@anickelsworthbiblereviews it's kind of what I've been seeing not exactly the same as one you showed. Thanks anyway

Nlt was first Bible I read cover to cover. It’s a decent translation but sometimes it is just too different for me. John 1:1 as an example. It just sounds really different. But there are some things like numbers and measurements that they do very good with. Also to help understand a challenging passage. I agree with Tim now on it. I consult it as if it is more like a commentary or devotional.