Видео

The LORD chose to leave out…or put into…the KJB1611…thousands of words…which remain essentially the same in all of the KJB’s that followed to 1769…these words are NOT word for word in underlying ancient sources..but need to move the truth forward and to make this English language HOLY Bible, a global universal foundation for the worldwide population of English users, both native and second language…just as precise without error, as He wanted…and His holiness demands…and to miraculously, ALSO numerically reveal perfectly His “signature” and authorship…using embedded coded math patterns with stunning mathematical precision…irrefutable…look at all the italicized words that are not found in any underlying texts of any TR, Latin or Greek…God, the Holy Ghost superintended the words of the KJB for absolute HOLY purity…and even the layout and construction, is revealed to be the most precise of all time in the final purified 1769 KJB…exact! Just as He wanted it…and He chose that the word “God” (a Gothic language derived word “Goth”, that later moved into the Anglo Saxon and eventually English) was clearly NOT His choice to include in Rev. 1:8…) See the Video called “The Elton Anomaly” at Truth is Christ YT channel…this example you cite was intentional and the italicized words are also essential for ALL of the uncovered math patterns found thus far…and more are being discovered by a growing number of researchers using PureBibleSearch.com…the discoveries are repeatable on your own computer for verification…the “Elton Anomaly” discovery (the person’s first name of an anonymous contributor that did not want the focus on him but the glory going solely to the LORD for the discovery, shows that this pure 1769 Cambridge Bible word count comes to 7 to the 7th power…mind blowing…and Brandon and his wife Laura, manually verified it and included that lengthy process in the video…and they explain how the cover title, and book titles are a part of the count. Earlier KJB editions including the 1611 have the majority of the same key math patterns, especially related to SEVEN, but refinements continued forward as newer purified editions came forward in time…standardizations of spellings (affecting letter counts), words conjoined that were two words in earlier editions or hyphenated in earlier editions (affecting word counts)…also the uses of “LORD” and “Lord” had to be refined and made consistent for the final 1769…Brandon’s videos cover these “microscopic” purifications by the LORD’s supernatural guidance of the preservation and perfection process. Truly Psalm 12 is quite literal in meaning, now that we have this amazing evidence. You owe yourself and your subscribers a thorough examination of this research…if you can explain all of this evidence away, and choose to continue down the road you have chosen on “inspiration” and “infallibility”, I will still count you as a brother desiring truth and the furtherance of the “glorious Gospel” to win the lost. Kind regards, Lance When I mention about the italicized words I am not referring to Dynamic Equivalency which is used very sparingly in the KJB…such as “God forbid”, which is not found word for word in the Greek NT in Paul’s quotation in Romans…but the honesty of the KJB scholars is intentional when they reveal the added words to convey what God was communicating in the “Original languages” (not “originals” which we don’t have by God’s intention) …but the KjB is a much more formal equivalency than the NIV and other modern “bibles”.

Man I’m ready for the rest of this series.

🐑 A solid summary.

🐑🐑🐑 It’s amazing how much light the Bible shines on all these theories. Thank you brother for another fine video. Blessings!

I want you to know i really appreciate this series!! As a Calvinist myself, I have often thought that the PSA theory of the Atonement contains many of the other theories. But the main theory as i see it is PSA

I'm still listening. I've enjoyed it so far. Thanks.

Good work layong this out sir 🐑

I'm pretty new to this stuff. Is the word atonement ever scriptural? My English Greek Concordance has the word conciliation. And my Concordant Literal 2 Corinthians 5:19 writes: ...God was in Christ, conciliating the world to Himself, not reckoning their offenses to them, and placing in us the word of the conciliation. The good news, the gospel, right? True whether one believes it or not. Everyone EVENTUALLY is saved. Those who are saved FIRST are the esply of believers Paul mentions. The mistake of Calvinism is replacing the FIRST with the ONLY. But at the consummation, after the last, fifth eon, when our Lord abolishes death (and at that time only those dead in the Lake of Fire, the SECOND death, are still dead), all are vivified, given life beyond death. So many do not know the truth of the eons. The word in Greek is Aion satanically mistranslated eternity where the obvious translation is Eon. The five eons. HUGE difference HUGE truth. Since the flood we have been in the third what Paul called the most wicked eon. Two GOOD eons remain: the 1000 years and the new heavens and earth. Such words as eternity eternal everlasting forever and ever do not exist in a properly translated Scripture. You Tube something like The meaning of Aionios. God is love and has no fellowship with eternal punishment. That would be Satan having fellowship with bible translators. Wow, how successful that fellowship has been. But I digress. That God was in Christ on the cross already conciliated would seem to debunk somewhat the moral example theory of atonement. The substitutionary atonement I've heard people argue mistakes FOR with INSTEAD. They argue that Jesus was punished FOR us and our sins but not INSTEAD of us. That we, too, will be punished for them, at least for those who die before they are given faith to believe the gospel. Those who are given faith become either members of the body of Christ who are snatched away before Jacob's trouble begins and are not appointed to His Father's indignation, or are members of the bride of the Lambkin and are given protection during the tribulation. Whether God punishes those who believe before they're raptured or before Jacob's trouble begins I'm not sure. Does the ransom Satan theory have any Scriptural support? You did a good objective job from what i can tell. I'm assuming limited is in the sense Calvinists if not most Christians do not believe all will even eventually be saved.

🐑🐑🐑 Thank you for tackling this topic and taking your time with it, it is vitally important! I agree with PSA and am all in, it is 100% biblical. Appreciate your work here.

Really good synopsis of the theoretical frameworks as developed and their main implications. Thank you.

🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑

I had a discussion with some of my family the other day on the subject of Calvinism, and during the discussion, my BIL stated that He’ll isn’t punishment for sin- it’s just separation from God. How he logics that out in light of Scripture, I’m not sure. I’m concerned that his view may be somewhat heretical, but he’s so stubborn I’m afraid any sort of confrontation will end up with him stonewalling. 🐑

🐑

🐑🐑

I think your efforts in making these videos is massively helpful and important. I grew up reformed but was not aware of all the historical theories that took place in making a very different doctrines. I was raised on the Belgic confession and the Heidelberg Catechism but did not see the value in these until recently. All I knew was if something was different then what I was taught it must be wrong. Thank you for doing this. May God bless you and keep you.

Thanks brother!

Sadly, I just don’t think many believers even think through the history and gravity of the terms they use, even less have a basic definition of them. Yet it doesn’t stop them from confidently retorting against their opponents. Thanks for this video. You packed a lot into a small space. 🐑

This isn't just a video on Atonement Theories, it's a 4K Pastor Jonathan Burris video on said subject! ;)

O boi did I just land first comment?!

Just Curious are you a Calvinist ?

Boomhower! That was unexpected and hilarious.

U missed geneva bible Willinghams edited tyndales to delete all latin inluences. Ex. Easter in tyndales is changed to Passover in geneva bible

Dispensation teachings are right. I don't understand why was Paul prevented from water baptism to administer.

10:04 Brother, I would like to offer a correction in love. The NETS translation of Isaiah 66:1-2 says, The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the poor, to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, 2 to summon the acceptable year of the Lord and the day of retribution, to comfort all who mourn So, at least that translation of the LXX does have a similar ending to the Masoretic text. I am not sure where you got your translation from, but it’s inaccurate or someone removed that part. I think it is likely Jesus left that last bit out of His reading because He didn’t come to fulfill that part during His first visit. Having said this, I think these verses can still be used as evidence that the LXX can be trusted and should be considered when one is seeking an understanding of what the OT originally said, but instead of mentioning what you said, focus on how the Masoretic leaves out the part in the LXX and Christ’s words that say “recovery of sight to the blind”. Hope this comment is helpful and is received in the spirit it is shared.

Did you know that in the Old Testament, the Bible book of the Song of Solomon, verse 5, verse 16, mentions the name Muhammad? חִכּוֹ מַמְתַּקִּים וְכֻלּוֹ מַחֲמַדִּים זֶה דֹּודִי וְזֶה רֵעִי בְּנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלָ⁠‍ִם׃ Chikko mamtakkim v’khullo machamadim, zeh dodi v’zeh re’i, b’not Yerushalayim

Did you know that in the Old Testament, the Bible book of the Song of Solomon, verse 5, verse 16, mentions the name Muhammad? חִכּוֹ מַמְתַּקִּים וְכֻלּוֹ מַחֲמַדִּים זֶה דֹּודִי וְזֶה רֵעִי בְּנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלָ⁠‍ִם׃ Chikko mamtakkim v’khullo machamadim, zeh dodi v’zeh re’i, b’not Yerushalayim

This 2 different gospels hyper Dispensationalism is frightening. There is 1 gospel and 1 body of Christ. Whoever is saying that the 4 gospels, James and Revelation is not for the Gentiles is preaching a different gospel.

I suppose the words "It is finished" has no relevance to this man. Wow. Thank you for doing these videos.

Poor animals, we’re selfish for dusting off our own sins and putting the punishment on them.

Opinion...opinion...opinion...

Pastor Jonathan! Please answer me. Why didn't Paul preach the water baptism as did the 12 apostles? If you have a video, do share the link. Thank you 🙏

The problem with the Critical Text is that it is drawn from only a few manuscripts from the early centuries of the Church, notwithstanding the claim that it is eclectic, which means that it ought to be dawn from all. The reason for this is that it is believed that the later (extant) manuscripts are not only later in time but late in the origin of their text. However, the very few manuscripts from which the Critical Text is drawn are discordant, which means that they differ greatly from each other. This in turn means that it is harder, or even impossible, to be sure which among their variants has the best claim to be the original reading. The Textus Receptus is in the main representative of the vast majority of later manuscripts, although it does have some readings added to it from the Latin Vulgate. Shorn of these, however, it does quite fairly represent the great tradition of the Eastern or Byzantine Church in multitudes of manuscripts which are highly homogenous. It is not hard to determine the 'true reading' from these as it is often quite a considerable majority. But is this 'true reading' of the later Eastern/Byzantine manuscripts what the apostles and their helpers wrote? This takes us back to the issue of whether this Eastern/ Byzantine text is late in origin. What is the archetype of this Byzantine or Eastern text? Hort tried to show that the Eastern/Byzantine text came from a series of official revisions which turned the discordant texts of the earlier (extant) manuscripts into the homogenous text of the later manuscripts. But that did not work, as there was no evidence that such a revision took place. Another way to explain the homogenous text of the later (extant) manuscripts arising from the discordant voices of the early centuries, was to say that it just arose by an unguided process of scribal habits. But the problem with this explanation is that the effect of an unguided process is more divergence, not less. The later manuscripts should have even more discordance among them than the earlier manuscripts, if they came from them. It seems, therefore, that they did not. There thus seems no good reason not to say that the source of the later manuscripts is that they are careful copies of the autographs themselves. This is especially so when the earlier manuscripts, when they differ among themselves, often agree with the Eastern text, against each other, which is easily explainable if the Eastern/Byzantine text is the original text from which they diverged, but at different places and in varying ways. And so the Textus Receptus, despite its faults, has made something of a comeback, and is likely to do so more. But readings should not have been added to it from the Latin Vulgate and that needs to be put right. The best text in the original Greek is either the one made by Dr Wilbur Pickering relying heavily on family 35 within the Byzantine tradition, or an English translation of that kind of text, a Byzantine Text Version made by Robert Adam Boyd.

I appreciate you doing this video I left that last Baptist church because of this issue . I do love the KJV nowadays but it’s not my favorite. I remember when I first opened the word of God, I heard that the KJV was the only way in my early walk so I tried to force myself to only learn from the KJV and I struggled understanding the word so carrying my dictionary with me was the thing. Ounce I tried other translations such as the NASB ,ESV ,the word of God opened up to me. I’m still learning of course but I can definitely understand the KJV now because of the other translations. I love the KJV and many other translations.i won’t give up on the KJV just because of men and I will not give up on God because of flawed men.

Some later Greek manuscripts and some ancient translations into other languages, with slight variations in wording, add: “Philip said to him: ‘If you believe with all your heart, it is permissible.’ In reply he said: ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’” However, these words do not appear in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts and are most likely not part of the original text of Acts.

Such reasoning, (aside from being inaccurate as Erasmus was deferring to older and purer manuscripts), contradicts the doctrine of preservation and promotes false doctrine. Scholarship only ism is Nicolatian nonsense.

FIND IN PALESTINE

I am really looking forward to the promised series. Pastor Jonathan has a gift to explain even complicated stuff.

Great introduction to the Doctrines of Grace. One thing that can be said about Calvinism as a system is that there is NO OTHER theological system which seeks to strip man entirely of any glory whatsoever and instead seeks to seek ONLY the Glory of God for all of his work in redemption from beginning (before the foundation of the earth and universe) till his final triumph when Christ returns to gather all of his elect throughout history for the final battle and the final judgment of the wicked and their Father the devil. When speaking of Calvin, American theological powerhouse B.B. Warfield said of Calvin, and I paraphrase, "If there is one trait Calvin possessed which characterized his entire life it is this, he had a holy jealousy for the glory of God in all things".His teaching wasn't the only thing that reflected this character trait. His personal walk with Christ as a husband, father, and pastor also exhibited it in spades. The volume of theological written works he produced, almost seemingly impossible for one man, have influenced Christians, theologians, and pastors for hundreds of years long after his death and are still influencing those same groups of people today. One cannot look at the life of Calvin and read his works and come away believing anything other than that he was a man who was completely sold out to Christ, the building up of His church, and furthering of His kingdom.

There are over 30,000 so-called "Christian denominations" and you are one of them. You are voicing your opinion criticizing others who have a different interpretation of the bible. But what make you the correct one among 30,000 denominations? You are all prodigal children of the Roman Catholic church and you all bring their doctrines with different points of view. All your traditions from the beginning emanate from Greek philosophers who converted to Christianity and you call them church fathers, who did not have a clue about the Mosaic laws and Jews thinking and traditions. thus injecting their world wisdom to create the convoluted gospel that is so prevalent today. Instead of criticizing others stick to preaching the simple message of the gospel in that Christ died, was buried and raised from the dead on the third day and ascended to heaven and is sitting a the right hand of God in victory and triumph --that if we confess that he died and paid the penalty that we deserved for violation his perfect laws, and confess with out mouth and believe in our hearts that God raised him from the dead, we shall be saved from hell where we all deserved to go, but God in his mercy sent his son to die for us, so that we don't have to end up in hell. It couldn't be simpler than that. That's were over 30,000 denominations deviate from and that is why over 30,000 gospels is preached today.

It's convenient to leave it out if you want to pra time infant baptism.

Not all can understand KJV. But it's true some versions have cleverly dropped some words deliberately to dilute to real meaning. I would suggest a non native English speaker to start with something like NIV and upgrade themselves to KJV which, in my opinion is the authentic version of Bible.

Good for you. Get out of jail came fast Lord bless. I find most people who are kjo people have issues. Next!

Armenianism you have to believe in Jesus to be saved. Calvinism you have to be saved to believe in Jesus.

Calvinism is a leech theology with disgusting conclusions attributed to God of The Bible. Christ of Calvinism or Jesus The Messiah. Choose well!

Thanks to Robert breaker for teaching the truth

AMEN!

1. Pastor Burris at 3:57 - 4:19: "John Calvin, you have to start with him obviously. John Calvin lived from 1509 to 1564, and he was critical to the development of the system that now bears his name. But he would have been livid to learn that his system was named after him. Calvin would have probably said something like this: I'm not a Calvinist, I'm a Biblicist, or I'm a Bible believer." Response - A. Quoting from Cottret, Bernard (22 May 2003). Calvin, A Biography. A&C Black. p. 239. ISBN 978-0-567-53035-6 - via Google Books: The term "Calvinist" appeared in 1552 in the writings of Joachim Westphal, a Lutheran pastor from Hamburg. Calvin was the first to deplore this term. He took exception to it in 1563 on the eve of his death, in his Latin commentary of Jeremiah (1565 for the French version): "They find no greater insult to attach to us ... than this word 'Calvinism,' but it is not hard to conjecture where such a mortal hate as they have for me comes from." - John Calvin, Leçons ou commentaires et expositions sur les révélations du prophète Jeremie, 1565 B. The immediate followers of John Calvin respected his dying wishes and NEVER referred to themselves as Calvinists, nor his teachings as Calvinism. In France his followers were known as Huguenots, in Scotland as Covenanters, and in England, Holland and the New England colonies as Puritans. It was not until the 19th century, approximately three hundred years after Calvin's death, that the followers of his teachings began to refer to themselves as Calvinists and his teachings as Calvinism. Likewise, at the same time it became common for those opposed to Calvin's teachings to refer to his followers as Calvinists and his teachings as Calvinism. C. Why would John Calvin consider the term 'Calvinism' to be "no greater insult" and evidence of "a mortal hate" towards him? Perhaps because in his two prefaces to the Institutes of the Christian Religion, (1) the Latin edition of 1537 presented to the French king and (2) the French edition of 1545 intended for the general reader, he considered the Institutes not to be authored by Calvin, but rather by God Himself, and that the Institutes should be memorized first before reading the Bible so that the reading of the latter might then become "profitable": (1) "But our doctrine [the Institutes] must stand sublime above all the glory of the world, and invincible by all its power, because it [the Institutes] is not ours, but that of the living God and his Anointed, whom the Father has appointed King ..." [Beveridge translation, Page 10, Paragraph 2; ntslibrary website, Institutes of the Christian Religion, pdf 18 of 944] (2) "And since we are bound to acknowledge that all truth and sound doctrine proceed from God, I [John Calvin] will venture boldly to declare what I think of this work [the Institutes], acknowledging it to be God's work rather than mine ... I exhort all, who reverence the word of the Lord, to read it [the Institutes] and diligently imprint it on their memory, if they would in the first place, have a summary of Christian doctrine, and, in the second place, an introduction to the profitable reading both of the Old and New Testament." [Ibid, Page 22, Paragraph 6; pdf 30 of 944] D. For John Calvin, to believe that God was the author of the Institutes of the Christian Religion would be consistent with its unique teaching on predestination as presented in the following two quotations: (1) Book III, Chapter 21, No. 5: "By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death." [Ibid, Page 568; pdf 576 of 944] (2) Book III Chapter 21, No. 7: "We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction." [Ibid Page 571; pdf 579 of 944] E. These two Institutes quotations on predestination above appear to be consistent with supralapsarianism and not infralapsarianism, since they refer to (1) "the eternal decree of God" and (2) "his eternal immutable counsel determined once and for all" without any reference to the fall of the human race through Adam and its consequences that characterize infralapsarianism. 2. Ezekiel 18:23, 32 (KJV): Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? ... For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye. 3. And if the King James Bible was good enough for the prophet Ezekiel ...

🌷

TULIP!!