KING JAMES BIBLE "ONLY" DEBATE: IS THE KJV THE ONLY REAL TRANSLATION? JAMES WHITE VS D.A. WAITE
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 окт 2024
- Larry Wessels, director of Christian Answers of Austin, TX/ Christian Debater (RUclips channel CANSWERSTV at / canswerstv ; see our playlist on "King James Onlyites" at • Dealing with Phony TV ... , websites: www.BIBLEQUERY.ORG, www.HISTORYCART..., & www.MUSLIMHOPE.COM) presents this radio debate between Dr James White, director of "Alpha & Omega" Ministries (website: www.AOMIN.ORG) & Dr. D.A. Waite, director of "Bible for Today Ministries." Larry Wessels also participated in the weekly radio broadcast called "In Defense of the Faith" which is the broadcast in which this "KJV Only" debate took place.
"King James Onlyites" & "Ruckmanites" (of Peter S. Ruckman) make a big deal about how other Bible translations are inferior or in some cases "Satanic" (as per Gail Riplinger's "New Age Bible Versions" & her supporters such as Texe Marrs - see our video response to this, copy & paste "New Age Bible Versions" & the "King James Only" Controversy - A Refutation" in the RUclips search box). But why hasn't this controversy been going on in the Christian church over the last 400 years since the KJV came out in 1611? Why does this controversy seem to be restricted only to the middle 1900s & beyond? There is a reason for this. The "King James Only" theory was started by a Seventh-Day Adventist & others then bought into it (much like any new cultic movement).
BENJAMIN WILKINSON. In the investigation of King-James-Version-Onlyism, (KJVO) just such a genealogy of error can be easily traced. All writers who embrace the KJV-only position have derived their views ultimately from Seventh-day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college president, Benjamin G. Wilkinson (d.1968), and then through one of two or three of his spiritual descendants. In 1930, he wrote "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated," a book of several hundred pages which attracted almost no attention in its day (no doubt because it was awash in a vast ocean of unmitigated error).
In that book, Wilkinson attacked the Westcott Hort Greek text, in large measure by attacking Westcott and Hort personally (the common but fallacious ad Hominem method).
He also expresses a strong opposition to the English Revised Version New Testament (1881), in particular objecting to it because it robbed Adventism of two favorite proof-texts, one allegedly teaching Gentile Sabbath keeping (Acts 13:42), the other misused by the Adventists to teach soul sleep (Hebrews 9:27).
Wilkinson was the first to misapply Psalm 12:6,7 specifically to the KJV as though the passage were a promise to preserve the words of verse six (when in fact the promise is the preservation of the persecuted saints of verse five).
Wilkinson also manufactured the erroneous idea that the medieval Waldensian Bible was based on the Old Latin version and not the Vulgate, and that the Old Latin version was Byzantine in its text-type (all of which is demonstrably false). Thus Wilkinson, is the first generation of KJV Onlyism.
J.J. RAY. Wilkinson's book lay unused and unknown (and how good it would have been had its errors died with him!), until 1955 when J.J. Ray, who is self-described as a "business manager, missionary, and Bible teacher" published a little volume, "God Wrote Only One Bible" (Ray is apparently still living, but we can find out nothing about him, and he refuses to reply to certified letters; if anyone can supply specific information about this man, we would greatly appreciate it). In his book, Ray heavily plagiarized, without note or acknowledgement, Wilkinson's book, repeating and propagating wholesale Wilkinson's errors and misstatements.
DAVID OTIS FULLER. The other chief disseminator of Wilkinson's misinformation was David Otis Fuller, a Regular Baptist pastor. Fuller must be counted as part of the third generation, since, according to Fuller's own words in the dedication of Counterfeit of Genuine (1975), Ray's book "God Wrote Only One Bible" were also repeatedly noted on pp. 2-4 of "Which Bible?" Fuller reads Ray; Fuller writes Ray for more information; Ray directs Fuller to Wilkinson; Fuller reads Wilkinson, is lead astray, then reprints Wilkinson in "Which Bible?"
In 1970, Fuller issued "Which Bible?", which was in its 5th edition by 1975 and contained 350 pages. Of those pages, almost half were taken from Wilkinson's "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated," with some editing, first to conceal from view Wilkinson's cult affiliation, and second, to correct some of the worst of his errors.
According to D.A. Waite, long associated with Fuller in KJVO matters, Fuller knew full-well that Wilkinson was an Adventist and deliberately concealed that fact from the reader, and even from the publisher [see note at end of article], because the Baptist brethren "wouldn't understand."
Go to www.BIBLEQUERY.ORG, click "Menu" & scroll to our KJV Only newsletter.
John 14:6
![KSI - Thick Of It (feat. Trippie Redd) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/At8v_Yc044Y/mqdefault.jpg)
![KSI - Thick Of It (feat. Trippie Redd) [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tXEPbotEjZE/mqdefault.jpg)
Both the NASB and the KJV Bibles are very accurate literal translations, of excellent scholarship, using the best copies of the original languages which were available to them. Both works clearly and accurately represent the Word of God. Literary quality is excellent for both works, and style is identical. In many places the NASB reads exactly or nearly the same as the KJV. When choosing between these two versions, there are various areas of contrast which I have listed in order of significance.
1. Readability - NASB. The New American Standard Bible uses contemporary language and punctuation, the King James version does not, being written almost 400 years ago, and virtually unchanged for about 120 years. The crux of the matter of readability is the difficulty of the Elizabethan English of the KJV, which is laborious to read even for those who are well educated and familiar with the texts, when compared to reading the same texts in the clearly written NASB in it's familiar modern format and natural vocabulary. Other readability issues include the use of quotations and poetic stanzas, small caps for Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, and capitalization of pronouns referring to deity. The NASB also recognizes Greek translations of Hebrew names and translates the names consistently, as opposed to the KJV which gives us multiple names for the same person; for example, the KJV calls Judah, the son of Israel, "Judas" in Matthew 1:2, because that's how it is in Greek. The NASB simply calls him Judah in both the Old and New Testaments; this is simpler to understand and just as accurate.
2. Quality of language translation - NASB. The King James version is excellent, but we have since learned a great deal about both ancient Greek and Hebrew. Our understanding of Greek has grown significantly, particularly with the discovery that the Greek Bible was in common Greek, but our understanding of Hebrew has vastly improved since the 17th century, during which time the ancient Hebrew was very poorly understood. The NASB clearly benefits from a better understanding of the languages, and presents not only closer translations, but provides notes for certain aspects of translation, as discussed above. When the NASB and KJV differ on the rendering of a text, which is not based on variance in the manuscripts, the NASB is usually more favorable to the original languages. Also, slight variations in words chosen and sentance forms used throughout the NASB reflect our current understanding of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, which has improved dramatically in 400 years.
3. Quality of manuscripts - NASB. The KJV was based on the manuscripts which were few in number, local in geography, and late in date. Archeology has, since the KJV, made almost all important manuscript discoveries - everything from the Dead Sea Scrolls back to the Rosetta Stone, all occur after the KJV. These new manuscripts can be found in conclusive families, based on history and geography, with standardized variations of content and recognizable progression of modifications. Today's critical texts are very broad based and careful reconstructions of the original writings, and cannot be reasonably discounted out-of-hand, nor can the published arguments of those who would demand the exclusive use of the Textus Receptus be validated, or even accepted as reasonable. To suppose that the much older, much more widely distributed manuscripts, in many languages, which have been discovered over the last 390 years are all corrupted and inferior to the sources for the KJV is incredible, to say the least.
4. Quality of Notes - NASB. While almost all KJV Bibles are published with some kind of notes, none are version inclusive. The NASB does include a particular set of notes with the text which pertain directly to the rendering. The first example of these notes is the notation of the literal translation in those instances where a word or phrase is not literal. A second set of notations identify certain passages as being included or excluded in various manuscripts, or giving readings found in alternate mss. Other advantages of text notes include the use of the small-capitals font when the New Testament is quoting the Old Testament, the marking of the Greek historical presents tense, and the capitalization of personal pronouns which refer to deity. The fact of the matter is that the English Bible is a translation, and as such, justifiably calls for adequate translation notes, notes which are bountiful in the NASB and completely absent from the KJV.
See our playlist "Dealing with Phony TV Preachers (TBN) & King James Onlyites" at ruclips.net/p/PL2CDA855486B09128. See also www.kjvonly.org/ & www. isawthelightministries.com/ kjv.html. 2 Timothy 2:15
Waite was willing to accuse modern translations of heresy in several specific passages, but wasn't willing to discuss potential translation errors in the KJV in other passages. Waite also didn't answer any of White's other points, but instead fell back on his talking points over and over again. I am very disappointed by his argumentation. Its seems to me that he attacks modern translations, merely because of his tradition not for any scholarly reasons.
I agree, though I'm not suprised. This is par for the course when it come to KJV only type folks. So unfortunate
Lance,
You’re on target w/the “tradition” argument
I love how Tex Marrs refuses to debate Dr. White, but was the FIRST caller to the program, and addressed Dr. Waite only.
I think I understand Waite's doctrine. He seems to be saying, "If you don't believe like I do then you are a heretic."
Dan
As soon as Dr Wait said "Let's not get into individual verses" I knew he didn't have an argument, because his entire case is built around individual verses!!! You can't just toss aside one sides arguments based on individual verses and then also attack individual verses to uphold your argument
This guy is talking but he is not saying anything. Good job on dodging every question
People in the KJVO Camp think Waite is the bees knees though. I know because I used to be one.
Just a note to say "thanks" for all the videos in defense of the Biblical Christian Faith.
RelationshipAndTruth You're most welcome. I appreciate the videos you've made as well. FYI, I just posted two more videos on our RUclips channel today, May 29, 2015: "Blasphemous Charismatic & Pentecostal Mayhem #4: Demonic Gifts? Open Violation of 1 Corinthians 14" at ruclips.net/video/Fved6CTcHH4/видео.html & "The Second Greatest Commandment - Loving Others As You Already Love Yourself - Matthew 22:39-40" at ruclips.net/video/7QAIk7JLdUI/видео.html which pushes our video total for our channel now to 619. Blessings. 1 Peter 3:15
If you ever listen to the actual recording of James White and Gail Riplinger from 1993, it’s actually quite entertaining.
While White barely got a word in edgewise in part one, the second part was a setup to prevent White from saying anything. Riplinger is NOT only ignorant but evil. Her lies about B.F.Westcott are NOT the product of a Christ-centered life or ministry - and she lies about many other people that would otherwise destroy her very profitable publishing empire.
Anyone who has been divorced three times and lies about ever having been divorced, has forfeited the right to be a spokesperson for the Word of GOD - even fan Dr. D. A. Waite had to repudiate her ministry - and that must have been hard for him to do - both of them being leaders in the KJO cult.
After that broadcast w/JW, Riplinger refused to debate ANYONE.
She, Tex Mar, & Peter Ruckman declined the invite to the John Ankerberg discussion in the link below
m.ruclips.net/video/E1R-TCpXb68/видео.html
Questions for KJV Only idolators:
Do we have freedom in USA read other Bible versions?
Are you forcing people read KJV Only? Is that legalism?
Show me in your KJV Bible that God or Jesus said "Read KJV only or go to hell"
Which KJV Bible was God's perfectly preserved translation in English? The one in 1611 or one of the revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or the last one in 1850? Please specify which one.
What was God's perfectly preserved translation in English before 1611? Please be specific in your answer.
If there was a perfectly preserved translation in English before 1611 why would God need to perfectly preserve a second one if the first one was perfectly preserved? Please give details and sources for these details.
If there was no perfectly preserved translation in English before 1611 why would God leave His people no perfectly preserved Word for 1611 years? Please give details and sources for these details.
Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation? Please give specific verses with proper exegesis and hermeneutics.
Is/was the Latin Vulgate the "word of God"? Why or why not? (Note: the Latin Vulgate was the standard Bible, by which all else was compared, more universally and for a longer period of time than the KJV has been)
Is/was the Septuagint (LXX) the "word of God"? Why or why not? (Note: despite its obvious imperfections and inclusion of apocryphal books, the KJV translators still called it "the word of God")
Is/was the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, Matthew's, Tyndale's, etc. the "word of God"? Why or why not?
Which edition (year) of the KJV is uncorrupted? Why do they differ, even occasionally in words? (And if your response has to do with printing problems, why would God inspire a perfect translation only to have it corrupted by the printers? The common people would still be lacking an uncorrupt word of God. And how can we know the printing errors were all found, and all properly fixed?)
Who publishes the uncorrupted KJV? Cambride, Oxford, Kirkbride, Scofield, AMG, Zondervan, one of the Bible Societies, or one of the many other publishers? Why do they differ slightly, even occasionally in words?
If passages like Psalm 12:6-7 and Matt 5:18 are about the KJV, what did these passages mean in 1610? In 1500? In 500 AD? Do these things, in the original context, have anything to do with a 17th century English translation of scripture?
When you encounter an archaic term or phrase in the KJV, or come across a "contradiction", why do you rely on fallible tools (dictionaries, etc) to interpret the infallible?
Suppose you lived in the 10th or 15th century. How would you define "preservation" as it related to God's word, so as to not contradict the KJV-only position?
AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THE "BIG 2" QUESTIONS
The KJV came out in 1611. Where was the "final authority", the "preserved word of God" in 1610 and prior? Why does the KJV differ from it, and how was it "final" if the KJV replaced it? Explain.
If scripture is the sole authority for matters of faith and doctrine, then by what authority should anyone accept the doctrine of KJV-onlyism? Since scripture does not teach the doctrine of KJV-onlyism, is it not then an extra-Biblical doctrine? Why should we accept a doctrine needing a second authority, proclaimed by those who argue that there is only one authority for matters of doctrine in the first place?
I personally look to the NASB as the most accurate English Translation, although it does get a bit wooden at times for devotional reading. I prefer the NIV for devotional reading but I compare translations for deeper study, as well as Greek/Hebrew word studies.
Dr. Waite demonstrates the same propensity we see among virtually all King James Onlyists --- a remarkable inability to clearly answer a direct, specific question. An outstanding job on the part of Dr. White.
KJV onlyism is once again shown to be completely lacking in any true intellectual arguments or thoughts.
Of course Dr Waite did not want to discuss individual verses, it would expose the error and insanity of his movement. We can't after all, discuss the very source(s) of the very crux of the debate. He brought a bb gun to a battleship fight.
Waite shows the characteristics of KJVOs - inability to get to specific verses, credence to undocumentable conspiracy theories, and naked filibustering when trapped while doing either of the above. Anything, in fact, except really take on the issues and accept the KJV is just another English translation, as the AV translators wrote in their Preface.
Hats off to Dr White for keeping his patience throughout this debate!
You know KJV Last the argument when their argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy, more precisely an irrelevance.
Very interesting, and a clear victory for James White, I would say. It was amazing to hear Dr. Waite say that he has to have "something" to preach from, so he has basically decided that it's going to be the KJV and Textus Receptus. Of course, this doesn't prove anything, but that is not unusual for the KJV-Only community; anything that is not the KJV is corrupt because it's not the KJV, and because they say so. And then there's the Texe Marrs interlude, which speaks volumes all by itself.
I grew up Jewish, went to Hebrew school, and had to read some scripture in Hebrew for my Bar Mitzvah before I ever got saved. Later, I studied Hebrew in Israel for a year, four hours a day, six days a week. We even looked at Hebrew scripture in class, which by the way, is part of the Bagrut, the Israeli college matriculation exams, comparable to our SATs. The whole argument for the perfect translation is one based on outright ignorance.
The KJV is like a black-and-white photo. The Bible in its original languages is like a color photo. Neither is trick photography, but which gives you more information? Never mind just what is translated correctly or incorrectly, but do you realize that the puns, the acrostics, and the meanings of the names and places do not get translated into English? SO MUCH gets lost in translation. No, you don't need the original languages to have a walk with Jesus Christ, just as we used to watch black-and-white TV before color TV came out. But to ignore the languages as a preacher commanded to "study to shew thyself approved unto God"? KJV-only in its extreme forms is a cultic teaching, for it subtly keeps a person from all that the scriptures teach by locking one into a translation. This teaching could not have taken root in the old days, when students in general and theologians in particular in the US were trained in language (including foreign languages), logic, and rhetoric.
LOVE THIS
Thanks! I've got hit with a bit of antisemitism, as I posted this on several you tube presentations. LOVE THIS is good news after dealing with that junk.
So the Bible is nothing but a bunch of dogmatic teachings? Read how Jacob's children were named in Genesis 29-30. All those names mean something, as does any Hebrew name. It’s quite poetic in Hebrew. Look at the puns, the acrostics. The virtuous woman of Proverbs has 22 verses, each starting with a subsequent letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Psalm 119 has eight verses each starting with the first letter, eight with the second, and continues that way until the end. None of this gets translated. The OT is quite poetic in many places, but all the poetry gets lost in translation.
We tend to get into battles about Christian dogma, yet the Bible is so much more. Ever wonder why we hardly hear Lamentations preached? Some of the chapters are acrostics, and some have two letters reversed. Figure it out, and you see more in Lamentations that any translation could give you. I didn't get deceived by black-and-white photos of the Viet Nam war, but when the photographers switched to color, including their movie film, so much more information was available.
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line; here a little and there a little, ever see THAT in Hebrew? Do so, and you might get a better idea of what God is saying, as it seems to actually be baby talk! Does it change doctrine? Just what is doctrine, anyway? It's TEACHING. I am a doctor, by the way, which means teacher (it’s in chemistry, not medicine). We settle on dogmatic theology and dare call that all the doctrine that we need.
I wonder why if the Bible is perfect in translation, then why only ONE translation? The KJV translators were Anglicans, and as such, presumably Calvinists. Yet most KJV-only people I know are Baptists, one of whom was a pastor who taught that the Baptist Church was started by John the Baptist. Strange, isn't it. Independent Baptists teaching a perfectly translated Anglican Bible, which by the way, originally had the Apocrypha, as Anglicans consider the Apocrypha to be canonical.
Well, we often walk around with blinders put on us by our denominational leaders. Like draft horses, we can't see more than our handlers allow us to. I was in Sunday school in a Baptist church one Sunday morning. The issue came up of a KJV Bible that differed from another KJV Bible in that one had a comma where the other didn’t. I said, so what, that was written in Hebrew, which originally had no punctuation. The teacher said that he was such a King James man that he believed he’d be speaking that in heaven. He looked at nobody when he said that, only looking down an aisle.
I fear that this teaching subtly cultifies us, for it keeps us from some of what God wants to tell us. Look at old photos of the sunset taken in black and white if you’d like. You won’t really be deceived, for there’s no trick photography involved. But there are those of us who prefer the color.
I think one of the persistent assertions made by KJV onlyists is that certain texts found in the KJV are absent from modern translations, something James White addresses in his book, ‘The King James Only Controversy’. My observation would be that if modern readers can’t understand old English, the kind found in the KJV, which has been out of use for more than 300 years then large portions of the scripture found in the KJV might as well not be there anyway. If modern readers can’t understand it, then what function does it really serve? And I’ve seen Steven Anderson in debate with James White make the claim if you can’t understand it (as per John 10:27), then you’re not saved. That’s where this stuff gets dangerous.
A free transcript of our original video "King James Bible ONLY Debate: is The KJV The Only Real Translation? White vs Waite" is available at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?m=t&s=113181650221. Once there scroll down to "Sermon Transcription" where you have the following options: 1. View transcript, 2. Download PDF, 3. Send to Kindle, or 4. Google Translation making this message transcription available in 20 + foreign languages. Everything is free with nothing to buy. You can now share this message with friends, neighbors, or workmates that may speak a different primary language. Give it a try! This message can easily be sent to any Kindle eBook Reader wirelessly over WIFI or 3G in minutes using the 'SEND TO KINDLE' link found on the SermonAudio page for this message. The ultimate way to read on the go! 2 Timothy 2:15
Seldom have I seen a starker difference between scholarship and sensationalism in a debate.
This man really tried to say that he said "Revelation one one one."
I caught that too. what a goof
Wow dr Waite can’t prove his point at all..
Dr Waite did not answer Dr Whites specific questions regarding certain NT passages that were not properly translated correctly, he changes the subject and goes off on another tangent, and then goes back to defending the KJVO thesis from another angle once James White took him to a dead end, and he was unwilling to be pinned down on specfics, KJVO do this just like all the cults do that defend the pet doctrine, eg, Sabbath keeping, soul sleep, Mormons, etc, KJVO CAN'T be defended intellectually, and no real respected scholars who have any academic and eccessialitical clout, are defenders of the TR it even, MT Greek Text, James Whites book clearly exposes the KJV Onlyist thinking and faulty reasoning, and exposes translation errors in the KJV. Dr Waite maintained composure and was polite and I give him credit for that, but James White won the debate; in MHO
Dr Waite's responses were so cringy. I just want to set my hair on fire and put it out with a sledgehammer.
This debate took place on August 6, 1994. It was a result of attacks by KJV Only cultists like Texe Marrs & Gail Riplinger on James White & on those who prefer to reference to other translations of the Bible beside the King James Only (Marrs was afraid to debate - he's a conspiracy fraud anyway & has no scholarship just like Riplinger). For more on this subject please see our playlist located on our CANSWERSTV channel page entitled "Dealing with Phony TV Preachers (TBN) & King James Onlyites."
The KJVO folks have to rely on this conspiracy to keep their ministry going. To keep their Church's up and running. The only reason they have members is because their members are fooled into thinking that they are the last true Christians. That everyone who has a modern verse is a false convert. It is super easy to start a KJVO Church. More easy than a modern Church. You have to compete for members with other Church's if your a KJVO Church you don't need to compete you just show your sheep that the NIV or whatever translation has taken out the Words of God. And boom you have a new member ready to defend the KJV. It is just a way easier way to start a ministry these guys know it. If they said okay everyone ESV NASB are good too then know one would stay at a KJVO Church.
Well said! It sounds like a cult
Every cult always says if you dont do this or that your going to hell or your not being a true Christian
Dr J. White is amazing.At one point I actually started feeling sorry for Dr D.A. Waite, and KJV onlyists in general, because his defences of his beloved KJV were pitiable and pathetic, to say the least.KJV onlyism is a disease that robs it's victims of sound judgement, clarity of thought, and the ability to reason.With KJV onlyists, it's really more a matter of emotional attachment to the KJV, than about facts.The bottom line is that the KJV only position is indefensible, and the sooner everyone accepts it, the better off we will all be.
Yes IMO Waite was out of his league here. First of all, calling the KJV the only acceptable version requires a much higher level of evidence than someone saying that readers should compare versions. Also, Waite's obsession with timing to the exact second is illustrative...
Total Agreement! I refer to White for all KJV-Only issues, do your own research, KJV-Onlyism is totally unnecessary.
great stuff on getting some of the early works on this from James White, this man of God is blessing on many areas of faith
As an Englishman I use the King James Bible as this is the language of my forefathers. Along with the Geneva Bible the King James Bible is a foundation stone of the English language. We owe a tremendous debt to men such as William Tyndale. It is said that No Tyndale, No Shakespeare.
I was raised in churches where we used the Good News Bible and the NIV and do not consider it sinful to use such versions. We have the NKJV, the CSB and the NASB at home. However, these versions do not have the enduring quality of the King James Bible.
Good review of the situation.
No one is lost using any version of the Bible (except ones that deliberately, that is in bad faith, tamper with the text like the New World does). It's not the other versions that are divisive to the Church, but KJVOism.
Thanks, I'm dealing with some KJV Onlyists at the moment and all the info and all the help I can get the better.
this is so weird. it's like he uses the criticism that applies to his position as a way of refuting Dr. White. very odd.
"I'll prove why you're wrong by showing how my position doesn't match the standard I demand you adhere to."
complete deflection.
Whites no angel. He thinks we can lose our salvation when it's plain in scriptures we cannot do anything to earn it. I think White's a Calvinist also.
James White is a true Biblical Calvinist which means he believes you cannot lose your salvation if you have been truly born again by the Holy Spirit of God (for proof of this just go to his website www.AOMin.org). No true Calvinist believes a true Christian can lose their salvation (see our video "True Christians Cannot Lose Their Salvation But Fake & Deluded "Christians" Never Had It At All" at ruclips.net/video/meUD2vCv3oo/видео.html). Basically, Calvinism is known by an acronym: T.U.L.I.P. -
Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)
Total Depravity -
Sin has affected all parts of man. The heart, emotions, will, mind, and body are all affected by sin. We are completely sinful. We are not as sinful as we could be, but we are completely affected by sin.
The doctrine of Total Depravity is derived from scriptures that reveal human character: Man’s heart is evil (Mark 7:21-23) and sick Jer. 17:9). Man is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:20). He does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12). He cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). He is at enmity with God (Eph. 2:15). And, is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3). The Calvinist asks the question, "In light of the scriptures that declare man’s true nature as being utterly lost and incapable, how is it possible for anyone to choose or desire God?" The answer is, "He cannot. Therefore God must predestine."
Calvinism also maintains that because of our fallen nature we are born again not by our own will but God’s will (John 1:12-13); God grants that we believe (Phil. 1:29); faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29); God appoints people to believe (Acts 13:48); and God predestines (Eph. 1:1-11; Rom. 8:29; 9:9-23).
Unconditional Election -
God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21).
Limited Atonement -
Jesus died only for the elect. Though Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for all, it was not efficacious for all. Jesus only bore the sins of the elect. Support for this position is drawn from such scriptures as Matt. 26:28 where Jesus died for ‘many'; John 10:11, 15 which say that Jesus died for the sheep (not the goats, per Matt. 25:32-33); John 17:9 where Jesus in prayer interceded for the ones given Him, not those of the entire world; Acts 20:28 and Eph. 5:25-27 which state that the Church was purchased by Christ, not all people; and Isaiah 53:12 which is a prophecy of Jesus’ crucifixion where he would bore the sins of many (not all).
Irresistible Grace -
When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist. God offers to all people the gospel message. This is called the external call. But to the elect, God extends an internal call and it cannot be resisted. This call is by the Holy Spirit who works in the hearts and minds of the elect to bring them to repentance and regeneration whereby they willingly and freely come to God. Some of the verses used in support of this teaching are Romans 9:16 where it says that "it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy"; Philippians 2:12-13 where God is said to be the one working salvation in the individual; John 6:28-29 where faith is declared to be the work of God; Acts 13:48 where God appoints people to believe; and John 1:12-13 where being born again is not by man’s will, but by God’s.
“All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out," (John 6:37).
Perseverance of the Saints -
You cannot lose your salvation. Because the Father has elected, the Son has redeemed, and the Holy Spirit has applied salvation, those thus saved are eternally secure. They are eternally secure in Christ. Some of the verses for this position are John 10:27-28 where Jesus said His sheep will never perish; John 6:47 where salvation is described as everlasting life; Romans 8:1 where it is said we have passed out of judgment; 1 Corinthians 10:13 where God promises to never let us be tempted beyond what we can handle; and Phil. 1:6 where God is the one being faithful to perfect us until the day of Jesus’ return.
See our playlist "Dealing with Predestination, Arminianism & Calvinism" with 91 videos at ruclips.net/p/PLA932903698A56780. Acts 13:48
Wow. Finished listening to this. I can only fairly describe Waite as incompetent. I was embarrassed for him on the total inadequacy of his comments and answers. Yikes. The church needs better scholarship from it's leaders.
I've lost all respect for Dr. Waite's work. This debate was revealing.
Why?
@bownow I never had and continue to have NO respect for his work
@@JohnnyBeeDawg Idolotry of an unbiblical teaching mostly.
Actually, our Bible translations are not radically different.
Why is "Tex" sending a letter talking about how serious the "perversions" are, and then say it is not important to debate the Bible? Also, it looks to me that Dr. White made his point clearly. If I was a debate "judge," then I would say Dr. White "won" the debate.
Can you say “fear?!” Many KJVOs will not formally debate because their position is indefensible
Any ONLIEST paradigm for any translation is absurd....I read the Bible on an app that allows me to instantly allow me to switch from version to version.
I'm not denying that the KJV (any edition) is a great doctrinal bible. However I find it lunacy to feel the need to redefine the NASB or the NIV as heretic bibles when they are wonderful translations. The Lord Jesus Christ is bigger then a 400 year tradition that not even the original translators would have approved of. They themselves believed in retranslation because they didn't know all the terms at the time.
+Shultman: I love my NIV especially the 1983 edition.for me it just flows. It's also packed with a lot of historic background which is perfect for dates on events and so on.
These KJV only people are so incredibly rude and always resort to insults when they can’t prove their beliefs. I love all the versions and I usually have three versions out and the Strongs with them and a key word Bible. You can use a conservative version to study and still be Bible believing. I don’t like the implication that someone is of Satan or not a Bible believer if they don’t use just the KJV.
I notice the same thing all the time
Hisservant S how does one prove the un-provable?!
I have Called Bible Agnostic by Staunch KJVO by the name of Will Kinney. I have been called various names by other KJVOs you have to wonder if their even Christian because they do not follow the command in their King James Bible to have love for others nor do they respect those who disagree with them.
Its unfortunate that the call from Mrs Marrs was lost. I would have enjoyed hearing that. I hope no one started thinking there was some kind of conspiracy involved. I would still love to hear a debate with Texe Marrs and James White. In a formal format where Texe wouldn't be able to talk of James and where he would have to give an account for his stance on the issue in a civil manner. I think his excuse for not debating White was very weak and really it was just a cop-out. Thanks for the upload!
You're welcome. Thanks for asking! 2 Timothy 2:15
@IshMelamaid Excellent apologetics job here! You've shown that people listening to this debate should really pay more attention to the fine details of the discussion. Isaiah 40:8.
Sorry it took so long to reply. We currently have 528 videos posted on RUclips through our CANSWERSTV channel with hundreds of them getting various comments so it can be difficult to keep up with them all. In response to your question I prefer the New American Standard Bible (NASB) as my main study bible but I also like the New King James Version (NKJV) & the English Standard Version (ESV). I use the old KJV on my TV shows because most people accept that version (even cultists). Blessings.
I want to thank Waite for proving the kjvo position is ridiculous.. Da waite talked a lot and said nothing. Hasn't answered one question.
@athb4hu Thank you for your very kind comments!
No respect for Tex Mars!! He refuses to debate Dr. White but calls in to try to double-team him. What a cowardly way to do things.
sad to se his behavior. cowardly is right.
James white did better job than D.A. Waite by far
I want to thank you for this very informative show. I've heard the accusations & it's good to know no one has an evil agenda. I think they should drop the fighting, present the proof & stop making Christianity look bad. People are intelligent enough to decide, no one should slander anyone, especially Christian vs Christian!
It is necessary to hear both sides.
It's God who protects His word, so in my opinion, this is as ridiculous as replacement theology!
I think I will go back to reading my NLT and NASB or my NKJV It doesn't matter what you say because it will be twisted on this subject.I am not a scholar just an average dude that loves Jesus I hate no matter what I say someone is going to twist it around by using scripture to divide and belittle their brothers and sisters.I lost so many friends because I use to do the same thing, picking through verses to prove my belief.Just because we can out wit someone doesn't mean were smarter or have the "truth".I own many translations the nkjv was a blessing for many years now I really love the Nlt but my main bible is my kjv.I was never winning souls to Christ in my Onlyest days because I was trying to win them to King James.Im sorry if my words have offended my fellow kjvonliest buds in the Lord.I just don't see arguing over translations as important to the lost.We Christians bicker back and forth why souls are being lost I am truly sorry for adding to this debate. I hope love will prevail I just want to enjoy Gods word and share it with people like I did when I first got saved.
The King james version is completely outdated! While it has withstood the test of time and is an excellent literary translation,it is NOT an accurate theological one.If the King James translators were alive today, and studied the manuscripts we have currently,they would not hesitate to compose a more accurate translation!
I can't carry all these diff manuscripts around with me, so, which bible does Mr white recommend for study and reading?
Wow. I'd say what a poo showing by the KJVO guy but he is obviously arguing from a false starting point. That first caller is hilarious!
For starters watch all our King James Only videos on our playlist "Dealing with Phony TV Preachers (TBN) & King James Onlyites" at ruclips.net/p/PL2CDA855486B09128 and read all the articles on the website www.KJVOnly.org. Next you need to get a copy of James White's book "The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations?" at www.amazon.com/King-James-Only-Controversy-Translations/dp/0764206052/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1436552035&sr=1-1&keywords=king+james+only+controversy&pebp=1436552047942&perid=0D27KWWCHVDRTF6TS1XT
and read it. Next you need to listen to all of James White's "Dividing Line" shows on RUclips at ruclips.net/user/AominOrg & select the shows where you can tell he is talking about KJV only issues. Do the same with his KJV only shows on his other RUclips channel at ruclips.net/user/DrOakley1689.
1 John 5:13 (KJV) - "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."
1 John 5:13 (NASB) - "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life."
The earlier & better manuscripts prove that the NASB rendering is the more authentic rendering since the KJV did not have access to those earlier & better manuscripts at the time it was put together. The research needed is in the references above which will prove that clearly.
If God always gives the world his word in one language (as KJV advocates say of English), then the KJV is certainly not that language, for God chose Koine GREEK not ENGLISH to reveal his New Covenant!
Here's more questions to ask cultic "King James Only" heretics & idolaters:
If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why would God not repeat the process again in modern language in each language?
If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?
Why did the KJV translators use marginal note showing alternate translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is inspired of God, there would be no alternates!
If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not know it?
Why were all the marginal notes and alternate readings removed from modern editions of the KJV, along with the Apocrypha, the opening Dedication to James I, and a lengthy introduction from "The Translators to the Reader."?
When there is a difference between the KJV English and the TR Greek, why do you believe that the Greek was wrong and the KJV English is correct?
If the KJV-only supporters believe fully in the word-for-word inspiration of the KJV, why would italics be necessary?
In defending the KJV's use of archaic language, do you really think it is a good thing that a person must use an Early Modern English dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading?
Why do KJV only advocates feel that all modern translations are wrong for copyrighting the work of each translation when they copyright the materials on their websites, tracts and books they use to promote the KJV? Do they not realize that after 100 years all books pass into public domain and that all copyrighted Bibles today will soon be public domain just like the KJV? If "God's truth should not be copyrighted" then why do they copy write their defenses of God's ultimate truth, the Bible?
Is it not ridiculous to suggest that when the TR disagrees with the KJV that Greek TR has errors, but the KJV doesn't? Is this not the ultimate example of "translation worship"? (Reject the original in favour of the translation)
Did you know that the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, was based on half a dozen small manuscripts, none earlier than the 10th century?
If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of Revelation absence from the TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into Greek which was then translated into English - a translation of a translation of a translation?
Why do KJV only advocates believe that the English of the KJV is clearer and more precise than the original Greek language manuscripts? Why should Bible students throw out their Greek dictionaries and buy an "archaic English" dictionary? Are there not word pictures in the original Greek words that the English cannot easily convey? (Jas 2:19 "tremble"; Greek: PHRISSO, indicates to be rough, to bristle. is a powerful word picture of how the demons are in such terror that their skin is rough with goose pimples. Also differences between "agape" and "phileo" love words.)
Why did the translators make mistakes in the chapter summaries in the 1611 version? Wouldn't God have inspired this as well? Why would God inspire the English providentially accurate, but then allow misleading chapter headings? (Every chapter of the Song of Songs is interpreted as descriptive of the church. This is wrong. SoS is God's "mate selection manual." Also, Isa 22 "He prophesieth Shebna's deprivation, and Eliakim, prefiguring the kingdom of Christ, his substitution" This is wrong and reflect the incorrect theology of the day.)
Why would the translators use book headings like "The Gospel According to Saint Luke" since the Greek merely says "The Gospel According to Luke". Does not this show that the translators were influenced by their contemporary theology and the Catholic false doctrine of "sainthood"?
Do KJV only advocates realize that they stand beside the Mormon church in that both groups believe that they were delivered an "inspired translation"? (Mormon's believe Joseph Smith's English translation of the Book of Mormon from the Nephi Plates was done under inspiration.) Do KJV only advocates realize that the most powerful and irrefutable evidence that neither were translated under inspiration, is the very first edition with all their thousands of errors? (KJV- 1611 edition; BoM- 1831 edition)
Do KJV only advocates realize that, to point out that all modern translations have the same kinds of mistakes we are accusing of the KJV, is irrelevant, because we maintain that all translations have errors and none were translated under the inspired supervision of God?
Why would the Holy Spirit mis-guide the translators to employ the use of mythical creatures like "unicorn" for wild ox, "satyr" for "wild goat", "cockatrice" for common viper, when today we know what the real name of these creatures is?
If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to correctly distinguish between "Devil and Demons" (Mt 4:1-DIABOLOS and Jn 13:2-DAIMONIZOMAI) ; "hades and hell" (see Lk 16:23-HADES and Mt 5:22-GEENNA; Note: Hades is distinct from hell because hades is thrown into hell after judgement: Rev 20:14)
Why would KJV translators render Gen 15:6 which is quoted in identical Greek form by Paul in Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6, in FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS? Why are they creating distinctions were none exist?
Why did the KJV translators have no consistent rule for differentiating between the use of definite and indefinite articles? (Dan 3:25 we have one "like the Son of God" instead of "like a son of God", even though in 28 Nebuchadnezzar states God sent "His angel" to deliver the men. The definite article was also added to the centurion's confession in Mt 27:54.)
How can you accept that the Textus Receptus is perfect and error free when Acts 9:6 is found only in the Latin Vulgate but absolutely no Greek manuscript known to man? Further, how come in Rev 22:19 the phrase "book of life" is used in the KJV when absolutely ALL known Greek manuscripts read "tree of life"?
How can we trust the TR to be 100% error free when the second half of 1 Jn 5:8 are found only in the Latin Vulgate and a Greek manuscript probably written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate? (we are not disputing the doctrine of the trinity, just the validity of the last half of this verse)
How do you explain the grammatical error in the original 1611 KJV in Isa 6:2 where the translators made a rare grammatical error by using the incorrect plural form of "seraphims" rather than "seraphim"?
Must we possess a perfectly flawless bible translation in order to call it "the word of God"? If so, how do we know "it" is perfect? If not, why do some "limit" "the word of God" to only ONE "17th Century English" translation? Where was "the word of God" prior to 1611? Did our Pilgrim Fathers have "the word of God" when they brought the GENEVA BIBLE translation with them to North America?
Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?
Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the word of God"?
Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can "correct" the English?
Do you believe that the English of the KJV "corrects" its own Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated?
Is ANY translation "inspired"? Is the KJV an "inspired translation"?
Is the KJV "scripture" ? Is IT "given by inspiration of God"? [2 Tim. 3:16]
WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" - 1611, or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850?
In what language did Jesus Christ [not Peter Ruckman and others] teach that the Old Testament would be preserved forever according to Matthew 5:18?
Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation?
Did God lose the words of the originals when the "autographs" were destroyed?
Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was "translated out of the original Greek"? [title page of KJV N.T.] Were they "liars" for claiming to have "the original Greek" to translate from?
Was "the original Greek" lost after 1611?
Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without "the word of God"?
What copy or translations of "the word of God," used by the Reformers, was absolutely infallible and inerrant? [their main Bibles are well-known and copies still exist].
If the KJV is "God's infallible and preserved word to the English-speaking people," did the "English-speaking people" have "the word of God" from 1525-1604?
Was Tyndale's [1525], or Coverdale's [1535], or Matthew's [1537], or the Great [1539], or the Geneva [1560] . . . English Bible absolutely infallible?
If neither the KJV nor any other one version were absolutely inerrant, could a lost sinner still be "born again" by the "incorruptible word of God"? [1 Peter 1:23]
If the KJV can "correct" the inspired originals, did the Hebrew and Greek originally "breathed out by God" need correction or improvement?
Since most "KJV-Onlyites" believe the KJV is the inerrant and inspired "scripture" [2 Peter 1:20], and 2 Peter 1:21 says that "the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," would you not therefore reason thus - "For the King James Version came not in 1611 by the will of man: but holy men of God translated as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"?
Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture - "whom ye" [Cambridge KJV's] or, "whom he" [Oxford KJV's] at Jeremiah 34:16?
Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture - "sin" [Cambridge KJV's] or "sins" [Oxford KJV's] at 2 Chronicles 33:19?
Who publishes the "inerrant KJV"?
Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words - would you say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?
Would you contend that God waited until a king named "James" sat on the throne of England before perfectly preserving His Word in English, and would you think well of an "Epistle Dedicatory" that praises this king as "most dread Sovereign . . .Your Majesty's Royal Person . . ." - IF the historical FACT was revealed to you that King James was a practicing homosexual all of his life? [documentation - Antonia Fraser -- "King James VI of Scotland, I of England" Knopf Publ./1975/pgs. 36-37, 123 || Caroline Bingham -- "The Making of a King" Doubleday Publ./1969/pgs. 128-129, 197-198 || Otto J. Scott -- "James I" Mason-Charter Publ./1976/pgs. 108, 111, 120, 194, 200, 224, 311, 353, 382 || David H. Wilson -- "King James VI & I" Oxford Publ./1956/pgs. 36, 99-101, 336-337, 383-386, 395 || plus several encyclopedias]
Would you contend that the KJV translator, Richard Thomson, who worked on Genesis-Kings in the Westminster group, was "led by God in translating" even though he was an alcoholic that "drank his fill daily" throughout the work? [Gustavus S. Paine -- "The Men Behind the KJV" Baker Book House/1979/pgs. 40, 69]
Is it possible that the rendition "gay clothing," in the KJV at James 2: 3, could give the wrong impression to the modern-English KJV reader?
Did dead people "wake up" in the morning according to Isaiah 37:36 in the KJV?
Was "Baptist" John's last name according to Matthew 14: 8 and Luke 7:20 in the KJV?
Is 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 in the KJV understood or make any sense to the modern-English KJV reader? - "O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompense in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged." As clearly understood from the New International Version [NIV] - "We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange - I speak as to my children - open wide your hearts also."
Does the singular "oath's," occurring in every KJV at Matthew 14: 9 and Mark 6:26, "correct" every Textus Receptus Greek which has the plural ("oaths") by the post-1611 publishers, misplacing the apostrophe?
Did Jesus teach a way for men to be "worshiped" according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4: 8? [Remember - you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]
Is the Holy Spirit an "it" according to John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; and 1 Peter 1:11 in the KJV? [Again - you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]
Does Luke 23:56 support a "Friday" crucifixion in the KJV? [No "day" here in Greek]
Did Jesus command for a girl to be given "meat" to eat according to Luke 8:55 in the KJV? [or, "of them that sit at meat with thee." at Luke 14:10]
Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a "Bible-corrector" for saying that Romans 8:24 should be rendered "saved in hope," instead of the KJV's "saved by hope"? [Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol 27, 1881, page 485 - see more Spurgeon KJV comments in What is "KJV-Onlyism?", his & many others' views in the article, "Quotes on Bible Translations."]
Was J. Frank Norris a "Bible-corrector" for saying that the correct rendering of John 3:5 should be "born of water and the Spirit," and for saying that "repent and turn" in Acts 26:20 should be "repent, even turn"? [Norris-Wallace Debate, 1934, pgs. 108, 116] Also, is Norman Pickering an "Alexandrian Apostate" for stating, "The nature of language does not permit a 'perfect' translation - the semantic area of words differs between languages so that there is seldom complete overlap. A 'perfect' translation of John 3:16 from Greek into English is impossible, for we have no perfect equivalent for "agapao" [translated "loved" in John. 3:16]."?
Was R. A. Torrey "lying" when he said the following in 1907 - "No one, so far as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible is absolutely infallible and inerrant. The doctrine held by many is that the Scriptures as originally given were absolutely infallible and inerrant, and that our English translation is a substantially accurate rendering of the Scriptures as originally given"? [Difficulties in the Bible, page 17]
Is Don Edwards correct in agreeing "in favor of canonizing our KJV," thus replacing the inspired canon in Hebrew and Greek? [The Flaming Torch, June 1989, page 6]
Did God supernaturally "move His Word from the original languages to English" in 1611 as affirmed by The Flaming Torch? [same page above]
May the Lord bless you & yours,
Larry Wessels
www.BibleQuery.org www.HistoryCart.com www.MuslimHope.com
RUclips Channel: ruclips.net/user/CAnswersTV
SermonAudio Channel with Transcripts: www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Larry_Wessels
1 Peter 3:15 (for an excellent exposition of this verse hear Dr. James
White's message "The Defense of Our Faith" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=7415173271)
Came across you guys a couple weeks ago and I must say this channel is AWESOME!!! And James White is the man!. Listened to him for yrs. and have or heard just about every debate he's done. It is through listening to him that I really started studying the bible critically and became a Reformer/Calvinist. Great channel guys!!!
We agree with your analysis!
Hi, with those recommendations of the NASB and NKJV, do you know what Dr. White thinks of the ESV? I haven't found anything where he talks about it yet. Also, what do you think of the ESV? I have both the NKJV and NASB, and I really like them both (Except for some reason, I can't move past the NASB rendering the creation days as "a" day rather than "the" day), but I've been quite enjoying the ESV the past few weeks. Thanks for your time, and thanks for all your videos!
Dr W refers to the ESV as the NASB w/semi colons
To see our RUclips videos featuring Dr. James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries (www.AOMin.org) click on the following: IS THE ROMAN POPE WITHOUT ERROR? - PAPAL INFALLIBILITY DEBATE: JAMES WHITE VS. ROBERT FASTIGGI - ruclips.net/video/lHEGCpTjulM/видео.html, DO ROMAN CATHOLIC INDULGENCES REALLY FORGIVE SINS? DEBATE - JAMES WHITE VS. ROBERT FASTIGGI - ruclips.net/video/D91y5sxUv5o/видео.html, "Is the Roman Catholic Doctrine of the Virgin Mary Biblical? Debate - James White vs. Robert Fastiggi" - ruclips.net/video/mYdYaeYdJW4/видео.html, "HIGHLIGHTS & FULL DEBATE: JUSTIFICATION BEFORE GOD - DR JAMES WHITE VS. DR ROBERT FASTIGGI (#1 OF 4)" - ruclips.net/video/yPPXCRKMLuI/видео.html, "CHRISTIAN ANSWERS" VS "CATHOLIC ANSWERS" DEBATE ON GOD'S PREDESTINATION: JAMES WHITE VS JAMES AKIN" - ruclips.net/video/EZtDKbnjIG0/видео.html, "BOSTON COLLEGE DEBATE #1 - WAS PETER THE FIRST POPE? WHITE & ZINS VS. SUNGENIS & BUTLER" - ruclips.net/video/K7kehrfDMI8/видео.html, BOSTON COLLEGE DEBATE #2 - WAS PETER THE FIRST POPE? WHITE & ZINS VS. SUNGENIS & BUTLER - ruclips.net/video/fmljIcyK1lA/видео.html, "WITHOUT "SOLA SCRIPTURA" (THE BIBLE ALONE), WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH?" - ruclips.net/video/dcMnF6tgya0/видео.html, EVIDENCE THAT JESUS IS GOD & THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS "NEW WORLD TRANSLATION" BIBLE IS WRONG - ruclips.net/video/L44P8GW94vA/видео.html, "New Age Bible Versions" & the "King James Only" Controversy - A Refutation" - ruclips.net/video/6Zo4tCyhyNU/видео.html, KING JAMES BIBLE "ONLY" DEBATE: IS THE KJV THE ONLY REAL TRANSLATION? JAMES WHITE VS D.A. WAITE - ruclips.net/video/-fWbJH-LRSc/видео.html, DEBATE: DR JAMES WHITE ACCURATELY REFUTES IRRITATING & MISINFORMED "KING JAMES ONLY" RADIO CALLERS" - ruclips.net/video/2IHkp5l_4S4/видео.html, DR JAMES WHITE EXAMINES MORMONISM: A RELIGION CREATED BY JOSEPH SMITH JR & BELIEVED BY MITT ROMNEY - ruclips.net/video/0WSto0PPbDo/видео.html, "Citywide Call-in Bible Answers #12: (James White): Catholicism, Two Babylons, Baptism Acts 2:38" at ruclips.net/video/UcAJWUGclE8/видео.html & "James White: Acts 20:17-32, A Biblical Church, Preach Whole Counsel of God & Beware Savage Wolves" - ruclips.net/video/sGDoxDEDNBo/видео.html. To see all of Dr. James White's videos please go to his two RUclips channel sites: ruclips.net/user/DrOakley1689 & ruclips.net/user/AominOrg.. We've known Dr. White for decades & highly recommend his ministry, see his website at www.AOMin.org. 1 Peter 3:15
Very good observation!
FF Bruce is one of the best. Here are some of our favorites: "The Canon of Scripture" by F.F. Bruce, "The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible" by Paul Wegner, "The Canon of the New Testament" by Bruce Metzger,
"Scripture: It's Power, Authority and Relevance" by Robert Saucy (particularly chapter 13 of this book), "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels" by Craig L. Blomberg, "A General Introduction to the Bible" by Norman Geisler and William Nix.
Mr.Wade refused to address James White as "Doctor" tho James addressed him as such.It would not surprise me that James White holds more earned Doctrates as Mr.Wade does,at least now he does.Tex Mars should have been cut off.He is the height of ignorance.Finally at the end Wade made a big stink about each being allowed the same amount of time per each segment.At least twice during this exchange Wade rambled on over 4 minutes during each of the 2 episodes.White would patiently let him go on and on,then when White would begin his response after sitting quietly for 4 plus minutes Wade would interupt him..Wade is NOT the "nice, softspoken, wise,patient,kind elder statesman others and himself would try to portray him as.Most of all he does not honestly respond in that he constantly diverts the subject matter and his unfounded speculations are shameful,eg.Egyptian heretics,et.al...there were heretics in Rome,Ephesus,Colossae,every where .but he singles out Africa and makes his unfounded statements cuz it fits his agenda.Erasmus was a Catholic priest(as was mentioned) and if Erasmus did the translation that the NASB used he'd be against the NASB cuz a Roman Catholic was behind it...preposterous
@TheChristcrucified This is undoubtedly a copyist error. Compare 1 Kings 4:26 to 2 Chronicles 9:25 which verifies 4000 stalls for horses. The NIV wins on this verse. In Hebrew, the visual difference between the 2 numbers is very slight. The consonants for the number 40 are "rbym." while the consonants for the number 4 are "rbh" (the vowels were not written into the text). The manuscripts from which the scribe worked may have been smudged or damaged & appeared to be 40,000 rather than 4000.
Great upload!
The quick answer: "Of course not. Don't be silly."
The slightly longer answer: "If a certain translation speaks to you more than the others, then use it as your primary version. The technical accuracy of a translation is usually not all that important for the needs of the average lay person."
M.A. Moreno that's exactly what I believe.
M.A. Moreno Yeah when a KJV only preacher said Faith comes by hearing the word of God... then goes on to claim another translations aren't as accurate and therefore faith can't be gained... how do they square that fact with Jesus (Yeshua) didn't speak English? Just because Holy Spirit came into your heart while reading one version doesn't mean that miracle only happens through one translation. That's such a terrible view of God's character that only one version of his word could lead a sinner to Him.
I think what this boils down to is
people thinking that if there is some variation in the manuscripts
which all translations are based on, that we've lost all hope knowing
what God said.-That our faith will crumble. It's the idea that we
must have absolute certainty that translation (x) is without error,
additions, or subtractions. The fact is there is variation among the
manuscripts and with the tool of textual criticism, the science of
examining the manuscript evidence to get back to what the original
writings said, we find that they agree like 99% across the board.
Like Dr. Daniel Wallace said, there are no textual variations that
bring into doubt any cardinal doctrine of the faith. I used to be
mildly KJVO, but when I was confronted with the reality of the
textual evidence, I changed my mind. It was disturbing at first
because I was taught it's an all or non situation. If we can't trust
every word made it though perfectly from the Apostles original
writings, then our faith is undone. I have found KJVO teaching is
quite detrimental. It sets up folks for failure. When anyone with the
initiative to think for themselves does some research, you find the
position doesn't hold up. Some folks can be devastated at first
because they have been setup with a false reality. This is why we see
a lot of loud and unpleasant reactions by those who still hold the
KJVO position. Instead, the issue regarding the different
translations needs to be framed around the confidence that through
the study of the manuscript evidence we have tremendously accurate,
but not absolutely perfect, transmission (copies) of the text through
time. The fact that different lines of transmission of the Greek
texts exist plays in our favor over a single set of manuscripts or
line of transmission. Its the idea of “multitude of attestation.”
To his credit, I found Dr. Waite even-tempered in his defense of the KJ. And I wouldn't find this version debate so objectionable if KJVOists weren't often downright vicious and slanderous (e.g., Mr. Marrs). I've yet to hear that sort of thing from other-version advocates. So, which ones show grace in this matter?
That doesn’t change the fact that DA Waite made himself look like a babbling idiot
@@anthonykeve8894I think you missed the point.
The kjv only "movement" is similar to the "speak in tounges or go to hell" extreme pentecostalism mentality. Each of these cults have a need to not only set themselves above those of other denominations, but also they conduct themselves as though they have a secretive new revelation truth only revealed to them by God. Since they think this, they also believe that they are a mouthpiece for God, handing down condemnation, judgment and hell to anyone who doesn't believe the way they do. These two groups are the most hateful, condescending and snobbish types I've ever encountered.
Parallels the Catholic mindset
if this had been a boxing match Dr. White would have destroyed him, ref would have had to stop the bout early in the 1st round KJV onlyists border on worship of their ideology. if they had to debate an unbeliever with their ideology it would be an embarrassment
I agree. It becomes misplaced worship at some point.
@DinoDude65 The Bible translation that is best for you may not necessarily be the translation that is best for someone else. If you are an adult, fluent in English & your primary purpose is detailed study of the Scriptures, then a more literal translation (formal equivalence) would be an excellent choice. Two very good options here would be the New American Standard Bible & the more recent English Standard Version. The poetic KJV although archaic is good but the NKJV is easier to understand.
Mr Waite seems more concerned about "equal time" than actually presenting a logical defense of his position. it ends up making him look unprofessional and extremely immature and does not make his position look credible.
Very good point!
To those who wish to discuss issues brought up in our video posted here to a greater extent please know that you can email one of our ministry volunteers at certainandsecure@gmail.com. Also realize that we may have an entire playlist of videos on this subject on our RUclips channel at ruclips.net/user/CAnswersTV. Besides that know that we have three websites to answer additional questions at www.BibleQuery.org (answers over 8500 questions on the Bible & refutes critics of the Bible), www.HistoryCart.com (this website deals with an in depth analysis of early Christian church history) and www.MuslimHope.com (this website is a documented refutation of Islam, a false religious & political ideology of warlike jihad against all unbelievers invented by Muhammad while he was in Medina for the last 9 years of his life where he averaged one offensive military jihad of pillage, rape & slavery every month to six weeks against his neighbors which eventually led to conquering all of Saudi Arabia- see also www.politicalislam.com/, www.answeringmuslims.com/, answering-islam.org/, www.jihadwatch.org/ & our playlist "Dealing with Islam, Muslims: Sunni, Shi'ite, Alawites, Sufis" with 71 videos & counting at ruclips.net/p/PL1C7F68B548009FDD). 1 Peter 3:15
Good point!
This debate clearly shows the exteme ignorance of King James Only followers. The are a fulfillment of Jesus' words about the blind leading the blind. They are more committed to their theology and traditions then they are the facts and the truth.
Debating & reasoning are used at the same time in actual formal debates. Proclaiming the truth of the Biblical Gospel message to an unbelieving world can hardly be done without debating & reasoning in one manner or another. Take for example the many debates Jesus engaged in with the scribes & Pharisees (see the classic example in John chapter 8). Further examples of debates, disputes & reasonings by the apostles & disciples of Jesus can be found in Acts 17:17, "
Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him." Acts 18:19, "And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews." Acts 19:8, "And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God." Titus 1:9 says "by sound doctrine both to exhort & to convince the gainsayers" while Jude 3 says "ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints." Revelation 2:2, "I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars." Isaiah 1:18,"Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool." 1 Peter 3:15, "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence." For a few examples of reasoned debates see our RUclips video "DEBATE: LARRY WESSELS VERSUS TWO JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES AT A UNIVERSITY STUDY CENTER" with over 471,000 viewings at ruclips.net/video/ur6ffjVsG8U/видео.html, "Does Romanism (Roman Catholic Religious Salvation System) Preach Another Gospel? Debate 1" at ruclips.net/video/9pr6O6_D0EA/видео.html, & "DEBATE: John 3:16, Does "World" Always Mean Everybody Who Ever Lived or Not?" at ruclips.net/video/E6duguuzfho/видео.html (see our main RUclips channel CAnswersTV for many more theological debates on many Biblical issues at ruclips.net/user/CAnswersTV).
According to Wikipedia, "Debate is a method of formally presenting an argument in a disciplined manner. Through logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are elements in debating, where one side often prevails over the other party by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue. The outcome of a debate may depend upon consensus or some formal way of reaching a resolution, rather than the objective facts. In a formal debating contest, there are rules for participants to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact. Debating is carried out in assemblies of various types to discuss matters and to make resolutions about action to be taken, often by voting. Deliberative bodies such as parliaments, legislative assemblies, and meetings of all sorts engage in debates. In particular, in parliamentary democracies a legislature debates and decides on new laws. Formal debates between candidates for elected office, such as the leaders debates that are sometimes held in democracies. Debating is also carried out for educational and recreational purposes, usually associated with educational establishments and debating societies. The major goal of the study of debate as a method or art is to develop the ability to debate rationally from either position with equal ease. Informal and forum debate is relatively common, shown by TV shows such as the Australian talk show, Q&A, the quality and depth of a debate improves with the knowledge and skills of its participants as debaters. The outcome of a contest may be decided by audience vote, by judges, or by some combination of the two. 2 Timothy 2:15
+CAnswersTV I am a fan of Christian Answers, and I love your debate. I just had a question about the Bible. II Timothy 2:14 says, "Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers." and also "Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" in I Corinthians 1:20. What does this mean? Does this mean we as Christians shouldn't debate? I'm not challenging anyone I just honestly don't understand. Thanks.
+Dominic M The passages you bring up are not related to each other in the general context of debating as mentioned in our above comment that you are responding to. 2 Timothy 2:14 as John Gill comments " that they strive not about words; it became them to strive and contend for the form of sound words, for the wholesome words or doctrines of our Lord Jesus, but not about mere words, and especially such as were to no profit; to no advantage to truth, nor to themselves nor others; were not to edification, to spiritual edification, to godly edifying, which is in faith: but to the subverting of the hearers; the confounding of their minds, misleading their judgments, and overthrowing their faith; and therefore were not only unprofitable, but hurtful and pernicious, and by all means to be avoided." In other words worthless arguing without meaningful truth for edification is a waste of time. 1 Corinthians 1:20 is talking about the worthless foolishness of unbelievers with their worldly wisdom & philosophies which does not apply to Christians who have the truth of the Christian gospel & the word of God (Hebrews 4:12). 2 Timothy 4:2-5 gives Christian preachers the marching orders to teach, debate & argue for the truth of Christ (Titus 1:9-16) within reason (Titus 3:10-11). Blessings. 1 Peter 3:15
Who was King James? Was he a homosexual? Did he burn a Baptist at the stake?
According to Wikipedia: "James VI and I (19 June 1566 - 27 March 1625) was King of Scotland as James VI from 24 July 1567 and King of England and Ireland as James I from the union of the Scottish and English crowns on 24 March 1603 until his death. The kingdoms of Scotland and England were individual sovereign states, with their own parliaments, judiciary, and laws, though both were ruled by James in personal union.
James was the son of Mary, Queen of Scots, and a great-great-grandson of Henry VII, King of England and Lord of Ireland (through both his parents), uniquely positioning him to eventually accede to all three thrones. James succeeded to the Scottish throne at the age of thirteen months, after his mother Mary was compelled to abdicate in his favour. Four different regents governed during his minority, which ended officially in 1578, though he did not gain full control of his government until 1583. In 1603, he succeeded the last Tudor monarch of England and Ireland, Elizabeth I, who died without issue.[1] He continued to reign in all three kingdoms for 22 years, a period known as the Jacobean era after him, until his death in 1625 at the age of 58. After the Union of the Crowns, he based himself in England (the largest of the three realms) from 1603, only returning to Scotland once in 1617, and styled himself "King of Great Britain and Ireland".[2] He was a major advocate of a single parliament for both England and Scotland. In his reign, the Plantation of Ulster and British colonisation of the Americas began.
At 57 years and 246 days, James's reign in Scotland was longer than those of any of his predecessors. He achieved most of his aims in Scotland but faced great difficulties in England, including the Gunpowder Plot in 1605 and repeated conflicts with the English Parliament. Under James, the "Golden Age" of Elizabethan literature and drama continued, with writers such as William Shakespeare, John Donne, Ben Jonson, and Sir Francis Bacon contributing to a flourishing literary culture.[3] James himself was a talented scholar, the author of works such as Daemonologie (1597), True Law of Free Monarchies (1598), and Basilikon Doron (1599). He sponsored the translation of the Bible that was named after him: the Authorised King James Version.[4] Sir Anthony Weldon claimed that James had been termed "the wisest fool in Christendom", an epithet associated with his character ever since.[5] Since the latter half of the 20th century, historians have tended to revise James's reputation and treat him as a serious and thoughtful monarch.[6]"
For more on the homosexuality of King James see this link - www.gospelassemblyfree.com/facts/kingjames.htm.
"KING JAMES BURNED A BAPTIST PREACHER AT THE STAKE IN 1611!
By
Bob Ross (from www.KJVOnly.org)
RUCKMAN PAINTS KING JAMES AS "GODLY" DESPITE BURNING A BAPTIST
Someone recently sent a piece of propaganda, originating from a Pensacola, Florida fruitcake factory known as the "Bible Believers Bookstore," operated under the "Possel and Profit of the Posseltolic Faith and Order," Peter Ruckman. The item is a circular on "King James The VI of Scotland & The I of England Unjustly Accused?" and seeks to promote a book by that title which became available September 17, 1996 from "the Bookstore" (from which Ruckman "gets no royalties," and from which he claims "King James Bible believers" have been stealing for "years").
This circular is just another "example" of Ruckman's KJVO entrepeneurism, whereby he seduces money from his disciples who get their "fixes" from his palabberous materials.
A few years ago, when I read Ruckman's "Christian Handbook of Biblical Scholarship," I was surprised to read "that the people who objected to the Authorized Version were Puritans who BURNED 'HERETICS' AT THE STAKE" [see "Church History, Vol. I, page 365"] (page 169, 170).
I thought perhaps I had "missed something" in my study of English history, so I consulted Ruckman's "Church History" to see what was presented in Volume I, page 365. For the life of me, I could not even find the word "Puritan" on the page! Neither could I find anything about "heretics" being burned, nor about someone's "objecting" to the AV! When I was at the 1995 Christian Booksellers Convention, I asked Bob Neidlinger, who was in-charge of Ruckman's booth, about this matter, but he couldn't find any more than I found. Bob suggested it might have been a "typographical error."
But the problem with Bob's suggestion is this: the ONLY PERSON who had "authority" in England to burn anyone in the early 1600's was KING JAMES! The Puritans couldn't have burned anyone if they had wanted to! Ruckman's reference contained nothing about Puritans' burning anyone because he had nothing he could write. It was simply a "ploy" to make his reader think he had elsewhere "documented" the charge.
Not only did James have the only authority to burn people, he did that very thing. In 1611, the year the "King James Version of the Bible" was published, King James burned a BAPTIST by the name of EDWARD WIGHTMAN at Litchfield. This fact of history is recorded in many Baptist histories, the first being that of THOMAS CROSBY, who authored the first history of English Baptists. Crosby was a member of John Gill's church, the church later pastored in the latter 1800's by C. H. Spurgeon.
I herewith quote from Crosby: "The other one [burned] was Edward Wightman, A BAPTIST, of the town of Burton upon Trent, who on the 14th day of December [1610] was convicted of diverse heresies before the bishop of Coventry and Litchfield; and being delivered up to the secular power, was BURNT at Litchfield the 11th of April following." (Vol. 1, pages 108, 109).
This is the King who is the subject of the book which Ruckman is now peddling at his "Bookstore," and it was written in defense of King James' "Godly character," a stated in the circular. I see nothing in the folder which indicates that the author, Stephen A. Coston Sr., offers a defense of the King's burning a Baptist yet still is able to sustain his "Godly character."
Not only this, history says those "Puritans" were chased out of England, and the King bragged about his doing it. They went to Holland, and from there many of them came to settle in what is now New England. I also see no reference to this "godly" action by King James in Ruckman's circular.
From time to time, I have read Ruckman's embellishments of King James, but I have yet to read anything from him about the King's burning of Baptists and others during his reign. Ruckman does say in one of his books that King James was "more spiritual than any Pope" -- whatever that amounts to! ("Church History," Vol. II, p. 396).
I am not mentioning King James' burning people to reflect on the King James Bible; I am simply demonstrating that an effort to accredit the King James Bible by embellishing King James is a "non sequitur," or simply wasted effort. In fact, it might be more favorable to the KJV to never mention the "character" of King James. We have it on "good authority" (even Ruckman himself) that "A man who would burn a man at the stake for disagreeing with him doctrinally is not a man to be emulated or followed or admired" ("Hyper-Calvinism," p. 1).
Ruckman said that about John Calvin, and if Ruckman says that about Calvin, why wouldn't it also apply to King James?
***********************************************************************
No. 214
BAPTIST MARTYR, BURNED BY KING JAMES, REMEMBERED ON ANNIVERSARY
I just received the following "forwarded message" from a well-known minister who is on my list, and this item is especially appropriate at this time -- especially in the light of the fact that a "Baptist" church in North Carolina is having Stephen Coston speak at a Conference in an effort to embellish the name of King James I of England to naive Baptists, as if to enhance the King James Bible. Coston has a despicable article on a website, and he lists all of the allegations made against EDWARD WIGHTMAN -- every single one of them purely of a "religious" nature, and not a single one of them being truly "criminal." Wightman was burned for not endorsing the religion of King James and the Pedobaptist State-Church of England. Despite this act of intolerance, Coston defends King James as a man of "godly character," and a Baptist church in Mt. Airy, North Carolina is having Coston to present his embellishment of James at an upcoming Bible Conference.
After reading the following article, the "Baptist" church in North Carolina should repent in sackcloth and ashes for embellishing the King who burned a Baptist at the stake.
__________________________________________
Subj: Saturday, April 11, 1612
Date: 98-04-11 12:04:33 EDT
From: whitmanf@ats.it(Frederick Whitman)
To: info@bmm.org(Baptist Mid-Missions)
Dear E-mail Prayer-warriors,
Today, Saturday April 11 is a very special one in my family history and I want to share it with you. It won't make the front pages of today's newspapers and I know that it is no reason to be proud because as Paul said, "God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty, and the base things of the world, and the things that are despised...to bring to naught things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence." I Corinthians 1:27-29
In 17th century England, there was a tailor by the name of Edward Wightman, of whom I am a direct descendent, who converted from the Anglican Church [Church of England] to faith in Christ and the Anabaptist Movement. The first of March 1611, he was brought before King James I [Head of the Church of England], not for an autographed copy of the original KJV Bible, but to defend his faith as an Anabaptist.
He was then arrested and condemned as a heretic for, among other things, being an Anabaptist. The death sentence was read in the Litchfield Cathedral on the 14th of December. He was condemned to the stake, to be burned alive.
The day of his execution, "Market Square" was full of spectators as Wightman was brought from the prison and chained to the stake. While his religious murderers were gathering burning embers around his feet, the silence of such a solemn moment was pierced by a blood-curdling cry.
The condemned heretic was pleading mercy and pledging to recant, to deny his Anabaptist position, to deny his faith, if only they would get him out of the flames! He had previously stated very eloquently that the baptism of babies was an abominable act and that Baptism and the Lord's Table should not be practiced as done by the Anglican Church. However, in this terrible moment he was ready to deny it all.
The penitent heretic was pulled out of the flames, with those who freed him actually being burned by the flames too, and then led back to the prison. After two weeks Wightman was brought again before the court to sign his denial papers. This time, however, having spent two weeks in the anguished soul-searching of the Apostle Peter, he was ready to stand firm for his faith, refusing to sign the denial. The court secretary wrote that he actually was "more blasphemous and audacious" than before.
Wightman's condemnation was renewed and he was taken again to "Market Square", where he was again chained to the stake. This time there wasn't a hint of wanting to recant. Edward Wightman was burned alive on the Saturday between Good Friday and Easter, April 11, 1612.
The martyr left his widow, Frances, with four children, Priscilla, 15, John, 13, Anna, 3 and Samuel who was 8 months old. The family then moved to London and the next generation left for the American colonies.
Valentine Wightman started the first Baptist church in Connecticut as well as in New York. Valentine's son Timothy followed in his dad's footsteps pastoring churches in Connecticut, organizing the second Baptist Church in that colony. Valentine's grandson John Gano* [see note] pastored in the same state, organizing the Third Baptist Church of Groton.
May God grant each of us the courage to leave an inheritance like this to our children and the children of our children. Have a great Easter as you celebrate our Lord's Resurrection. There is reason to rejoice!
*************************************
Yours for Christ in Italy,
*************************************
Fred & Rachel Whitman
Jonathan, Jeremy, Joshua & Elizabeth
*************************************
Baptist Mid-Missions, Italy
C.P. 34
06132 San Sisto (PG)
Italy
*************************************
Ph./Fx. -- (075) 528-9287
E-Mail -- whitmanf@ats.it
*************************************
No. 220
MORE ABOUT THE BURNING OF EDWARD WIGHTMAN BY KING JAMES
In an article which was sent to me as a "forward," and which I forwarded to my own list on April 18, the following statement was made: Valentine Wightman started the first Baptist church in Connecticut as well as in New York. Valentine's son Timothy followed in his dad's footsteps pastoring churches in Connecticut, organizing the second Baptist Church in that colony. Valentine's grandson John Gano* [see note] pastored in the same state, organizing the Third Baptist Church of Groton.
In my "note," I referred to information about "John Gano," but it has been called to my attention that I was mistaken in my "note," since the "John Gano" in the above paragraph was actually a reference to "John Gano Wightman," who evidently was "named-after" the John Gano who lived in the 1700's and baptized George Washington. In checking on this in some of the historical sources, I also came across some rather interesting material in regard to the burning of Edward Wightman during the reign of King James; those of you who are interested in Christian history might like to read the following.
Of particulate interest is the presentation of the martyrdom of Edward Wightman, written by David Benedict, the well-known Baptist historian of the early 1800's, who spent about two years traveling nearly seven thousand miles in the eastern and southern states of this continent, collecting materials for his historical work. Here is what Benedict wrote about the burning of Wightman and other persecution against the "non-conformists" who differed with the "Church of England" during the reign of King James:
The last man who was put to death in England for religion was a Baptist. His name was Edward Wightman, and is supposed to be the progenitor of a large family of that name in America, many of whom have been members of different Baptist churches in Rhode Island, and the neighboring States of Connecticut and Massachusetts, and not a few of them worthy ministers in our churches.
Mr. Wightman was of the town of Burton upon Trent, he was convicted of divers heresies before the bishop of Litchfield and Coventry, and being delivered over to the secular power, was burnt at Litchfield, April 11th, 1612.
This poor man was accused by his persecutors with Arianism, Anabaptism, and almost every other heretical ism, that ever infected the Christian world. He was condemned for holding the wicked heresies of the Ebionites, Cerinthians, Valentinians, Arians, Macedonians, of Simon Magus, Manes, Manicheus, Photinus, and of the Anabaptists, and of other heretical, execrable, and unheard of opinions.
"If," says [Thomas] Crosby, " Wightman really held all the opinions laid to his charge, he must have been either an idiot or a madman, and ought to have had the prayers of his persecutors rather than been put to a cruel death."
From the death of William Sawtre, who was burnt in London, to the time that Edward Wightman perished in the flames at Litchfield, was a period of two hundred and twelve years. We have very good grounds for believing that Sawtre was a Baptist, we are sure that Wightman was, and thus it appears that the Baptists have had the honour of leading the van, and bringing up the rear, of that part of the noble army of English martyrs, who have laid down their lives at the stake.
It is now about two hundred years [published in 1813] since Wightman, with his enormous load of heresies, was committed to the purifying flames. Almost half of this time, the Baptists in England were, for the most part, in an uncertain state; what earthly enjoyments they possessed were held by a precarious tenure, and persecution and distress were their common lot. They had indeed some short intervals of repose, but these were succeeded by tempestuous seasons, and the cup of affliction was dealt out to them by their enemies in plenteous measure.
We have observed that Edward Wightman was the last man who suffered death for religion in England. But this statement needs some qualification. He was indeed the last who suffered death for conscience's sake by a direct course of law; but multitudes since him, both Baptists and others, have died in prisons, and came by their ends by the various methods of legal persecutions, and lawless outrage, with which implacable adversaries pursued them. Thousands have suffered by fines, scourging, and imprisonment, been driven to exile, starvation, and wretchedness, by a protestant power, which professed to have separated from the mother of harlots, and to have renounced the works of darkness. Of many of these sufferers we have obtained
some information, but the history of many others must remain unknown, until that tremendous day, when the righteous Judge of the universe shall make INQUISITION FOR BLOOD. [A General History of the Baptist Denomination by David Benedict, Vol. 1, pages 196, 197].
In view of both the martyrdom of Wightman and the other physical persecutions enacted during the reign of King James, it is incredible that people such as Stephen Coston, Peter Ruckman, Larry Phillips, Gail Riplinger, and Tracy Broadhurst, are involved in a "campaign" to in effect "beatify" King James. Despite James' record as "Head" of the Church-State in England, in which position he ordered the burning of men at the stake and approved other acts of cruelty against the "non-conformists" for nothing more "criminal" than holding religious views ["heresies"] which conflicted with the views of the "Church of England," the estranged "daughter" of the Roman Catholic Church, these modern "defenders" of James seem to think that they embellish the "King James Bible" by embellishing James himself.
For more see our playlist "Dealing with Phony TV Preachers (TBN) & King James Onlyites" at ruclips.net/p/PL2CDA855486B09128. The following website refutes the modern day King James Only heresy - www.KJVOnly.org.
Matthew 7:15
Solomon had four thousand stalls for chariot horses, and twelve thousand horses. 1 kings 4:26 niv.
And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen 1 Kings 4:26 KJV. Who is right?
Hello, Can you give me the date this debate took place please, how and where. Thank you.
I want the Truth!!! Trying to figure this out??
I' am so relieved to know that god is muti-lingual and can be saved even though they don't speak Elizabethan English.
Not according to Sam Gipp...😂 Look up John Ankerberg KJV debate on RUclips . If I didn't hear and see the level of idiocy between Gipp and Chambers about being KJV only, I wouldn't believe it. It's laughable, the "logic" they believe.
@@nojustno1216 - Great reference! Thanks!
John Ankerberg discussion
m.ruclips.net/video/E1R-TCpXb68/видео.html
I found Texe Marrs' response a bit strange right off the bat. He said he debates Mormons, JW's, and atheists, but doesn't debate the Word of God. How do you debate any of those groups without debate about the Word of God?
Very good point! Hebrews 4:12, "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
He was no match for Dr White.
D A Waite responds in much the same way that all KJVo advocates do. When asked a question, rather than answer the question, they avoid it and tell us more differences between modern translations and the KJV "See! Its different." Good observation. Now show me how the KJV ascends to the authority! If the KJV is "THE" authority, then God would have told us. He would have left us a very specific prophecy! But he didn't. He told us that not one jot or tittle will pass away, but he didn't say where.
I didn't watch the video because I don't have time, but did God say that the KJV is the exclusive Bible that should be followed? Moreover, I was reading that the KJV provides an incorrect rendering for the word Cananaean in Matthew 10:4 and Mark 3:18, so how can it be perfect? That word should be Zealot according to Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary pg. 245, ISBN-13: 978-0310229834. I welcome anyone''s feedack.
I have just discovered your channel and appreciate the scholarly approach to many interesting issues. This was an informative debate, but I was irritated somewhat by the KJV guy constantly refusing to deal with the issues he was presented with. Anyway, thanks for lots of great material.
Our RUclips channel CAnswersTV (which stands for Christian Answers Television) features over 639 videos from a Biblical worldview organized according to topics. Our main channel can be accessed at ruclips.net/user/CAnswersTV where all our videos & playlists are on display. Here are our available playlists:
1. "Popular Uploads" at ruclips.net/user/CAnswersTV/videos?shelf_id=2&view=0&sort=p
2. "Dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses, Watchtower Society" with 25 videos at ruclips.net/p/PLCF0ADB29C0EB8C40.
3. "Dealing with Islam, Muslims: Sunni, Shi'ite, Alawites, Sufis" with 73 videos at ruclips.net/p/PL1C7F68B548009FDD.
4. "Dealing with Roman Catholicism, Idolatry & the Virgin Mary" with 140 videos at ruclips.net/p/PLFFA8D69D1B914715.
5. "Dealing with Darwin's Metaphysical Evolution Religion" with 21 videos at ruclips.net/p/PL0703E78058346A52.
6. "Dealing with Seventh-day Adventism & Their "Prophetess" with 26 videos at ruclips.net/p/PL5316CC6F66F24283.
7. "Dealing with Anti Trinitarians (UPC) & Early Church History" with 53 videos at ruclips.net/p/PL9931642C7C8FFEAB.
8. "Dealing with "God Hating" Atheists, Agnostics, Know-It-Alls" with 21 videos at ruclips.net/p/PL640E505B96CD6B39.
9. "Dealing with Phony TV Preachers (TBN) & King James Onlyites" with 30 videos at ruclips.net/p/PL2CDA855486B09128.
10. "Dealing with UFOs, Ghosts, Magic, Spiritual Warfare, Satan" with 19 videos at ruclips.net/p/PL2CF1129D311BF9A6.
11. "Radio Shows with National Christian Authors & Music Vids" with 52 videos at ruclips.net/p/PLF01B4264276D2990.
12. "Dealing with Black Muslims, Louis Farrakhan, Nation of Islam" with 25 videos at ruclips.net/p/PLD3B79AA00CCF21B7.
13. "Dealing with Mormonism, The Con Man Religion of Joseph Smith, Jr." with 23 videos at ruclips.net/p/PL11CD0EE613306BB5.
14. "Dealing with Hell, Lake of Fire, Unpopular Bible Doctrines" with 33 videos at ruclips.net/p/PLE04A1D0DFE95B95E.
15. "Dealing with AntiChrist Cults, "New Age" & World Religions" with 45 videos at ruclips.net/p/PL69A3047B3497590A.
16. "Dealing with "Saved by Works & Baptism", "Church of Christ" with 75 videos at ruclips.net/p/PLBD55090718DA6D3D.
17. "Charles H. Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, Our Spanish Videos" with 26 videos at ruclips.net/p/PLE91032ED05E42487.
18. "End Times, Supernatural Prophecies, Tough Bible Questions" with 49 videos at ruclips.net/p/PL141F261EEFCFD536.
19. "Dealing with Predestination, Arminianism & Calvinism" with 82 videos at ruclips.net/p/PLA932903698A56780.
We also have channels on Sermon Audio at www.sermonaudio.com/source_detail.asp?sourceid=christiananswers & www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Larry_Wessels. Although the 30 plus videos we have posted on www.SermonAudio.com are also on RUclips the thing that makes these particular videos of interest is that we have produced written transcripts of many of them which has helped quite a few people. Once you click on one of the transcribed videos scroll down to "Sermon Transcription" & choose your options: "View Transcript!," "Download PDF," or "Send to Kindle." Viewers also have the option of over 20 different languages to get the transcription in by going to the "Google Translation" option. Everything is free with nothing to buy. Here are just a few examples of some of our videos that have free transcriptions available:
"Early Christian Church History Proves Roman Catholicism False" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=113161415591,
"Divine Curse of the Hebrew Roots Movement - Replacing Jesus with the Old Testament" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=108151527437,
"Debate: Larry Wessels Versus Two Jehovah's Witnesses at a University Study Center" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=108141526191,
"Spiritual Counterfeit: ONENESS PENTECOSTALISM DENIES THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF TRINITY" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=52015115043,
"Unpopular Bible Doctrines #1: The God No One Wants To Know" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=311141259524,
"Islam's 1400 Year History of Violent Jihad For Sex Slaves, Money & Jew Hatred" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=324161224286,
"The Sovereignty of God Versus Man-Made Religions, Petty Emotionalism" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=52015125752,
"The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity- Part 3 (Answering Common Attacks Against the Trinity)" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=32416129330.
There are many more but this is just a small sampling of what is available at no charge.
Blessings to all. 2 Timothy 2:15, "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
In USA we have freedom read other Bible versions!!
I was in KJV-onlyism from 2015-2023. I thank God for men like Dr James White, who lay out all of the information in a simple straightforward way. It has shed so much light on the issue of translation for me. KJV-onlyism is a narrow-minded tradition. It’s just simply incorrect. And people seem to make an idol around the issue as well. Breaking fellowship with other believers and even claiming that they’re not saved if they don’t adhere to KJV-onlyism. Shocking….and sad.
Heavenly Father, please open the eyes of all your children who are stuck in this lie. Please show them the truth about your word and give them knowledge & understanding about this issue, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, amen.
The King James came along after a bunch of other translations had come out & that trend continues. In reality, no translation can be completely perfect. For example, in the KJV, the Hebrew in places such as Psalm 76:7 and 1 Kings 11:96 and 17:18 literally reads "God's nostrils enlarged." KJV translates this phrase as "God became angry," an example of dynamic equivalence. The KJV in Matthew 1:18 says "Mary was found to be with child." The Greek actually reads "Mary was having it in the belly!"
Agreed.
Agreed! Lets get into the nitty gritty of the manuscript variations rather than just tout KJVism philosophy & theology, avoiding the actual manuscript & historical data.
What translation should people of the Spanish and French languages read?
Watchmen of Georgia Someone who speaks Spanish replied to this question on our video ""New Age Bible Versions" & the "King James Only" Controversy - A Refutation" at ruclips.net/video/6Zo4tCyhyNU/видео.html in the comments section underneath the video. See also our video "Bible Translation Issue #2: Does the 1611 King James Correct the Original Greek & Hebrew?" at ruclips.net/video/M9V3j6u0CYI/видео.html. See Dr. James White's videos on the King James Only issue because in his analysis on Biblical textual criticism which, when properly understood, crushes the bogus arguments made by KJV Onlyites. For a great in depth study of Biblical textual criticism hear Dr. White's series on this subject at "Can I Trust My Bible?" at www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?seriesOnly=true&currSection=sermonstopic&sourceid=immanuelbc&keyword=Can+I+Trust+My+Bible%3F&keyworddesc=Can+I+Trust+My+Bible%3F which includes "Textual Criticism: Reliability, Answering Critics, Bible Versions & Sufficiency of Scripture." For further study see our playlist " Dealing with Phony TV Preachers (TBN) & King James Onlyites" at ruclips.net/p/PL2CDA855486B09128 where all our videos on King James Onlyism are located, including videos we have made with Dr. White. Hardcore King James Onlyites are dangerous false prophets causing division & strife within the Body of Christ so beware of them as Christ warned in Matthew 7:15."
thelastroadrunner The word "GODHEAD" in the KJV is not in the Greek. I like the KJV. It's usually the most accurate. I don't rely on new translations for my beliefs. I look into the Greek as much as possible. But the KJV is not perfect. It's just better than most.
Watchmen of Georgia Your comment about "GODHEAD" is correct, the King James got it wrong. Another example, according to my references for Acts 2:27, NIV says. "because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead, you will not let your holy one see decay." while the ESV says "For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption" while the NASB says "BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES, NOR ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY." while the KJV says "Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." The "grave" is not "Hades" & the KJV mistranslated "hades" here as "hell." "Hades" should be the word used here in this verse. The Pulpit Commentary says, "Verse 27. - Hades for hell, A.V.; give thy Holy One for suffer thine Holy One, A.V., surely not so good a rendering. Hades. The "hell" of the A.V. is the exact English representative of ᾅδης. The article in the Creed, "He descended into hell," is based upon this text especially, the other two alleged in support of it (Ephesians 4:9; 1 Peter 3:18, 19) being less conclusive (see Pearson on the Creed, art. 5.). It is a pity to lose the word "hell" in its true meaning. Corruption; Greek διαφθρόραν, Hebrew שַׁחַת. The Hebrew word always means a pit (from שׁוּחַ); but the LXX. here render it διαφθορά, as if from שָׁחַת (in Pihel, to destroy, waste; in Hophal and Niphal, to be corrupted, spoilt, to rot). In the A.V. it is rendered corruption, here and in Job 17:14, where it answers to "the worms," in the parallel clause. It is very probable that the LXX. are right. Nothing is more common than for Hebrew verbs to take the meaning of verbs with similar radicals. Holy One. So the LXX. and the Keri of the Hebrew text. But the Cethib has Holy Ones in the plural. It is obvious that the singular, Holy One, agrees far better with the singulars which precede and follow it - my heart, my glory, my flesh, my soul, thou wilt show me - than the plural, which is entirely out of place. The two clauses taken together show the full liberation of Christ from the dominion of death - that of his human soul from hell, and that of his body from the grave before it saw corruption (comp. Acts 13:34-37).
Now let's get into a little more detail by becoming familiar with some Hebrew and Greek words that are key to understanding this topic.
Sheol (Hebrew) - It is the non-permanent place or temporary address of the disembodied souls of dead. It is not the grave or sepulcher, nor is it the eternal location of the souls of the dead. It is the same as the Greek word "Hades", which we will look at in a moment. Prior to Jesus Christ's resurrection, both the souls of the evil and the righteous went there after death. It is translated "grave" 31 times, "hell" 31 times, and "pit" 3 times in King James Version (KJV) of the Bible.
Sheol (or Hades) has two separate halves. One side was and is reserved for the torment of the evil, while the other side, called "Abraham's Bosom" in Luke 16:22, was for the comfort of the righteous. There is and impassable canyon, or gulf, between the two halves. When Christ was resurrected, he led the righteous out of Sheol to Heaven. Many (probably not all) of the Old Testament saints were resurrected into their immortal bodies at that time (Matthew 27:51-53). Since then, the souls of all of the saved people go directly to Heaven when their bodies die. The lost people still go to Sheol and join the lost people of the Old Testament in torment on one side of the canyon when they die. The other side of Sheol formerly known as Abraham's Bosom has been vacant since Jesus Christ led the saints within it to heaven after His resurrection.
Sheol (or Hades) is described as being "in the heart of the earth" in Matthew 12:40 and is said to be below, down, or beneath in passages such as Deuteronomy 32:22, Isaiah 14:9, and Ezekiel 31:16.
The English word "Hell" refers to a place of eternal punishment for the wicked. Its meaning does not distinguish between the two separate places for the wicked to be punished, one temporary for the soul, and the other, the Lake of Fire, permanent for the soul and body. Nor does its meaning include the place of comfort for saints prior to Christ's resurrection. In normal English conversation, "Hell" is used only in the negative sense, with no saved people ever going there.
This caused some inadequate translations of "Sheol" and "Hades". Often these words are translated "Hell", which, as just explained, is rather ambiguous and non-descriptive. In many other places "Sheol" and "Hades" are translated as "grave", but the grave is only the place for the body after death, not the place for the soul. This confusion often occurs when the verse refers to a righteous man going to "Sheol", such as men like Jacob, Joseph, (Genesis 37:35) and Job (Job 14:13). Of course, these men did not go to a place of torment, but to the comfort side of Sheol (Hades), called Abraham's Bosom.
Hades (Greek) - It is identical to Sheol (Hebrew). It is the non-permanent place or temporary address of the disembodied souls of dead. It is not the grave or sepulcher, nor is it the eternal location of the souls of the dead. Hades is translated "Hell" 10 times and "grave" once by KJV. It is the place for the soul, not the body.
Gehenna (Greek, but originally from a Hebrew name) - translated "Hell" all 12 times in KJV It is the permanent place for destruction of the "... soul and body ..." (Matthew 10:28). It is a place of "... fire that never shall be quenched" (Mark 9:45). In most of the references, it is clear from the context that those who enter Gehenna, do so in their bodies, not merely as bodiless souls. For this to happen, it must occur after the resurrection of the damned at the great white throne of judgment. Therefore, Gehenna is the Lake of Fire described in Revelation 19 and 20. It is presently uninhabited, but the Beast and the False Prophet will be cast into it at the end of the tribulation (Revelation 19:20). One thousand years later, Satan will be cast into it (Revelation 20:10) and will be followed shortly by the lost people of all previous time periods (Revelation 20:15). They will all enter Gehenna together, in there resurrected bodies, where they will remain in torment for all eternity.
This Revelation 20 passage makes it clear that Hades and the Lake of Fire are not the same place. At the great white throne judgement at the end of the 1000 year kingdom, those in Hades will be removed from Hades, as Revelation 20:13 says, "... hell (Hades) delivered up the dead which were in them ...." And those which were in Hades will be cast into the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20:14-15). Note that the timing of this relocation of the lost occurs just before where Revelation 21:1 says, "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea." Hades, which will be emptied in Revelation 20:13, apparently will them be destroyed, since it is in the heart of the first earth.
The future destruction of the wicked is symbolized by the Valley of Hinnom to which Gehenna refers. It is a place south of Jerusalem where the bodies of dead animals and rubbish were taken to be burned. The Valley of Hinnom was also the site of much human sacrifice to the pagan god Molech (2 Kings 23:10, 2 Chronicles 28:3, 33:6, Jeremiah 32:35). The fire burned constantly in the valley since additional fuel was frequently being cast into it.
"And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart. Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that it shall no more be called Tophet, nor the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter: for they shall bury in Tophet, till there be no place" (Jeremiah 7:31-32). Here we see that in the Valley of Hinnom is a place called "Tophet" whose name means "place of fire".
"For Tophet is ordained of old; yea, for the king it is prepared; he hath made it deep and large: the pile thereof is fire and much wood; the breath of the LORD, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it" (Isaiah 30:33).
limne pur (Greek) - "lake of fire" occurs 4 times, all in Revelation 19 and 20. This is Gehenna, into which the resurrected damned are cast. Limne means "lake" and is translated as such all 10 times it occurs by the KJV. Pur means "fire" and is translated so 73 times by the KJV while being translated "fiery" once.
Other key terms
tartaroo (Greek) - Refers to "Tartarus" and only occurs once in 2 Peter 2:4 where it is translated "hell" "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment ...." This is probably a separate place from Hades, and may be a place only for fallen angels. There are no Biblical references to people going there.
grave (English) - The place for the fleshly body after death, sepulcher. It is not the abode of the soul or spirit.
abussos (Greek) - Abyss. It is translated "bottomless pit" 5 times, "deep" twice, and "bottomless" twice by KJV. It is where Satan will be locked up for the 1000 years of Christ's reign on earth (Revelation 20:1-3). This Abyss is also where the Legion of devils begged Jesus not to send them in Luke 8:30-31. And this Abyss is the bottomless pit that will be opened at the fifth trumpet judgment of Revelation 9:1-11. The beast that will come out of it at the fifth trumpet is mentioned in Revelation 11:7 and 17:8. This Abyss is thought by many to be the same as the impassable gulf described in Luke 16:26.
chasma (Greek) - a gaping opening, chasm, or gulf. It is translated "gulf" in its only occurrence in Luke 16:26, where it is the canyon separating the torment and comfort sides of Hades.
Abraam kolpos (Greek) - Abraham's Bosom (Luke 16:22). Abraam is translated "Abraham" all 73 times. Kolpos is translated bosom 5 times and creek once (Acts 27:39).
paradeisos - Paradise. It is translated "paradise" all 3 times by the KJV. "Paradise" is not the English translation of any other Greek word in scripture. First we hear the words of the thief and Jesus Christ on their crosses in Luke 23:42-43, "And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." In 2 Corinthians 12:4, Paul tells how he was "... caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." In Revelation 2:7, Jesus told the church of Ephesus "... To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life which is in the midst of the paradise of God." The tree of life is also mentioned in Revelation 22:2, in the new heaven and new earth, where it appears to be not just one tree, but a type of tree of which there are more than one. Since the three references show paradise to be in different places, then either paradise has been relocated once and will yet be relocated again, or it is a general term.
Summary
Sheol (Hebrew) and Hades (Greek) are the temporary place of torment for the souls of the wicked dead. Prior to Christ's resurrection, saints were kept and comforted in the now vacant half of Hades, known as Abraham's Bosom. Gehenna (Greek, but from a Hebrew name) is the Lake of Fire for the permanent place of torment of the souls of the wicked dead in their resurrected bodies. Hell is a rather general and inadequate term that is often used to refer to either Gehenna or the torment side of Hades, both by those who know the basic difference between these two specific places and by those who do not.
"Hades" is the Greek term widely used to denote the deity of the underworld and the abode of the dead. The New Testament use of Hades (hades [ᾅδης]) builds on its Hebrew parallel, Sheol (se'ol), which was the preferred translation in the Septuagint.
The Old Testament. Sheol refers primarily to death and the abode of the dead, both godly and ungodly (Gen 37:25; Psalm 16:10; 88:10-12; Isa 14:9). These conscious souls face a lethargic existence, apparently without reward or retribution (Job 10:21; Eccl 9:10; Isa 14:10). Since death is not a natural occurrence but invaded creation through the fall and Satan's destructive work (Gen. 2-3), the Old Testament personifies Sheol as the power of Satan and his demonic hosts (Job 18:14; Psalm 18:4-5; Isa 28:15; Jer 9:21). While an antagonist, Sheol ultimately exists at Yahweh's service (1 Sam 2:6; Psalm 55:23; 139:8). The Old Testament confidently awaits God's victory over Sheol (Psalm 98; Isa 25:8; Hosea 13:14). But the precise expectation of a bodily resurrection for the wicked and the related conception of Sheol as an intermediate state is late (Dan 12:2).
The New Testament. This indeterminate picture of Sheol and its Greek translation, Hades, allowed varying interpretations by intertestamental Jews. In the New Testament Christ's revelation and salvific work decisively shape this term. For Christ has established authority over all powers (Eph 1:20-23), even the one who "holds the power of death" (Heb 2:14; 2 Tim 1:10). He is the "Lord of both the dead and the living" (Rom 14:9).
Hades is the state in which all the dead exist. In the New Testament a descent to Hades may simply refer to someone's death and disembodied existence. In this sense even Jesus enters Hades. Following David's prophecy in Psalm 16:10, Peter interprets the resurrection as God delivering Jesus from Hades (Acts 2:27,31). Similarly, Jesus prophesies that the Son of Man will be delivered from the heart of the earth, just as God delivered Jonah from Hades (Matt 12:40). In both instances, Hades refers to a disembodied existence.
The New Testament does not explore Jesus' precise residence or activity while in Hades, unlike the later church traditions of the "harrowing of hell" or a "Hades Gospel." It is widely accepted that the proclamation in 1 Peter 3:19 occurs after rather than before his resurrection (v. 18, "made alive by the Spirit"), and that the dead in 1 Peter 4:6 are deceased believers who heard the gospel while alive. However, Jesus' descent to Hades is theologically important. This is the path of the Old Testament righteous (Isa 53). Furthermore, this descent confirms that God assumed human nature and even our sinful destiny, death (2 Col 5:14, 21; Heb 2:14). Finally, Jesus' deliverance from Hades establishes the new life for humanity (1 Cor 15).
Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus portrays additional features of this state (Luke 16:19-31). An unbridgeable chasm separates the wicked and the righteous dead. Death has fixed the human's destiny without further opportunity for repentance. The rich man recalls his fate and that of his family, and cries out in distress for Abraham to send them a sign and relieve his punishment, but to no avail. Usually the details of parables should not be pressed to teach doctrine. In this case Jesus' vivid description of the basic conditions of the godly and ungodly dead is indispensable to the parable's point. Other Scriptures also portray the requests of the dead and the fixity of their future (2 Col 5:10; Heb 9:27; Rev 6:9-10).
Hades is the place where the wicked dead reside and are punished. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man experiences torment in Hades. This is the intermediate state, for the bodily resurrection and the final judgment are still future. Jesus' point is that Hades foreshadows the rich man's final judgment. Similarly, Lazarus rests at Abraham's side, connoting the joyous abode of the righteous dead (Luke 16:23).
This differentiation between the wicked and the righteous dead continues throughout the New Testament. The righteous dead are "at home with the Lord" (2 Cor 5:8), "in paradise" (Luke 23:43), or in the presence of God (Rev 6:9; 7:9; 14:3). The unrighteous are held in punishment and wicked angels are imprisoned in Tartarus, a Greek term designating the lowest part of Hades (1 Peter 3:19; 2 Peter 2:4, 9; Jude 6 ). Jesus' woe to unrepentant Capernaum that it will be brought down to Hades is not simply a prophecy of its earthly demise, but its judgment (Luke 10:15).
For some commentations these references to Hades and the dead are problematic and contradict the Old Testament. G. Vos resolves these problems by distinguishing between Hades as a disembodied state for all the dead and the specific abode of the ungodly. As he astutely notes, only the ungodly reside in a punitive place called Hades. The godly dead are with Jesus in a disembodied state also called Hades. The New Testament does significantly modify the Old Testament concept of Hades as a shadowy abode of all the dead. This further development, however, concurs with Jesus' lordship over the living and the dead.
Hades' power is conquered. Like the Old Testament, the New Testament personifies Hades and associated terms, such as death, abyss, and Abaddon, as the demonic forces behind sin and ruin (Acts 2:24; Rom 5:14, 17; 1 Cor 15:25-26; Rev 6:8; 9:1-11; 20:14). When Jesus promises that the "gates of Hades" will never overcome the church (Matt 16:18), this phrase parallels Old Testament expressions tied to evil's power and persecution (Psalm 9:13; 107:17-20). Jesus' reference to the future in Matthew 16:18 concurs with Revelation's vision of Satan's final attack on God's people (19:19; 20:7-9). Jesus has promised that he will conquer Hades so that it will not defeat the church. Indeed, his resurrection establishes that this evil empire is already broken. Christ now holds the keys, the authority over death and Hades (Rev 1:18)!
The end of Hades. Jesus is the conqueror of all powers, the exalted One, and as such he has graced his church (Eph 4:7-10). With Hades vanquished (Rev 1:18) believers know that nothing, not even death, cannot separate them from Christ (Rom 8:39). They still await the next act in the history of salvation, when Jesus consummates his kingdom. Then Hades will release its dead for the final resurrection and judgment (Rev 20:13). Thereafter Hades, Satan, and the reprobate will be thrown into Gehenna, the place of God's final retributive punishment. (Hades has only a limited existence; Gehenna or hell is the final place of judgment for the wicked. Many English versions foster confusion by translating both terms as "hell.")
In summary, the New Testament affirms that Christ has conquered Hades. While dead believers exist in this state, they are also "with the Lord." Hades also denotes the vanquished stronghold of Satan's forces whose end is certain and the intermediate place of punishment for the wicked dead until the final judgment.
See also Abraham's Bosom; Death, Mortality; Grave; Hell; Sheol
Bibliography. J. W. Cooper, Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting; W. J. Dalton, Christ's Proclamation to the Spirits: A Study of I Peter 3:18-4:6; M. J. Harris, Themelios11 (1986): 47-52; R. L. Harris, TWOT, 2:892-93; A. A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future; J. Jeremias, TDNT, 1:146-49, 657-58; 6:924-28; T. J. Lewis, ABD, 2:101-5; G. Vos, ISBE, 2:1314-15.
"Grave" is the place where the physical remains of a deceased person are interred. It is "the place appointed for all living" ( Job 30:23 ). It is where all go, even animals ( Eccl 3:19-20 ). It is a place with no class distinctions ( Job 3:14-19 ).
In Old Testament times, a person who touched a grave was unclean ( Num 19:16-18 ). Thus almost all burials took place outside the city except for certain kings. Ezekiel prophesies that Judah will never again defile God's name with the corpses of their kings. The grave became a metaphor for human depravity. Paul quotes Psalm 5:9 ("their throat is an open grave") as part of his scriptural basis that all people are under sin ( Romans 3:9 Romans 3:13 ). Jesus compares some people in his day to whitewashed tombs that are beautiful on the outside but "full of dead men's bones and everything unclean" on the inside ( Matt 23:27 ). They are only outwardly righteous.
A grave could be a symbol of pride. Absalom followed the practice of ancient Near Eastern kings when he built himself a monument ( 2 Sam 18:18 ). Isaiah proclaimed that no one had the right to build such arrogant structures. Shebna, the royal steward, was told that he would be hurled out of the country for chiseling out a resting place for himself on the high rock ( Isa 22:15-19 ).
A grave might be a symbol of respect. Nehemiah remembered Jerusalem as the place of his father's grave ( Neh 2:5 ). Jacob set up a pillar to mark Rachel's tomb ( Gen 35:20 ). Not being interred in the family tomb was considered unthinkable. The anonymous prophet was punished in this way ( 1 Kings 13:22 ). Josiah did not desecrate this tomb out of respect for him ( 2 Kings 23:15-18 ). Jeroboam's baby was the only one good enough to deserve a burial ( 1 Kings 14:13 ).
To show disrespect for idolaters the dust of broken cult symbols was scattered over their graves ( 2 Ch 34:4 ). Josiah broke into the tombs at Bethel and burned the bones of the idolatrous priests upon the altar there to defile it ( 2 Kings 23:15-17 ). In Revelation 11:9 men do not bury the two witnesses to show contempt for them.
Graves at times symbolized hopelessness. The Gadarene demoniac made his home among the tombs ( Mark 5:2 ). It is a place of no return, where there is gloom, deep shadow, and disorder ( Job 10:21-22 ). There is no activity there ( Psalms 88:5 Psalms 88:16 ; Eccl 9:10 ). But it is not necessarily a final resting place. Human beings will lie there until the heavens are no more ( Job 14:12 ). The tomb is not an "eternal home" but a "dark house" ( Eccl 12:5 ).
A grave is also a symbol of hope, however. With the resurrection of Christ tombs in Jerusalem were opened and the dead came out ( Matt 27:52 ). When people threw a body into Elisha's grave, it came back to life ( 2 Kings 13:21 ). David's tomb reminded Peter of his prophecy that says, "You will not abandon me to the grave" ( Acts 2:27-29 ). Jesus said that "all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out" ( John 5:28-29 ). Christianity is still best represented by the empty grave ( John 20:1-9 ).
See also Burial; Death; Funeral; Hell
Bibliography. W. Coleman, Today's Handbook of Bible Times and Customs; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, vol. 1; N. J. Tromp, Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World; H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament; R. Youngblood, A Tribute to Gleason Archer.
"Hell" is the place of God's final retributive punishment. Scripture progressively develops this destiny of the wicked: the Old Testament outlines the framework, while the New Testament elaborates on it. Jesus, however, is most responsible for defining hell.
The Old Testament. In the Old Testament Sheol denotes the abode of the dead; conscious souls face a shadowy existence in this "land of oblivion" ( Job 10:21 ; Psalm 88:12 ; Eccl 9:10 ; Isa 14:10 ). Since death is not a natural occurrence but issues from the fall, the Old Testament confidently awaits God's demonstration of his lordship over Sheol by raising the righteous to life (Gen. 2-3; Psalm 16:10 ; 49:15 ; Isa 25:8 ; Hosea 13:14 ). While God's kingship also has implications for the wicked, here the Old Testament is more reserved. The Old Testament infrequently suggests a bodily resurrection for the wicked ( Dan 12:2 ), a final judgment and retribution for evil deeds ( Psalm 21:10 ; 140:10 ; Mal 4:1-2 ). Nevertheless, the contemptible and horrible destiny of the wicked, irretrievably isolated from the righteous, is clear ( Psalm 9:17 ; 34:15-16 ).
The Intertestamental Period. The intertestamental literature constructed divergent scenarios for the wicked dead, including annihilation (4 Ezra 7:61; 2 Apoc Bar 82:3ff.; 1 Enoch 48:9; 99:12; 1QS iv. 11-14 ) and endless torment (Jub 36:11; 1 Enoch 27:1-3; 103:8; T Gad 7:5). Sheol frequently became an interim location for the dead, distinguished from the place of final punishment (1 Enoch 18:9-16; 51:1). This final punishment was usually located in a valley south of Jerusalem, known in Hebrew as Gen Hinnom or the Valley of Hinnom (2 Apoc Bar 59:10; 4 Ezra 7:36), and in Greek as gehenna [gevenna] (2 Esdr 2:29). This valley had a long history as a place of infamy. Notorious for the child sacrifices offered to Molech during the reigns of Ahaz and Manasseh ( 2 Kings 16:3 ; 2 Chron 28:3 ; 33:6 ; Jer 7:31-34 ; 19:6 ), this valley was further desecrated when Josiah used it as Jerusalem's refuse dump ( 2 Kings 23:10 ) and it was prophesied as the place of God's future fiery judgment ( Isa 30:33 ; 66:24 ; Jer 7:31-32 ). While some intertestamental writings equate hell with the "lake of fire" in this "accursed valley" of Hinnom (1 Enoch 90:26, 27; 54:1, 2), others use it to denote a place in the underworld (Sib Or 4:1184-86).
In addition, the respective scenarios for the wicked, whether annihilation or eternal torment, shaped images of God's judgment. For instance, at times fire consumes the wicked (1 Enoch 99:12); in other texts fire and worms torment their victim to a useless existence (Judith 16:17).
The New Testament. In the New Testament hell is where the reprobate exist after the resurrection from Hades and the final judgment. In this lake of fire God punishes the wicked, along with Satan and his henchmen ( Matt 25:41 ), bringing an end to evil's free ways.
Gehenna [gevenna] is the standard term for hell in the New Testament. Related phrases include "punishment of eternal fire" (Jude 7), "lake of fire" ( Rev 19:29 ; 20:14-15 ), and "judgment." English versions occasionally translate hades [a&/dh"] (esp. Luke 16:23 ) and tartaroo [tartarovw] ( 2 Pe 2:4 ) as hell. However, these terms appear to denote the intermediate state, not the final destiny of the wicked.
Jesus says more about hell than any other biblical figure. His warnings of the eschatological judgment are liberally colored with the imagery of hell ( Matt 5:22 ; 7:19 ; 8:12 ; par. Luke 13:28-30 ; Matthew 10:15 Matthew 10:28 ; Matthew 11:22 Matthew 11:24 ; 18:8-9 ; par. Mark 9:43-49 ; Luke 17:26-29 ; John 15:6 ). He portrays this future judgment through pictures of Sodom's destruction ( Luke 17:29-30 ): fire, burning sulfur, and a fiery furnace ( Gen 19:24-25 ). These images of God's judgment were well established in the Old Testament and intertestamental literature. Important portrayals of hell are also present in Jesus' parables, including the tares ( Matt 13:40-42 ), the net ( Matt 13:50 ); the great supper ( Matt 22:13 ), the good servant and the wicked servant ( Matt 24:51 ; par. Luke 12:46-47 ), the talents ( Matt 25:30 ), and the last judgment ( Matt 25:46 ). Here "weeping and gnashing of teeth" ( Matt 13:50 ; 24:51 ; 25:30 ) and "darkness" ( Matt 22:13 ; 25:30 ) are key descriptive phrases.
The New Testament conception of hell does not exceed Jesus' description. The following headings outline its essential features.
1. Sinners will occupy hell. While God created us for a loving relation with himself, at the fall humankind rebelled. God's judgment falls on all sinners, unless they have faith in Jesus. After the provisional state of Hades and the final judgment, God's wrath culminates in hell. According to the New Testament, the objects of God's wrath range from the pious hypocrites ( Matt 23:33 ) and those failing to help the poor ( Matt 25:31-46 ; Luke 16:19-31 ) to the vile and murderers ( Rev 21:8 ).
Some argue that only an explicit repudiation of Jesus attracts God's eternal wrath, referencing lu 12:8-9. However, Jesus says "the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost" ( Luke 19:10 ). In other words, he came offering grace to a world that was "condemned already" ( John 3:17-18 ).
Since hell is not a natural fixture of creation but results from the fall and is destiny of the wicked, the New Testament occasionally personifies hell as the demonic forces behind sin. The sinful tongue is itself aroused and "set on fire by hell" ( James 3:6 ). Similarly, Jesus labels the Pharisees "sons of hell, " identifying the root of their hypocrisy ( Matt 23:15 ).
2. Hell exists for the requital and retribution of evil deeds. Hell is the place of God's final judgment. Here God, our King and Supreme Judge, finally rectifies wrongs through his retributive wrath. Here the damned will be paid back for the harm they have done ( Matt 16:27 ; Luke 12:47-48 ; 2 Peter 2:13 ; Jude 15 Rev 14:9-11 ). Wrath is not the natural consequence of evil choices in a moral uerse or the sinner's misconstrual of God's love. Rather, as Paul's use of orge shows, wrath is an emotion or feeling in the Godhead, and thus God's personal action ( Rom 1:18-32 ). By extrinsically imposing penal conditions on the sinner, God rectifies wrongs and reestablishes his righteous rule ( Matt 25:31-46 ; Rom 12:19 ; 1 Cor 15:24-25 ; 2 Col 5:10 ).
3. Hell is a final place of bondage and isolation from the righteous. After the resurrection and the final judgment, the wicked and even Hades are thrown into hell. The New Testament describes hell as a place: a furnace ( Matthew 13:42 Matthew 13:50 ), a lake of fire ( Rev 19:20 ; 20:14-15 ; 21:8 ), and a prison ( Rev 20:7 ). The wicked are imprisoned here so they cannot harm God's people ( Matt 5:25-26 ; Matthew 13:42 Matthew 13:50 ; 18:34 ; Jude 6 Rev 20:14-15 ).
While the parable of Lazarus and the rich man occurs in Hades, the intermediate state, and not Gehenna, it does foreshadow the latter. Jesus says an unbridgeable spatial chasm separates these two so no one can "cross over from there" ( Luke 16:26 ). John's vision in Revelation 21 of the new city on a high mountain confirms this separation between the blessed and the damned after the day of judgment. Consequently, Scripture provides no warrant for those speculative images of the righteous rejoicing in the torture of the damned. The prophecy in Isaiah 66:24, which has been so used, does not refer to this eschatological event, for the resurrection of the body has not occurred.
4. Sinners suffer penalties in hell. Jesus repeatedly accentuates hell's dreadfulness and horror: "if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out It is better to enter life with one eye than to be thrown into the fire of hell" ( Matt 18:9 ). While Scripture remains reticent on the specific torments for the impenitent, certain dimensions are clear.
At the final judgment, God will declare, "I don't know you Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire" ( Matthew 25:12 Matthew 25:41 ). The wicked in hell are excluded from God's loving presence and the "life" for which humans were originally created ( John 5:29 ). The damned are "thrown outside, into the darkness" ( Matt 8:12 ; 22:13 ). Consequently this "second death" ( Rev 21:8 ) is a useless and ruined existence ( Matt 25:30 ; Luke 9:25 ; John 3:16-18 ; 2 Thess 1:9 ; 2 Peter 2:12 ; Jude 12 ; Rev 21:8 ). Sin has thoroughly effaced every virtue. The reprobate have become obstinate in their rebellion against God, like "unreasoning animals" ( Jude 1:10 Jude 1:13 ; 2 Peter 2:12-22 ). Consequently, the doors of hell can be locked from the inside, as C. S. Lewis observes.
In hell, the damned receive their due for "things done while in the body" ( 2 Col 5:10 ; 2 Peter 2:13 ; Jude 15 Rev 14:9-11 ). The "undying worm" has often been interpreted as the soul's internal torment, coveting and grieving what has been lost ( Mark 9:48 ). This regret is compounded since the reprobate are not penitent but locked into their rebellion. But the grave's worms and darkness are also common images of a contemptible fate. Scripture suggests that there are degrees of punishment in hell. The one "who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows." More severe is the punishment due to the disobedient who were "entrusted with much" ( Mark 12:40 ; Luke 12:48 ).
Annihilationsim and the Extent of Hell. The extent of hell has occasioned much debate in recent scholarship. There are three major points of contention.
Some annihilationists have argued that the biblical imagery of a consuming fire, destruction, and perishing implies the cessation of life (Stott). However, Jesus' pictures of hell are not literal descriptions but metaphors. They are mutually exclusive, if taken literally, for the fires of hell conflict with its "utter darkness." In the intertestamental literature the metaphorical image of a fire could suggest annihilation or everlasting punishment, showing the inconclusiveness of this argument.
Some annihilationists have argued that when the Greek adjective for eternal, aionios [aijwvnio"], is used with nouns of action, it refers to an occurrence with eternal results, not an eternal process (Fudge). "Eternal punishment, " it is argued, denotes a punishment that occurs once with eternal results. However, counterfactuals dispute this argument. The eternal sin ( Mark 3:29 ), for example, is not just one sin, but an action that irretrievably debilitates so one only sins. Similarly, everlasting salvation (aionios [aijwvnio"] soteria [swthriva]) does not refer solely to Christ's work long ago, and thus preclude his sustaining and preserving presence. For Scripture describes believers, even in the age to come, as existing "in Christ" ( Rom 8:1 ; Eph 1:13 ; Col 2:6-7 ; 2 Tim 2:10 ). So aionios soteria [aijwvnio"swthriva] refers to Christ's eternal (aionios [aijwvnio"]) salvation of the blessed, an action that is everlasting as well as final.
In Matthew 25:46 Jesus differentiates the two futures of eternal life and eternal punishment, using the same adjective for each, aionios [aijwvnio"]. In Jesus' mind, it appears, the extent of each future is identical. If the existence of the righteous is endless, so also is the existence of the wicked. Other statements suggest the same conclusion. Jesus teaches that "whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him" (John 3:36). As long as God's wrath abides on them, the damned must exist. Jesus' picture of hell as a place where "their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:48) indicates that this manifestation of God's wrath is unending. Other passages in the New Testament reiterate Jesus' dreadful warning, by describing hell as "everlasting torment." Even annihilationists admit the difficulty of such texts for their position. For a specific Biblical refutation to annihilationism & universalism & other attempts at evading eternal torment go to "Eternal Punishment, part 1" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12607145320 & "Eternal Punishment, part 2" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sid=12607143539.
Objections to Hell. Hell is a dreadful reality. Just as Christ wept over Jerusalem, believers are similarly troubled and anguished by this destiny of the lost. Some have raised serious challenges to the reality of hell.
One perennial difficulty concerns the relationship between God's love and holiness: How could a loving God reject forever the creature he loves? This question assumes that the creature is the highest intrinsic good, even for God. But the highest good for the God of Scripture is not humanity. Humanity was created for God, and cannot be defined in terms of itself; we exist to glorify God (Psalm 73:24-26; Rom 11:36; 1 Cor 10:31; Col 1:16). That is why Jesus insists it is idolatrous to enlist God as humanity's servant (Luke 17:7-10). Certainly God loves the creature; creation itself reflects God's free love. But since God's love is complete in himself, even before creation, the creature cannot be presumed as his one and only end. Nor can the character of God's love be decided a priori, but only by revelation. Consequently, Jesus' warning of the wrath to come (Matt 25:31,41,46) must be accepted as an inherent possibility of God's love.
Some acknowledge retribution, but question why the wicked are eternally kept in existence to suffer. At issue is the punishment due sin. Since pride conceals the sinner's true debt to God the Judge, again this question should be answered by examining Christ's priestly work of propitiation. At the cross God in Christ became our substitute to bear the punishment for our sins, so as "to be just and the one who justifies the man who has faith in Jesus" (Rom 3:26; cf. 2 Col 5:21; 1 Peter 2:24). The God-man propitiated our sin. This fact, that God the Judge, the "Lord of glory" himself (1 Cor 2:8), accepted the punishment due us, suggests that the penalty for sin against the Infinite is infinite.
Questions will remain. But believers personally know God's love in Jesus Christ. And their response to a lost world will parallel that of their Lord, who humbled himself to our condition, suffered, and died for the wicked.
See also Death, Mortality url="/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/death-mortality.html"; Eternal Punishment; Grave; Hades; Judgment; Judgment, Day of; Sheol
Bibliography. D. L. Edwards and J. Stott, Evangelical Essentials; E. Fudge, The Fire that Consumes; A. A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future; C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain; S. McKnight, Through No Fault of Their Own: The Fate of Those Who Have Never Heard, pp. 147-57; T. R. Phillips, Through No Fault of Their Own: The Fate of Those Who Have Never Heard, pp. 47-59; W. G. T. Shedd, The Doctrine of Endless Punishment; D. F. Watson, ABD, 2:926-28.
I am wanting to get a new study bible but I don't know which one to get. Can you recommend a good translation or a specific study bible?
Thanks :)
+Samara S: Ryrie Study Bible expanded edition is excellent ..comes in KJV/NASB/NIV. Not sure if they make it on like the ESV though
16:30 The KJV does express that there has been doubt of the last 11 verses of Mark. It goes on to say that the 4th century documents where it was absent did have a space left indicating it might be added later. It also mentions the early Church fathers who mentioned it.
That's fine as long as you're not a hardened KJV Onlyist. We use the KJV in all our video productions & it is a good translation. My favorite however is the New American Standard Bible which I use in conjunction with the KJV & the NKJV. As far as the textual family arguments you're using I would ask readers to contrast that to James White's material on his AOMIN ORG website & Doug Kutilek's website KJVONLY ORG which is listed on our CANSWERSTV RUclips channel page - along the right hand side.
King James Onlyists almost always make the claim that the KJV is the perfect word of God and then claim that if you do not have a perfect Bible then you either have no Bible or you have a corrupt Bible. One simple question destroys their argument instantly and easily: Then what was the perfect Bible before the King James Bible was translated in 1611? Because the KJV perfectly matches no prior Bible translation or manuscripts. Therefore they are claiming that the church did not have a Bible for 1500 years. The fact is this. The KJV is a beautiful translation but it, like every translation before or since, is not perfect. The Greek Septuagint that the Apostles quoted from is never argued to be a perfect translation. Yet it was considered the word of God by the Apostles so much that Biblical Christianity and prophesy was based on it. If KJV Onlyists want to argue that the Septuagint was perfect then they have a bigger problem. The KJV absolutely does not perfectly match it.
I believe that tragically, the KJVO argument brings disrepute to God's Word, not to even mention 'unwittingly' making it a laughing stock to Muslims, who claim that the Bible has been corrupted; I mean, they are without excuse before God, but how must this all look to them on the face of it?!
No matter what you say to a Muslim it won't matter. Their eyes, ears and hearts are sealed shut against the truth. You might want to bring to their attention their are roughly 36 different Koran versions.
@@theextreme7134 not all of them. Sam Shamoan has won some Muslims to the Lord. there is Hope for all to come to Christ.
I wanted to add, "when in doubt check it out".
"To whom much is given, much is required". Maybe this will cause us all to better educate ourselves. Maybe this will separate the sheep from the goats, I believe God is big enough to draw true believers to find the truth, those who seek Him shall find Him! I myself have gone back to the authorized KJ; I believe it & I trust it & it speaks to me. I suggest that we all dig deeper into this. We didn't have this problem 50 yrs ago.
You're welcome. Besides our many videos on this you may want to do the following 3 things: a) Go to the website KJVONLY ORG which is a classic refutation of KJV Onlyism - this website is also listed on our RUclips channel page CANSWERSTV, b) go to our website BIBLEQUERY ORG & once on the homepage click on the "experience" box then scroll down to our newsletter section where you will find our newsletter on this subject & c) read the description text of this video (click on the "show more").
This debate is a joke. Dr. D.A. Waite avoids every example of exact translation examples given by James White. All Dr. Waite did was make claims at other translations yet he avoided any exact example given. Dr. Waite danced around the questions because he knows that the examples from KJV are inferior. As James White said "I have brought up passage after passage".
I am ok with someone preferring KJV but to assert that KJV is superior to all other translations is simply wrong.
After listening to this debate, I am convinced that there must be King James Only Kool-Aid. King James Onlyists do not debate fairly or logically!
thelastroadrunner
Same here.
thelastroadrunner
My bad. My comment was directed at James B.
+James B Lol
I've been called worse. ***shrugs*** God bless you, though. :)
So simple even a child understands.