I like what you're doing. We need a solid foundation with which to stand up for every doctrine - and depth within it - that only the KJV offers in English. You don't have to be scholarly to trust Jesus, so I think that reasoning applies to how we view the KJV. If there are minor mistakes, they are very minor and mans is at fault for that. But the Holy Spirit is aware of the process of time to get us from the myriad of English bible's: like the Bishop's or Geneva, to the AV1611, to the 1769 standardized version that we see today. So I think it's perfect. The Geneva has "straining out a gnat", the AV1611 and 1769KJV has "straining at a gnat". The Holy Spirit has a sense of humor if you will because I picture all of us with huge eyeballs and magnifying glasses arguing about things we no longer have control of, (the details of history). We can control our obedience to the great commission, even though I strongly believe unity is established from pure doctrine that comes from pure trust in the pure word of God, that I also have only found in the KJB. On another note, if we trust God's signature is on the KJV, and we strain at the life of King James, we see a huge part of it in the entire life of the Stuart Kings from James I to James II, Charles I, and II, this completes the Stuart Kings. This includes the Trail of Charles I, which has numbers and statements I find fascinating: m.ruclips.net/video/OPDpj59kkgk/видео.html . God used subtleties in their lives that reflect the Gospel and other things, we find mirror imaging in the bible like we see in the Stuarts: James I, James II, Charles I, Charles II.... Charles I is executed similarly like Jesus was, King Charles II came back from exile and avenged his throne and secured or set up, his kingdom. Mother of King James I was Mary, a catholic, who was beheaded, some say by "the Virgin Queen", Elizabeth I, who was accused of being a protestant. Was God saying Protestants hold the Truth over Catholics? King James I became king of all of Great Britain after gaining the throne of his mother Mary of Scotland and England from Elizabeth. God used fallible people but left a whole lot of breadcrumbs. I haven't even mentioned that in these last days we are dealing with the death of Queen Elizabeth II - who is the Methuselah of Queens and Charles the III who some say is more like the anti-Charles of Charles the Ist . Sorry for the length but you only had one comment, so consider this 20 of them in one place. I'm grateful the translators used Italics to every spot they needed to convey English to, it shows they didn't want to hide anything from the King or people. I strongly suggest people read the Preface to the KJB that the scholars put in the bibles before the 1769KJV, it is very enlightening and shows how the culture of the day spoke and how they made choices to translate the best they could. In other words, they showed their fallible humanity. Have a very good day! God bless!
Quote from Martin Luther: No greater mischief can happen to a Christian people, than to have God's Word taken from them, or falsified, so that they no longer have it pure and clear. God grant we and our descendants be not witnesses of such a calamity.
A absolutely fantastic presentation!!! If we had only the critical texts, and no traditional texts, the Reformation would not have occurred. We'd all be praying to Mary instead of the Lord Jesus! The critical text "Scolars," if they're truly saved, owe their salvation to the Traditional Texts! They might as well be Catholics for the things they believe. I'm, thankfully, a protestant... thanks to a Bible preserved for 2000 years. :-)
@@Kongebarn As almost 67 years of being a KJV only reader and teacher of the scriptures I ran across a Bible called the KJVER. Have you seen or studied that bible. It does seem to just remove some of the thee’ and thou’s and not mess with the text like the NKJV does. Could you give it a review for an opinion say for younger KJV readers.
@@LastTrump7The NKJV is a modern translation from the same underlying Hebrew & Greek source text. The name is misleading, they should have named it the New Textus Receptus Version or something because people have a wrong idea of what the NKJV is supposed to be. The issue with Bible versions is not “how does it compare to the KJV”, but rather “how does it compare to the body of Hebrew & Greek manuscripts. The standard is not the KJV, it is the manuscripts. The REAL issue that people should deeply research and choose a standpoint on is not TRANSLATIONS, but rather which manuscript tradition does one believe is the accurate and true word of God. Critical Text vs Byzantine Text is the real issue, not english translations. In Christ, -Matthew
@@Matthew-307 Question: I know the New King James is said to be a "revision of the King James." But were the Greek and Hebrew texts for the New King James the same as they were for the King James? Answer: not a revision of the King James Bible. It is a subtle perversion of the King James Bible. Though years of extensive research have shown that the Greek and Hebrew texts used for the main NKJV text were similar to those used for the KJV, there is a subtle and deadly poison injected into the NKJV: it changes the meaning of God's words and it lifts up other texts that disagree with the King James. A History of Preservation There is a big difference between God's preserved words and man's perverted words. And keep in mind that two things had to be preserved through the centuries: the accurate text of God's words, and the correct translation of those words. Old Testament God preserved the words of the Old Testament by the Levitical priests, who faithfully copied them through the centuries. The best manuscript, used by the King James Bible, was the Ben Chayyim, also called the "Bomberg Text." This faithful Rabbinic Old Testament, used for the King James Bible, was rejected by the NKJV committee in favor of a Vatican-published text. But it still takes a careful eye (and a parallel Bible) to spot the differences. New Testament God preserved the words of the New Testament by His faithful Christian disciples, from Antioch of Syria (Acts 11:26) to the Vaudois people of the French Alps about AD 120. From the 150s on they passed this Old Latin Bible (called "Common Bible" or "Vulgate") throughout Europe and the British Isles. The Vaudois people were regarded by the Protestants and Baptists as "pre-Reformers," passing down the gospel message till the Reformation of the 1500s. Their Bibles and others translated from them, were so accurate they were included in translating the King James Bible. The NKJV committee unwisely used none of these Bibles when deciding the meaning of God's words and how to translate them into English. The Preserved vs. the Perverted "Vulgate" Please remember: the Vaudois' Old Latin Vulgate is not the same as the later Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate. The Vaudois' Vulgate is God's preserved words of God in Old Latin which brought the gospel to all Europe. The Roman Catholic Vulgate is completely different. It wrongly mixed God's words with the perverted Alexandrian Greek Old Testament, Apocrypha and New Testament. Modern "scholars" falsely declare there's only one Latin Vulgate. But there are two: the preserved (Vaudois) and the perverted (Roman Catholic). A Mixture of Perversion The New King James Version is not a true King James Bible. It mixes some true King James accuracy with a lot of Alexandrian and "new version" errors. We know this because the NKJV tells us which ancient texts they used when they made up their Bible. Don't be fooled by the clever names and symbols. Here is what they say they really used: The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, or BHS. This is not the preserved Hebrew Old Testament. This one is approved by the Vatican (Roman Catholic religion) and printed jointly by the Vatican and Protestant Bible societies. In 1937 the "scholars" rejected the preserved Ben Chayyim it for an "older" (but not more accurate) text: the Leningrad Ms B 19a (also called the "Ben Asher text"). The BHS states: "...it is a welcome sign of the times that it was published jointly in 1971 by the Wurttemburg Bible Society, Stuttgart, and the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome...." --Prolegomena, p. XII The Septuagint, or LXX. As you have seen1, the so-called "Septuagint" is a fable. It was really written after Jesus was born, not before. There are many Septuagints, since each Alexandrian Old Testament is different from every other. Know what they are? Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus - the same exact codices (big books) where the modern perverted New Testaments come from! The Latin Vulgate. This is not the preserved Vaudois Christian, Old Latin Vulgate. The NKJV "scholars" consulted the perverted, Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate. The Dead Sea Scrolls, or DSS. It is clear through Scripture that God preserved His words through the tribe of Levi (Deuteronomy 17:18, 31:9-13, 25-26, Nehemiah 8 and Malachi 2:7). The Qumran community that produced the DSS are never said to be Levites. But though God says "the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth" (Malachi 2:7), the NKJV committee instead consulted the DSS as well. The Majority Text, or MT. With a name like Majority Text it should be a compilation of the majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts. But it is not. The "Majority Text" is actually a hand-picked set of manuscripts grouped together by "pro-Alexandrian" liberal Hermann von Soden2. Less than 8% of the over 5,000 Greek manuscripts were compared to each other by von Soden's team of collators! But the NKJV people give the MT great prominence, writing this inaccurate information in the footnotes. So people think that the King James is wrong, since it disagrees with "the Majority Text." Who cares? The "Majority Text" is not the majority of texts! The "Majority Text" is a big fake. Don't believe it. And don't trust any Bible that does. If It Looks Like a Duck and Talks Like a Duck… There is another side to the New King James that reveals its ugly alliances. In most places where the NKJV disagrees with the King James Bible, it agrees with the translations of modern Alexandrian perversions, whether Prostestant like the NIV, NAS, RSV, ASV, etc., or Roman Catholic like the New American Bible. The King James Bible is God's preserved words in English. The NKJV is just man's most subtle perversion of God's words. Don't be deceived. Insist on the King James Bible, not "New" King James, "Modern" King James, King James "2" or "21" or "Millennium,." Even thought it is very similar to a King James Bible, it is not a King James Bible. Insist on the one you can stake your faith on, the genuine King James Bible. God will bless you. Verse King James NKJV Perversions agreeing with NKJV Acts 3:26 God, having raised up his Son His Servant NIV, NASV, ASV, RSV, Roman Catholic New American Bible (NAB), etc. Acts 17:22 I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. very religious NIV, NASV, ASV, RSV, Catholic NAB, etc. Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie who exchanged the truth of God for the lie NIV, NASV, ASV, RSV, Catholic NAB, etc. 1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. who are being saved [This teaches the Roman Catholic lie that salvation is a process.] NIV, NASV, NASU, RSV, Catholic NAB, etc.
As the author says in the description, the documentary A Lamp in the Dark is an excellent overview of this issue, but there's actually two others by Adullam films and Christian Pinto that go along with it; Tares Among the Wheat, and Bridge to Babylon. All together they show what the situation was during the history of the situation, and give important information about why it involves much more than the Textus Receptus vs the Textus Sinaticus and Alexandrinus and Codex vaticanus B. They are well worth watching. 🙏✝️👑✝️🙏
Thank you sir, for all the time you invested in this work. It it clear that this study took a great deal of careful research. It is a wonderful inductive study confirming the promise of the the Lord Jesus Christ, who stated that God would providentially control and thus safeguard the textual transmission of His Word. Matthew 5:17-18.
Excellent study, thank you. You have explained it very clearly in an easy to understand manner. I am saving this to show others that I know who prefer the modern translations and believe they are superior to the KJV.
GREAT JOB! I am sharing this on my church channel and adding it to my apologetical playlist. Very good job! I will be putting out something similar this week, and I am going to be using your information as a source.
This is great thank you. I just recently ran across all abhorrent things about Wescott and Hort being into mysticism and contacting the dead, even forming a mystic group. I’m now pretty much convinced to only study from Kjv and Nkjv, Kjver, kjv21 and Akjv.
You might want to research a little further as far as anything but the King James version… Is the new King James version also is corrupted. Blessings in your journey.
@@evelyny7037The only standard by which any english translation should be compared to is the body of Hebrew & Greek manuscripts. It’s a category error to compare modern translations to the KJV as the standard. The standard is the manuscripts, not a 17th century English translation.
Check out Mark Ward’s videos on Wescott & Hort. Those two men have been slandered and quoted out of context more than anybody else in the textual criticism world.
Just because someone produces a corrupt manuscript doesn’t mean God hasn’t preserved His Word. Let God be True and every man a liar. Praise God for this video brother God bless you
Sinaiticus was written in 1840 by Constantine Simonides. The Vaticanus was found in the Pope's library in 1475. Check out David W. Daniels on the Chicktracts channel. He has done extensive research research on the Sinaiticus Text. More research than anyone I've ever heard of. Check out his books as well.
Eramarus was a Catholic priest The Catholic & Ortrodox Helped put together the Bible People could not read or write back in them time's many Catholic Monks hand written the Scripture's before the printing press Luther wanted to remain Catholic Facts.Catholics we believe Christ Saves We Honor Mary & the saints in Heaven but Christ Saves Saint Peter Christ wanted him to Start a Church Over 2,000+ year's Muslims Kings Emperor's Hertical people tried to Destroy Christ Church But the Catholic & Ortrodox still stand ! Christ said to Simon Peter do you love me & said feed my Lambs tend my sheep📖🙏🛐💯 Catholic Any Question Catholic answers Has books the Bible proves the teachings of the Catholic church Jimmy Aikins Debate vs Lutheran many people at Catholic answers are ex Prostestants & even some ex Ortrodox Russian Greek & Jewish 📖🙏🛐💯 Catholic God bless
@@frankperrella1202 most of the Proto-Protestants and Reformers were catholic priests. Something you don’t understand is that they all worked in defiance of Rome. Get that please. Even Erasmus was hurried in a Protestant graveyard as an insult because of it.
@@mresab1997 Original Prostestants like the Anglicans believe have Christ Sacraments like the Catholic & Eastern Orthodox churches, Like John 20:21-23-23 Confession) Baptism John 3:5) The Eucharist John 6:51-58- Lk 22:19-20; Ointing of the Sick James 5:14-15 Mk 1:32-34 & Confirmation Lk 24:49; Acts 8:14-17 & Holy orders 2 Tm 1:6; Titus 1:5-9 & of Course Matrimony John 2:1-12) Numerous Church Father's Prostestants site the deeper they did they either become Catholic or Eastern Orthodox many ex top Prostestant Scholars. We all believe Christ saves. St Paul warns that it's not easy he said to follow Christ & the road is narrow. 🙏🛐✝️🗝️🗝️
After many years of research on this subject, I don’t know how I missed this video. Very well presented. My brother, you are a faithful laborer. Please continue the defense of the true Word.
Excellent video! There are many claims made against the KJV, or the Masoretic and TR, and when I research them, I see that none of them hold weight. God bless!
also great to hear the Norwegian perspective of translations. I have several bibles I take when I go to church so I can point out exactly what you have said. many times the pastor does not appreciate it but oh well .
Thank you very much for the hard work and resources. Although I believe in Covenant Theology and not Dispensationalism. Praise God for the love of His Pure Word.
I do appreciate this video, thank you! I do have a comment on your mention of dispensationalism: Grace was present in the skins provided by God for covering.
Yeah the bible says the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith. From the faith of Abraham, who preceded the law, to the faith of Moses, who by faith left royalty behind for God's promise. Hebrews 11 shows us it's always been about faith in God.
Excellent work , thank you brother because I have come upon this and your video confirmed what the Holy Spirit has been impressing upon my heart. God bless you brother ! Thank you 🙏
Thanks for sharing your valued insights on the merits of the Traditional Texts. I would like to add that while the Textus Receptus is included within the Traditional Text, when referenced with the KJV, it should be emphasized that the Textus Receptus is the primary text used for the translation of the KJV.
One thing about the TR is that it emphasizes the biblical and ancient practice of Isopsephy or what we commonly know as Gematria. Which is the simple method of allocating numbers to letters to form mathematical equations in any given language. We can see this very evidently in Revelation 7:4 with the number 144,000 being described as ρμδ to write out 144,000 instead of what many modern Greek NT's put instead is ἑκατὸν τεσσεράκοντα τέσσαρες χιλιάδες and completely getting rid of the original text! The "Scholars" of so called "Higher and Textual Criticism" have completely erased a biblical doctrine and ancient practice in the process and on purpose all to combat the TR? All this sound new to you? Well guess what... alphanumerics proves that the Reformers had the right line of manuscripts and were working on some incredibly old stuff. Math doesnt lie.
Same with the mark of the beast number, it is three letters that mean Christ in three diffrent languages and how the Hebrew text in Genesis in equal distane linked to people's dates, and names. Also, check out Truth is Christ.
The critical text is on N/A version 28 already and will constantly change forever, Modern Text Critics freely admit that their reconstruction efforts will NEVER be complete since all Autographs for comparisons are lost. So, in essence the CT is a forever changing text creating nothing more than doubt! Almost all modern text critics are unbelievers (although academics) and certainly do not believe in Inspiration and Preservation.
This is amazing. This is exactly what I thought about the situation. The Bible says that we will always have the Word of God in the Bible, but the textual critics want us to believe that we only found them recently, but then you should consider that they are the same people that don't think Moses Wrote Genesis and the other books of Moses. So, basically, they don't believe in the Bible, but they want to tell us what the real Bible is. Edit: they never have PROVEN that Sinaticus and Alexandrinus and Codex vaticanus B are actually older, more reliable, and not actually forgery from the Vatican. 🙏✝️👑✝️🙏
Thanks so much for this video on the true identity of our bible. Before salvation, I was an atheist and had to know if the bible was the word of God and which textual stream was the real one. I currently have a brother who is asking the same questions and so I sent him your video. I knew that Norway always had one bible and they were a unified church...such a blessing! Here in North America we have been deluged by many translations and the critical text. In your video you mention the importance of "fundamentalism." My eschatology was fundamentalist futurism for many years, but found it rather confusing and depressing. A few years ago, I decided to really dig into the eschatology issue and studied every view out there but as I went along I kept coming back to the teaching of "Preterism" because it clearly answered so many of the questions that fundamentalist eschatology had no answer for. Essentially, Preterism stands on three pillars of interpretation: audience relevance, time stamps and allow scripture to interpret scripture. In short, it opened up my bible to me and gave me truly the "Good News." I would humbly ask that you would give David Curtis a listen (see link below). He is an excellent expository preacher who has been a Preterist for over 20 years. Before that he was an ardent fundamentalist and his eschatology was futurist. Here is one of his teachings on "end times." God bless! ruclips.net/video/_s1mOSjz7As/видео.html
Thanks for the link, I've been interested in researching Preterism. I do like the serious Scriptural approach that view takes, but it also seems to overly spiritualize sections of Matthew 24 because a WHOLE bunch of stuff in there doesn't seem to have occurred in AD 70. However, I still want to do more research!
@@breese50 Thank you for replying to my post in your comment section. My desire to understand the truth regarding "end times" put me in the "full preterist" position, not because of whim or fancy but a diligent inquiry into every aspect of this position. There are, of course certain individuals within the movement that create confusion on the subject; usually in secondary aspects. The "audience relevance," and "time stamps" kept me anchored while I critically scrutinized all the material. One of the most intriguing facets of this study were the writings of Josephus who was contemporary to the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. His description of the temple is very interesting. Here are his comments: Josephus, Ant. Bk. 1, chapter 7, 7 (p. 180-181; also see 90-91) - Josephus says that the Temple and even the garments of the priest represented LAND, SEA and, HEAVEN. Whiston, Josephus Antiquities, Bk. 3, chapter 6:4, (P. 87)- “However, this proportion of the measures of the tabernacle proved to be an imitation of the system of the world: for the third part thereof which was within the four pillars, to which the priests were not admitted, is, as it were, a Heaven peculiar to God; but the space of the twenty cubits, is, as it were, sea and land, on which men live, and so this is peculiar to the priests only…” Antiquities, Bk. 3, Chpt 7:7- (p. 90)- The veils too, which were composed of four things, they declared the four elements; for the fine linen was proper to signify the earth, because flax grows out of the earth; the purple signified the sea, because the color is dyed by the blood of the sea shell fish; the blue is fit to signify the air…; And for the ephod, it showed that God had made the universe of four (elements)… the breastplate was made to resemble the earth, the girdle represented the ocean, the Sardonxes the sun and moon, the twelve stones the months…” Josephus, Whiston, Ant. Bk. 3, chapter 6, 4 (87, p. 123) The Temple was “an imitation of the systems of the world. The rest was sea and land” Thus, the Temple was “heaven and earth.” When we honestly consider this Jewish concept of the Temple, it is little wonder that when Jesus predicted the destruction of that City and Temple, the disciples immediately connected that impending disaster with the “end of the age!” Having read the above quotes it becomes amazingly clear that Jesus was not talking about some event in the far future but something that was to happen very soon, in fact He said it would occur in their generation. The destruction of the temple and end of the law and it's sacrifices (the rudiments, the stoikia) were burned up in 70 A.D. "But when YOU see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, YOU will know that her desolation is near.Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country stay out of the city. For THESE ARE THE DAYS of vengeance, TO FULFILL ALL THAT IS WRITTEN." Luke 21:20-22 Again, I would refer you to David Curtis, pastor of the Berean Bible Church. His RUclips channel has virtually twenty years of material on Full Preterism. He is a careful expository preacher. I must say that I do not believe in his "cessationist" position regarding the Holy Spirit and the gifts. There are many individuals on the web who are attempting to teach full preterism, but he does the best. God bless
@@gloryman3634 thanks for the information. Can you help me clarify the definition - Full Preterism believes that all of Jesus' prophecies about Jerusalem/end of the age are fulfilled (it seems). Does the view also believe that all of Revelation was completely fulfilled as well? I guess I would ask when the Millennium/Christ's reign takes place, or the second coming. Are those still future events?
@@breese50 Yes. By definition Full Preterism is the teaching that all things written by the law and the prophets were fulfilled right up to and including the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. The Revelation, including the millennium, is actually a divorce proceeding between Christ and apostate Israel who, by the law, bust be stoned and burned. The Revelation of John is probably the most difficult writings in the entire Bible. When trying to come to terms with its interpretation, I did quite a bit of listening and reading. Essentially, there are two foundational principles that give us helpful guidance. First there are the "time stamps" that are at the beginning and end: At the beginning: “This is the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants what MUST SOON COME TO PASS. Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear and obey what is written in it, BECAUSE THE TIME IS NEAR” Revelation 1:1a, 3 And at the end in the last chapter. “Then he told me, “DO NOT SEAL UP THE WORDS OF THE PROPHECY IN THIS BOOK, BECAUSE THE TIME IS NEAR.” “Behold, I AM COMING SOON.” “He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I AM COMING SOON.” Amen. Revelation 22:10, 12, 20 The second principle is "audience relevance." In verse four of chapter one John says: "to the seven churches which are in Asia." This is who the letter is written to and Jesus gets very specific when addressing these seven churches. There is no evidence through out the letter that any one else is included. All interpretation regarding its application to some time in the far future is pure speculation. There is one other interesting aspect to the Revelation (also through out the New Testament) and that is the Greek word "mello" meaning "about " which often gets mistranslated in our English bibles. Here is one example from Revelation 12:5 where this word "mello" is used: Rev 12:5 - "And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is [ABOUT] to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and His throne." It is clearly about Jesus who was caught up to God and His throne in heaven, not on the earth. Here is a link to a fine article that deals with the Greek word "mello" and its usage in the New Testament: www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/preterist-forum/greek-mello-a-dangerous-word-to-futurists-and-partial-preterists/ Though not directly connected to the Revelation of John it supports the imminency of the soon coming of Christ to those who were alive at the time the epistles were written. Her is one example from the second epistle to Timothy: 2 Tim. 4:1 - "I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is [about-"mello"] to judge the living and the dead, and by His "appearing" and His kingdom." Here we a have the "judgement, Christ's imminent return and with that His kingdom all in one verse and it was about to happen in their life time. In closing...the comment section of RUclips is not the best place to go into detail on subjects like John's Revelation. One of the best resources on the Preterist position around is "The Parouisa" by James Stewart Russell. It is available on the web and can still be purchased in hard copy. He does go verse by verse through the whole bible including Revelation Here is the PDF link: www.preteristcentral.com/pdf/pdf%20books/1878_russel_parousia.pdf Hope you continue to persevere in the study of Preterism, it will be worth it. It opened my bible up to me in such a wonderful way. God bless!
@@breese50 David Curtis's RUclips video on Revelation is a good introduction: Part 1 ruclips.net/user/results?search_query=david+curtis+revelation+part+1 Part 2 ruclips.net/video/W2OoLOgaqcs/видео.html
LOL I dont know if I have commented here before but this video is great every time Im going to do a study of this I always go back to this video. This is such an inportant point in Christianity. Thank you and God Bless
thanks for a solid info ...in spanish the most popular (for non- catholics)and used Bible is the Reina- Valera 1960; wich is a revision from the "Biblia del oso" (Bible of the bear) made by Casiodoro de Reina in 1569 and later revised by Cipriano de Valera in 1602, and it has many revisions througout the time...the problem I´ve found with the 1960 revision is that, although Biblical societies claims that they used Textus Receptus for its revision, when you compare it with an older version, you can easly see that is leaned towards the critical text, and it has the same translation and changes like the modern ones!!!..many are against spanish versions of NIV, NLT, NASB, etc... but what they don´t realize is that the Reina-Valera 1960 is pretty much alike to those new versions...that's why now I use KJV and Reina Valera 1602 purificada (purified version) wich are faithful to the majority texts....
Hey Kongebarn - this is awesome work - thank you! Let me ask you a question: Should we "make disciples of all nations" or "teach all nations" (Matthew 28:19) I have also been researching the history of the differences in the Great Commission. Every Bible I could find published before 1885 including the Vulgate reads "teach all nations" so I went back further to the church fathers, but the trick is in the translation. They wrote in Greek, and those two phrases are translated from the same word. Therefore, if a quotation of the church father was printed prior to 1885 it seems it's translated as "teach" whereas a more recently printed book it is now translated as "make disciples". Have you done any research on this topic? I wonder if the failure of the Western church is primarily due to the obsession with "making disciples" (converts) and a loss of emphasis on "teaching". Blessings!
Yes, much like the removal and/or change of the word "study" to "correctly handles", as found in 2 Timothy 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." And the word "corrupt" in 2 Corinthians 2:17 "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." to "peddle", which is exactly what these so-called Bible publishers actually do. All MV's change many important words of God's Holy infallible Writ. along with major doctrines, thus fulfilling a prophecy of a famine for hearing the word of God, during these last days of apostasy, evil and great wickedness, as written in Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD: God bless
Amen Bro. and thank you for making this. More info has come out about the so-called oldest codex's. These books are very good. "Was Codex Sinaiticus written in 1840?", by Jack Moorman "Neither oldest Nor best", by David Sorenson "Is the worlds oldest Bible a fake", by David Daniels "Who faked the worlds oldest Bible", by David Daniels
Hi, can you please provide a source for the claim that the Waldensians had a text as far back as 120AD? From all that I can find they were named after Peter Waldo (Valdo, or Valdes) from 12th century France.I can't find anything backing their being around earlier than that.
Some of the Byzantine texts go back to the 4th century. They have been used by Greek speaking people since that time. Thousands of copies were made. These copies are in a high degree of agreement. This is how God has preserved His Word. The modern claim that the original text was lost is not based on fact.
ya, I have not watched the video.... but after reading the comments subscribed to the channel. I am sure I will spend a lot of time here in the future.
I've been studying the Arguments for the textus receptus for years. It really is a no-brainer. The copyright of every modern version is held by zondervan, the same company that owns the rights to the Satan's Bible. If you open up your church has different translations, the New World Translation says that the word was a god the first chapter of John. They say the new versions are supposed to reduce confusion, but the fruits are confusion. These new versions are an endless problem
Your claims are misleading. Zondervan publishes many versions, they aren’t the sole copyright owner of “every modern version.” For example, the NASB is copyrighted by The Lockman Foundation. The New World Translation was made by and for Jehovah’s Witnesses who deny the deity of Christ. They’re on par with Mormons. So that version is really completely out of the question all together.
@Adam H they dont hold rights to the KJV. Everyone prints the KJV. The point is, they are in it for the money. KJV can't be because there is no copyright. Thomas Nelson is also owned by Harper Collins. Same company.
Colossians 1.14 doesn’t make me question if “God” said this because that is all “Paul talking” Paul and his thoughts and opinions on the faith is Not God talking
Great question - what about it? And are you referring to Origen's Hexapla or the supposed BC Septuagint or the Codex Sinaiticus? I have been researching this issue as well and there's VERY little evidence of a BC Septuagint. If so, then all the "quotations" of the LXX in the NT are actually the LXX quoting the NT, not vice versa. Case in point, go to CodexSinaiticus.org and look up Psalm 13/14. There is a HUGE chunk of text randomly added to one of the verses (I think it's highlighted in blue on the website). Where did all this text come from? Romans 3, because the scribe who wrote this Psalm accidentally quoted Paul for like 5 verses. Fun fact, the Codex Sinaiticus is the "oldest and best" version of the LXX that is available.
If this information is correct and is freely available then HOW in the world is any biblical scholar siding with the Vaticanus and sinaiticus texts ?? EVERYTHING about them seems so off in so many ways . And lines like “ You shall not live by bread alone . Make no sense. There is clearly another sentence Jesus is about to speak which is in the king James “ But by every word of God “. I just do not understand. Are they all blind ?? Brilliant work on the video. Truly eye opening
I agree. It's sort of like saying God's word which believers all over the world used for hundreds and hundreds of years was a bit wrong, but now, we've got the right one from this discovery just from the 1800's. I don't think it makes sense.
Although there is some difference in the manuscripts they do not change any of the main doctrines i.e how to find the way of salvation, God has saved many people through the niv or any bibles that use the critical text.
When you fly over the Atlantic ocean, would you fly in a plane with only one of the four motors working? Or would you prefer a plane with all four motors working? And yes, there are doctrinal differences, check the material in the links below the video.
God saved me also through the NIV He saves many through the modern bibles as well. He saved us in spite of us using the wrong bibles not because of them.
Thanks brother! Great work. I do say though, the Mark of the beast passage. The Greek word for In or On is the same. If you check On and In is used interchangeable with different passages. Like Rev 9:4 Mark of God "on" their forhead. So I don't see a problem.
this issue is very important, the issue of *which text* of the NT we are to follow... the debate of the Byzantine/TR text vs the Alexandrian text and the implications seen in modern Bible versions, will surely continue, and the debate is even more alive today ... theology is indeed affected by variant readings in the Greek texts... [nettopp derfor er det så viktig å få gjort dette riktig... jeg anbefaler at du studerer dette litt nøyere og forbereder et manus før du spiller inn en video og poster den på RUclips, og at du får engelsken mer nøyaktig, og detaljene mer presist, dette er for viktig til å skusle bort med unøyaktige opplysninger... beklager å si dette så kontant,... men det er ment konstruktivt.... :-)) ]
So, the thing about Origen. He seems to the first person to use "Lucifer" as the proper name for the Devil and the subject of Isa 14:12. As we know, Origen thought that the Satan will be restored one day. Other Patristic writers followed Origen's views of Lucifer, including Jerome, who penned "Lucifer" into the Latin Vulgate, and that proper name ended up in the KJV. The KJV does provide an alternate rendering: "O Lucifer: O day star"; but, how is it that one can reject Origen and the Alexandrian writers; but embrace Origen's "Lucifer"; which he may have borrowed from pagan mythology; which has one or more "Lucifer" characters?
This has been so enlightening. However it just shows me how so very close to Jesus’ death that deception took root. That trinity verse for example. I hear you out when you say that it’s supposed to read as the KJV has it & you quoted a church father who used it. But then why does Irenaeus in Against Heresies (I thinkkk the book 4 intro) that “there is none other called GOD by the Scriptures except for the father, the son, & those who possess the adoption.” If he believed in the trinity surely that’s not what he’d have said. Moreover, I downloaded a Byzantine Bible module & 1 Jn 5:7 is NOT as the Textus receptus & KJV have it. & the Byzantine would belong to traditional, not critical.
The Vatican had nothing to do with Codex Sinaiaticus. Sinaiaticus was found in the St. Catherine's monastery. It is a Greek Orthodox monastery. I am not a fan of Sinaiaticus, but you need to get your history correct. Vaticanus dates back to the 4th century AD. It is a historically trustworthy document.
I have not read any bible, but i am intrested in reading the bible. But i have found out that most bibles is corrupt, i live in sweden, is there any correct bibles in sweden or should i read the kjv? Or possibly just the norwegian bible guds ord?
The best bible version there is, is the one you actually DO read. Read any version in sweden. Just be AWARE of of the list in the description. The Holy Spirit will grow you up even in a corrupted version.
Good points and if every true Christian would understand what happened they should not participate in the deception. Some mistakes in your presentation are the false dates of so called earliest and best codex's. It's clear Codex Sinaiticus is not from the 4th century. If you love God’s word then you would use traditional text. If the Greek compilation or translations you use take Jesus’ Deity out of 1Timothy 3:16 and John 3:16 or make Jesus lie to his brothers in John chapter 7 concerning going to the feast then that is not traditional text. Why are there such ludicrous changes? Because modern Bible translators translate from a corrupted set of codex’s which jesuits, catholics and satanists compiled. They worked to replace reliable codex’s to translate from, instead using Codex Sinaiticus which was created in the 1800’s which they pass off as the oldest and best “old” Bible; Sinaiticus, they claim is 1500ish years older than it truly is. Then there is codex Alexandrinus which “appeared” about ten years after KJV 1611 was published, and codex Vaticanus which appeared in the Vatican around the 1400’s and was rejected by the scholars that worked on the KJV. Not every verse in scripture was changed but there are changes throughout. In a nutshell, handing Bible Translators something “messed up” to translate “from” makes whatever they translate “to” wrong from the start. One should review evidence in the Chick Tracts Official channel playlist on Sinaiticus to know more about this subject.
You had made a comment that dispensationalism is the correct method in which to interpret passages in the Bible yet you are arguing for the textus receptus. Please research dispensationalism and the catholic counter reformation as far as the protestant bible goes. God bless you brother.
Could you kindly let us know 1) where you studied textual critical studies and 2) where you were licensed to teach textual criticism and where you currently teach textual criticism? And 3) what textual critical scholars recognize you as an authority in the field?
Thanks for Showing that Eramarus a Catholic priest put it together 🙏🛐 I like the Duay-Rheims version KJV Luther In Germany & King James left out the Aprohpa books 📚📖⛪🛐 May God bless Catholic answers does nice stuff on the topic & a Good book the Bible proves the teachings of the Catholic church by Brother Peter Diamond of Mhfm on the net📖⛪🛐 The Catholic & Ortrodox & Church Father's put the Bible together many Catholic orders hand written the Scripture's before the printing press Let's Protect the Bible Christ Said Scripture's 📖 & Oral Tradition 🙏 God bless Jesus Mary and Joseph Pray for Us Christ Save Us for the world is falling apart to Liberalism 🛐📖🙏💯 Catholic 🛐
You said Westcott and Hort both worshipped mary. I had the same idea that both were catholic, but where do you get this from? I sincerely wanna know. In wikipedia it says both were anglican dudes God bless
There is a book of the letters Wescott wrote to Hort and it says a great deal about him. You would be surprised at what he believed. He said the origin of species by Darwin impressed him more than the Bible. The letters were put out by his son.
I thought for a long time the Westcott and Hort held some wild beliefs. Unfortunately, a LOT of bad scholarly work exists on the pro-Majority/TR side of things, and almost every one of their quotes was taken (wildly) out of context. Also, it doesn't matter if WH were crazy if they did a good job translating (they didn't). Using the Genetic Fallacy is a bad line of argumentation and it is irrelevant. Tons of good reasons exist to ignore the modern Critical Text without criticizing the origin of it.
Yes I believe the Byzantine manuscripts are the correct manuscript tradition, hence why I mainly use the NKJV. I confess however that i do also use other translations.
Around 9:30 he states that the Antioch manuscripts were just a little newer; I would like to know what manuscript he is referring to. The quotes from the church fathers is a strong argument; alternatively, the Byzantine manuscripts almost all date from the 9th Century onward, which for me throws some water on the fire of the argument about their number.
The majority date 9th century onward, but many date to shortly after the 300s AD as well. The argument that the modernists claim is basically that those verses/segments of verses were a *late addition*. All you have to do to disprove such a strong claim is to provide even one piece of evidence that the reading predates the 300s AD, which is Kongebarn's (well-researched) claim.
You seem to really know your stuff. I love your zeal for truth. What do you think of brother James White and brother John Maurther? I turn to them alot for answers and explanations that are not to clean in the English Bible.
My NKJV had everything correct to the original Textus Receptus, and it’s easily readable as apposed to the original KJV. There are footnotes though that try to tell you were the NU Text and M Text omitted words. But you can choose to ignore them lol
Nobody guided by the Holy Spirit will be misled regarding the deity of Christ, the atonement, the resurrection, and essential doctrines by reading modern translations.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
Another helpful resource where you can look up any NT verse and see early church citations : earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/
Why are not doing in English
I like what you're doing. We need a solid foundation with which to stand up for every doctrine - and depth within it - that only the KJV offers in English. You don't have to be scholarly to trust Jesus, so I think that reasoning applies to how we view the KJV. If there are minor mistakes, they are very minor and mans is at fault for that. But the Holy Spirit is aware of the process of time to get us from the myriad of English bible's: like the Bishop's or Geneva, to the AV1611, to the 1769 standardized version that we see today. So I think it's perfect. The Geneva has "straining out a gnat", the AV1611 and 1769KJV has "straining at a gnat". The Holy Spirit has a sense of humor if you will because I picture all of us with huge eyeballs and magnifying glasses arguing about things we no longer have control of, (the details of history). We can control our obedience to the great commission, even though I strongly believe unity is established from pure doctrine that comes from pure trust in the pure word of God, that I also have only found in the KJB. On another note, if we trust God's signature is on the KJV, and we strain at the life of King James, we see a huge part of it in the entire life of the Stuart Kings from James I to James II, Charles I, and II, this completes the Stuart Kings. This includes the Trail of Charles I, which has numbers and statements I find fascinating: m.ruclips.net/video/OPDpj59kkgk/видео.html . God used subtleties in their lives that reflect the Gospel and other things, we find mirror imaging in the bible like we see in the Stuarts: James I, James II, Charles I, Charles II.... Charles I is executed similarly like Jesus was, King Charles II came back from exile and avenged his throne and secured or set up, his kingdom. Mother of King James I was Mary, a catholic, who was beheaded, some say by "the Virgin Queen", Elizabeth I, who was accused of being a protestant. Was God saying Protestants hold the Truth over Catholics? King James I became king of all of Great Britain after gaining the throne of his mother Mary of Scotland and England from Elizabeth. God used fallible people but left a whole lot of breadcrumbs. I haven't even mentioned that in these last days we are dealing with the death of Queen Elizabeth II - who is the Methuselah of Queens and Charles the III who some say is more like the anti-Charles of Charles the Ist . Sorry for the length but you only had one comment, so consider this 20 of them in one place. I'm grateful the translators used Italics to every spot they needed to convey English to, it shows they didn't want to hide anything from the King or people. I strongly suggest people read the Preface to the KJB that the scholars put in the bibles before the 1769KJV, it is very enlightening and shows how the culture of the day spoke and how they made choices to translate the best they could. In other words, they showed their fallible humanity. Have a very good day! God bless!
I’ve never seen a better defense than this with evidence for every attacked verse. Thank you so much!
Quote from Martin Luther:
No greater mischief can happen to a Christian people, than to have God's Word taken from them, or falsified, so that they no longer have it pure and clear. God grant we and our descendants be not witnesses of such a calamity.
A absolutely fantastic presentation!!! If we had only the critical texts, and no traditional texts, the Reformation would not have occurred. We'd all be praying to Mary instead of the Lord Jesus! The critical text "Scolars," if they're truly saved, owe their salvation to the Traditional Texts! They might as well be Catholics for the things they believe. I'm, thankfully, a protestant... thanks to a Bible preserved for 2000 years. :-)
Why do you think we would be praying to Marz if only the critical text existed?
Thank you brother for this elaborate video, may God continue to preserve the Word and spread it. Blessings in Christ from Spain
This needs more views. Excellent work
Thanks! Please share!
@@KongebarnCan you send the project link? I'm sick of people insulting the KJV. Please!
@@Kongebarn As almost 67 years of being a KJV only reader and teacher of the scriptures I ran across a Bible called the KJVER. Have you seen or studied that bible. It does seem to just remove some of the thee’ and thou’s and not mess with the text like the NKJV does. Could you give it a review for an opinion say for younger KJV readers.
@@LastTrump7The NKJV is a modern translation from the same underlying Hebrew & Greek source text. The name is misleading, they should have named it the New Textus Receptus Version or something because people have a wrong idea of what the NKJV is supposed to be. The issue with Bible versions is not “how does it compare to the KJV”, but rather “how does it compare to the body of Hebrew & Greek manuscripts. The standard is not the KJV, it is the manuscripts. The REAL issue that people should deeply research and choose a standpoint on is not TRANSLATIONS, but rather which manuscript tradition does one believe is the accurate and true word of God. Critical Text vs Byzantine Text is the real issue, not english translations.
In Christ, -Matthew
@@Matthew-307 Question: I know the New King James is said to be a "revision of the King James." But were the Greek and Hebrew texts for the New King James the same as they were for the King James?
Answer: not a revision of the King James Bible. It is a subtle perversion of the King James Bible. Though years of extensive research have shown that the Greek and Hebrew texts used for the main NKJV text were similar to those used for the KJV, there is a subtle and deadly poison injected into the NKJV: it changes the meaning of God's words and it lifts up other texts that disagree with the King James.
A History of Preservation
There is a big difference between God's preserved words and man's perverted words. And keep in mind that two things had to be preserved through the centuries: the accurate text of God's words, and the correct translation of those words.
Old Testament
God preserved the words of the Old Testament by the Levitical priests, who faithfully copied them through the centuries. The best manuscript, used by the King James Bible, was the Ben Chayyim, also called the "Bomberg Text." This faithful Rabbinic Old Testament, used for the King James Bible, was rejected by the NKJV committee in favor of a Vatican-published text. But it still takes a careful eye (and a parallel Bible) to spot the differences.
New Testament
God preserved the words of the New Testament by His faithful Christian disciples, from Antioch of Syria (Acts 11:26) to the Vaudois people of the French Alps about AD 120. From the 150s on they passed this Old Latin Bible (called "Common Bible" or "Vulgate") throughout Europe and the British Isles. The Vaudois people were regarded by the Protestants and Baptists as "pre-Reformers," passing down the gospel message till the Reformation of the 1500s. Their Bibles and others translated from them, were so accurate they were included in translating the King James Bible. The NKJV committee unwisely used none of these Bibles when deciding the meaning of God's words and how to translate them into English.
The Preserved vs. the Perverted "Vulgate"
Please remember: the Vaudois' Old Latin Vulgate is not the same as the later Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate. The Vaudois' Vulgate is God's preserved words of God in Old Latin which brought the gospel to all Europe. The Roman Catholic Vulgate is completely different. It wrongly mixed God's words with the perverted Alexandrian Greek Old Testament, Apocrypha and New Testament. Modern "scholars" falsely declare there's only one Latin Vulgate. But there are two: the preserved (Vaudois) and the perverted (Roman Catholic).
A Mixture of Perversion
The New King James Version is not a true King James Bible. It mixes some true King James accuracy with a lot of Alexandrian and "new version" errors. We know this because the NKJV tells us which ancient texts they used when they made up their Bible. Don't be fooled by the clever names and symbols. Here is what they say they really used:
The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, or BHS. This is not the preserved Hebrew Old Testament. This one is approved by the Vatican (Roman Catholic religion) and printed jointly by the Vatican and Protestant Bible societies. In 1937 the "scholars" rejected the preserved Ben Chayyim it for an "older" (but not more accurate) text: the Leningrad Ms B 19a (also called the "Ben Asher text"). The BHS states:
"...it is a welcome sign of the times that it was published jointly in 1971 by the Wurttemburg Bible Society, Stuttgart, and the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome...."
--Prolegomena, p. XII
The Septuagint, or LXX. As you have seen1, the so-called "Septuagint" is a fable. It was really written after Jesus was born, not before. There are many Septuagints, since each Alexandrian Old Testament is different from every other. Know what they are? Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus - the same exact codices (big books) where the modern perverted New Testaments come from!
The Latin Vulgate. This is not the preserved Vaudois Christian, Old Latin Vulgate. The NKJV "scholars" consulted the perverted, Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate.
The Dead Sea Scrolls, or DSS. It is clear through Scripture that God preserved His words through the tribe of Levi (Deuteronomy 17:18, 31:9-13, 25-26, Nehemiah 8 and Malachi 2:7). The Qumran community that produced the DSS are never said to be Levites. But though God says "the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth" (Malachi 2:7), the NKJV committee instead consulted the DSS as well.
The Majority Text, or MT. With a name like Majority Text it should be a compilation of the majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts. But it is not. The "Majority Text" is actually a hand-picked set of manuscripts grouped together by "pro-Alexandrian" liberal Hermann von Soden2. Less than 8% of the over 5,000 Greek manuscripts were compared to each other by von Soden's team of collators! But the NKJV people give the MT great prominence, writing this inaccurate information in the footnotes.
So people think that the King James is wrong, since it disagrees with "the Majority Text." Who cares? The "Majority Text" is not the majority of texts! The "Majority Text" is a big fake. Don't believe it. And don't trust any Bible that does.
If It Looks Like a Duck and Talks Like a Duck…
There is another side to the New King James that reveals its ugly alliances.
In most places where the NKJV disagrees with the King James Bible, it agrees with the translations of modern Alexandrian perversions, whether Prostestant like the NIV, NAS, RSV, ASV, etc., or Roman Catholic like the New American Bible.
The King James Bible is God's preserved words in English. The NKJV is just man's most subtle perversion of God's words. Don't be deceived. Insist on the King James Bible, not "New" King James, "Modern" King James, King James "2" or "21" or "Millennium,." Even thought it is very similar to a King James Bible, it is not a King James Bible. Insist on the one you can stake your faith on, the genuine King James Bible. God will bless you.
Verse King James NKJV Perversions agreeing with NKJV
Acts 3:26 God, having raised up his Son His Servant NIV, NASV, ASV, RSV, Roman Catholic New American Bible (NAB), etc.
Acts 17:22 I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. very religious NIV, NASV, ASV, RSV, Catholic NAB, etc.
Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie who exchanged the truth of God for the lie NIV, NASV, ASV, RSV, Catholic NAB, etc.
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. who are being saved [This teaches the Roman Catholic lie that salvation is a process.] NIV, NASV, NASU, RSV, Catholic NAB, etc.
As the author says in the description, the documentary A Lamp in the Dark is an excellent overview of this issue, but there's actually two others by Adullam films and Christian Pinto that go along with it; Tares Among the Wheat, and Bridge to Babylon. All together they show what the situation was during the history of the situation, and give important information about why it involves much more than the Textus Receptus vs the Textus Sinaticus and Alexandrinus and Codex vaticanus B.
They are well worth watching.
🙏✝️👑✝️🙏
Thank you for listing these resources.
Thank you sir, for all the time you invested in this work. It it clear that this study took a great deal of careful research. It is a wonderful inductive study confirming the promise of the the Lord Jesus Christ, who stated that God would providentially control and thus safeguard the textual transmission of His Word. Matthew 5:17-18.
Excellent study, thank you. You have explained it very clearly in an easy to understand manner. I am saving this to show others that I know who prefer the modern translations and believe they are superior to the KJV.
GREAT JOB! I am sharing this on my church channel and adding it to my apologetical playlist. Very good job!
I will be putting out something similar this week, and I am going to be using your information as a source.
This is great thank you. I just recently ran across all abhorrent things about Wescott and Hort being into mysticism and contacting the dead, even forming a mystic group. I’m now pretty much convinced to only study from Kjv and Nkjv, Kjver, kjv21 and Akjv.
You might want to research a little further as far as anything but the King James version… Is the new King James version also is corrupted. Blessings in your journey.
I would avoid the NKJV also as it is somewhat diminished. Compare Matthew 7:14 also
NKJV added, changed, and removed some stuff.
@@evelyny7037The only standard by which any english translation should be compared to is the body of Hebrew & Greek manuscripts. It’s a category error to compare modern translations to the KJV as the standard. The standard is the manuscripts, not a 17th century English translation.
Check out Mark Ward’s videos on Wescott & Hort. Those two men have been slandered and quoted out of context more than anybody else in the textual criticism world.
Just because someone produces a corrupt manuscript doesn’t mean God hasn’t preserved His Word. Let God be True and every man a liar. Praise God for this video brother God bless you
Thank you for your work.
Sinaiticus was written in 1840 by Constantine Simonides.
The Vaticanus was found in the Pope's library in 1475.
Check out David W. Daniels on the Chicktracts channel. He has done extensive research research on the Sinaiticus Text. More research than anyone I've ever heard of. Check out his books as well.
Eramarus was a Catholic priest The Catholic & Ortrodox Helped put together the Bible People could not read or write back in them time's many Catholic Monks hand written the Scripture's before the printing press Luther wanted to remain Catholic Facts.Catholics we believe Christ Saves We Honor Mary & the saints in Heaven but Christ Saves Saint Peter Christ wanted him to Start a Church Over 2,000+ year's Muslims Kings Emperor's Hertical people tried to Destroy Christ Church But the Catholic & Ortrodox still stand ! Christ said to Simon Peter do you love me & said feed my Lambs tend my sheep📖🙏🛐💯 Catholic Any Question Catholic answers Has books the Bible proves the teachings of the Catholic church Jimmy Aikins Debate vs Lutheran many people at Catholic answers are ex Prostestants & even some ex Ortrodox Russian Greek & Jewish 📖🙏🛐💯 Catholic God bless
Thanks, I have watched his videos and am reading the history now.
@@frankperrella1202 thanks. I am slowly learning to parse the TEXTUS RECEPTUS and may never complete that task. Only GOD knows.
@@frankperrella1202 most of the Proto-Protestants and Reformers were catholic priests. Something you don’t understand is that they all worked in defiance of Rome. Get that please. Even Erasmus was hurried in a Protestant graveyard as an insult because of it.
@@mresab1997 Original Prostestants like the Anglicans believe have Christ Sacraments like the Catholic & Eastern Orthodox churches, Like John 20:21-23-23 Confession) Baptism John 3:5) The Eucharist John 6:51-58- Lk 22:19-20; Ointing of the Sick James 5:14-15 Mk 1:32-34 & Confirmation Lk 24:49; Acts 8:14-17 & Holy orders 2 Tm 1:6; Titus 1:5-9 & of Course Matrimony John 2:1-12) Numerous Church Father's Prostestants site the deeper they did they either become Catholic or Eastern Orthodox many ex top Prostestant Scholars. We all believe Christ saves. St Paul warns that it's not easy he said to follow Christ & the road is narrow. 🙏🛐✝️🗝️🗝️
Calm voice, solid facts and great message. You are a blessing.
After many years of research on this subject, I don’t know how I missed this video. Very well presented. My brother, you are a faithful laborer. Please continue the defense of the true Word.
The revision revised by Dean Burgon is a must have for your library
Thank you! God will use what you have shared this coming Wednesday night! Thank you!!!!
Bill
Excellent video! There are many claims made against the KJV, or the Masoretic and TR, and when I research them, I see that none of them hold weight.
God bless!
Great job on this video. Will be sharing this with others! Thanks, God bless you!
also great to hear the Norwegian perspective of translations. I have several bibles I take when I go to church so I can point out exactly what you have said. many times the pastor does not appreciate it but oh well .
This is absolutely the best presentation on this topic. Well done protecting the Word of God brother 👑
Thank you very much for the hard work and resources. Although I believe in Covenant Theology and not Dispensationalism. Praise God for the love of His Pure Word.
You're Awesome brother! God bless you for your labor!
I do appreciate this video, thank you! I do have a comment on your mention of dispensationalism: Grace was present in the skins provided by God for covering.
Yeah the bible says the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith. From the faith of Abraham, who preceded the law, to the faith of Moses, who by faith left royalty behind for God's promise. Hebrews 11 shows us it's always been about faith in God.
Thank you for doing this comparison. A very good presentation to point other interested people to
Excellent presentation. Great research. Thank you. Blessings in Christ Jesus.
Excellent work , thank you brother because I have come upon this and your video confirmed what the Holy Spirit has been impressing upon my heart. God bless you brother ! Thank you 🙏
Perfect working!! Congratulations!!
Very good presentation, I'm going to use it on facebook, and send to some friends.
2:04 A fun (and scary as well) fact is that this very verse is changed in many new translations to mean something radically different.
Excellent work .. A blessing for our need of knowing the truth behind alexandrian texts...
That's one of my Bible verses I use in my Bible studies.
Thou shall keep them O Lord.... from this generation forever
Thanks for sharing your valued insights on the merits of the Traditional Texts. I would like to add that while the Textus Receptus is included within the Traditional Text, when referenced with the KJV, it should be emphasized that the Textus Receptus is the primary text used for the translation of the KJV.
Thank you for defending the Textus Receptus. God bless.
Very well done thank you. Extremely helpful.
Pretty good work. You should put together a research paper and publish it if possible.
Very powerful presentation. I certainly will make copy and study them so that I can be armed with the truth when encountering the counterfeits.
One thing about the TR is that it emphasizes the biblical and ancient practice of Isopsephy or what we commonly know as Gematria. Which is the simple method of allocating numbers to letters to form mathematical equations in any given language. We can see this very evidently in Revelation 7:4 with the number 144,000 being described as ρμδ to write out 144,000 instead of what many modern Greek NT's put instead is ἑκατὸν τεσσεράκοντα τέσσαρες χιλιάδες and completely getting rid of the original text! The "Scholars" of so called "Higher and Textual Criticism" have completely erased a biblical doctrine and ancient practice in the process and on purpose all to combat the TR? All this sound new to you? Well guess what... alphanumerics proves that the Reformers had the right line of manuscripts and were working on some incredibly old stuff. Math doesnt lie.
Spot on videos from Brandon Peterson web site Truth is Christ goes into this in great detail.
Same with the mark of the beast number, it is three letters that mean Christ in three diffrent languages and how the Hebrew text in Genesis in equal distane linked to people's dates, and names. Also, check out Truth is Christ.
The critical text is on N/A version 28 already and will constantly change forever, Modern Text Critics freely admit that their reconstruction efforts will NEVER be complete since all Autographs for comparisons are lost. So, in essence the CT is a forever changing text creating nothing more than doubt! Almost all modern text critics are unbelievers (although academics) and certainly do not believe in Inspiration and Preservation.
This is amazing. This is exactly what I thought about the situation. The Bible says that we will always have the Word of God in the Bible, but the textual critics want us to believe that we only found them recently, but then you should consider that they are the same people that don't think Moses Wrote Genesis and the other books of Moses. So, basically, they don't believe in the Bible, but they want to tell us what the real Bible is. Edit: they never have PROVEN that Sinaticus and Alexandrinus and Codex vaticanus B are actually older, more reliable, and not actually forgery from the Vatican. 🙏✝️👑✝️🙏
Thanks so much for this video on the true identity of our bible. Before salvation, I was an atheist and had to know if the bible was the word of God and which textual stream was the real one. I currently have a brother who is asking the same questions and so I sent him your video. I knew that Norway always had one bible and they were a unified church...such a blessing! Here in North America we have been deluged by many translations and the critical text. In your video you mention the importance of "fundamentalism." My eschatology was fundamentalist futurism for many years, but found it rather confusing and depressing. A few years ago, I decided to really dig into the eschatology issue and studied every view out there but as I went along I kept coming back to the teaching of "Preterism" because it clearly answered so many of the questions that fundamentalist eschatology had no answer for. Essentially, Preterism stands on three pillars of interpretation: audience relevance, time stamps and allow scripture to interpret scripture. In short, it opened up my bible to me and gave me truly the "Good News." I would humbly ask that you would give David Curtis a listen (see link below). He is an excellent expository preacher who has been a Preterist for over 20 years. Before that he was an ardent fundamentalist and his eschatology was futurist. Here is one of his teachings on "end times." God bless! ruclips.net/video/_s1mOSjz7As/видео.html
Thanks for the link, I've been interested in researching Preterism. I do like the serious Scriptural approach that view takes, but it also seems to overly spiritualize sections of Matthew 24 because a WHOLE bunch of stuff in there doesn't seem to have occurred in AD 70. However, I still want to do more research!
@@breese50 Thank you for replying to my post in your comment section. My desire to understand the truth regarding "end times" put me in the "full preterist" position, not because of whim or fancy but a diligent inquiry into every aspect of this position. There are, of course certain individuals within the movement that create confusion on the subject; usually in secondary aspects. The "audience relevance," and "time stamps" kept me anchored while I critically scrutinized all the material. One of the most intriguing facets of this study were the writings of Josephus who was contemporary to the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. His description of the temple is very interesting. Here are his comments:
Josephus, Ant. Bk. 1, chapter 7, 7 (p. 180-181; also see 90-91) - Josephus says that the Temple and even the garments of the priest represented LAND, SEA and, HEAVEN.
Whiston, Josephus Antiquities, Bk. 3, chapter 6:4, (P. 87)- “However, this proportion of the measures of the tabernacle proved to be an imitation of the system of the world: for the third part thereof which was within the four pillars, to which the priests were not admitted, is, as it were, a Heaven peculiar to God; but the space of the twenty cubits, is, as it were, sea and land, on which men live, and so this is peculiar to the priests only…”
Antiquities, Bk. 3, Chpt 7:7- (p. 90)- The veils too, which were composed of four things, they declared the four elements; for the fine linen was proper to signify the earth, because flax grows out of the earth; the purple signified the sea, because the color is dyed by the blood of the sea shell fish; the blue is fit to signify the air…; And for the ephod, it showed that God had made the universe of four (elements)… the breastplate was made to resemble the earth, the girdle represented the ocean, the Sardonxes the sun and moon, the twelve stones the months…”
Josephus, Whiston, Ant. Bk. 3, chapter 6, 4 (87, p. 123) The Temple was “an imitation of the systems of the world. The rest was sea and land” Thus, the Temple was “heaven and earth.”
When we honestly consider this Jewish concept of the Temple, it is little wonder that when Jesus predicted the destruction of that City and Temple, the disciples immediately connected that impending disaster with the “end of the age!”
Having read the above quotes it becomes amazingly clear that Jesus was not talking about some event in the far future but something that was to happen very soon, in fact He said it would occur in their generation. The destruction of the temple and end of the law and it's sacrifices (the rudiments, the stoikia) were burned up in 70 A.D.
"But when YOU see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, YOU will know that her desolation is near.Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country stay out of the city. For THESE ARE THE DAYS of vengeance, TO FULFILL ALL THAT IS WRITTEN." Luke 21:20-22
Again, I would refer you to David Curtis, pastor of the Berean Bible Church. His RUclips channel has virtually twenty years of material on Full Preterism. He is a careful expository preacher. I must say that I do not believe in his "cessationist" position regarding the Holy Spirit and the gifts.
There are many individuals on the web who are attempting to teach full preterism, but he does the best.
God bless
@@gloryman3634 thanks for the information. Can you help me clarify the definition - Full Preterism believes that all of Jesus' prophecies about Jerusalem/end of the age are fulfilled (it seems). Does the view also believe that all of Revelation was completely fulfilled as well? I guess I would ask when the Millennium/Christ's reign takes place, or the second coming. Are those still future events?
@@breese50 Yes. By definition Full Preterism is the teaching that all things written by the law and the prophets were fulfilled right up to and including the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. The Revelation, including the millennium, is actually a divorce proceeding between Christ and apostate Israel who, by the law, bust be stoned and burned.
The Revelation of John is probably the most difficult writings in the entire Bible. When trying to come to terms with its interpretation, I did quite a bit of listening and reading. Essentially, there are two foundational principles that give us helpful guidance. First there are the "time stamps" that are at the beginning and end:
At the beginning: “This is the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants what MUST SOON COME TO PASS. Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear and obey what is written in it, BECAUSE THE TIME IS NEAR” Revelation 1:1a, 3
And at the end in the last chapter. “Then he told me, “DO NOT SEAL UP THE WORDS OF THE PROPHECY IN THIS BOOK, BECAUSE THE TIME IS NEAR.” “Behold, I AM COMING SOON.” “He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I AM COMING SOON.” Amen. Revelation 22:10, 12, 20
The second principle is "audience relevance." In verse four of chapter one John says: "to the seven churches which are in Asia." This is who the letter is written to and Jesus gets very specific when addressing these seven churches. There is no evidence through out the letter that any one else is included. All interpretation regarding its application to some time in the far future is pure speculation.
There is one other interesting aspect to the Revelation (also through out the New Testament) and that is the Greek word "mello" meaning "about " which often
gets mistranslated in our English bibles. Here is one example from Revelation 12:5 where this word "mello" is used:
Rev 12:5 - "And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is [ABOUT] to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and His throne."
It is clearly about Jesus who was caught up to God and His throne in heaven, not on the earth.
Here is a link to a fine article that deals with the Greek word "mello" and its usage in the New Testament:
www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/preterist-forum/greek-mello-a-dangerous-word-to-futurists-and-partial-preterists/
Though not directly connected to the Revelation of John it supports the imminency of the soon coming of Christ to those who were alive at the time the epistles were written. Her is one example from the second epistle to Timothy:
2 Tim. 4:1 - "I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is [about-"mello"] to judge the living and the dead, and by His "appearing" and
His kingdom." Here we a have the "judgement, Christ's imminent return and with that His kingdom all in one verse and it was about to happen in their life time.
In closing...the comment section of RUclips is not the best place to go into detail on subjects like John's Revelation. One of the best resources on the Preterist
position around is "The Parouisa" by James Stewart Russell. It is available on the web and can still be purchased in hard copy. He does go verse by verse through
the whole bible including Revelation Here is the PDF link: www.preteristcentral.com/pdf/pdf%20books/1878_russel_parousia.pdf
Hope you continue to persevere in the study of Preterism, it will be worth it. It opened my bible up to me in such a wonderful way. God bless!
@@breese50 David Curtis's RUclips video on Revelation is a good introduction:
Part 1
ruclips.net/user/results?search_query=david+curtis+revelation+part+1
Part 2
ruclips.net/video/W2OoLOgaqcs/видео.html
An excellent book, 'the eccesiastical text, by Theodore Letis', defends the recieved text so well. Thank you for your research.
Are you a member of the Ecclesiastical Church?
Great video, I have seen things added, and removed even without footnotes.
LOL I dont know if I have commented here before but this video is great every time Im going to do a study of this I always go back to this video. This is such an inportant point in Christianity. Thank you and God Bless
A really good video.
A very good work thanks!
Nice citations.
thanks for a solid info ...in spanish the most popular (for non- catholics)and used Bible is the Reina- Valera 1960; wich is a revision from the "Biblia del oso" (Bible of the bear) made by Casiodoro de Reina in 1569 and later revised by Cipriano de Valera in 1602, and it has many revisions througout the time...the problem I´ve found with the 1960 revision is that, although Biblical societies claims that they used Textus Receptus for its revision, when you compare it with an older version, you can easly see that is leaned towards the critical text, and it has the same translation and changes like the modern ones!!!..many are against spanish versions of NIV, NLT, NASB, etc... but what they don´t realize is that the Reina-Valera 1960 is pretty much alike to those new versions...that's why now I use KJV and Reina Valera 1602 purificada (purified version) wich are faithful to the majority texts....
Hey Kongebarn - this is awesome work - thank you! Let me ask you a question:
Should we "make disciples of all nations" or "teach all nations" (Matthew 28:19)
I have also been researching the history of the differences in the Great Commission. Every Bible I could find published before 1885 including the Vulgate reads "teach all nations" so I went back further to the church fathers, but the trick is in the translation. They wrote in Greek, and those two phrases are translated from the same word. Therefore, if a quotation of the church father was printed prior to 1885 it seems it's translated as "teach" whereas a more recently printed book it is now translated as "make disciples". Have you done any research on this topic? I wonder if the failure of the Western church is primarily due to the obsession with "making disciples" (converts) and a loss of emphasis on "teaching".
Blessings!
Yes, much like the removal and/or change of the word "study" to "correctly handles", as found in 2 Timothy 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." And the word "corrupt" in 2 Corinthians 2:17 "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." to "peddle", which is exactly what these so-called Bible publishers actually do. All MV's change many important words of God's Holy infallible Writ.
along with major doctrines, thus fulfilling a prophecy of a famine for hearing the word of God, during these last days of apostasy, evil and great wickedness, as written in Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:
God bless
Hi. Check out the guide in the description and you can check yourself + this link earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/
yes very good. thanks for all the info and the research.
Great video. Thank you 👍
Awesome video!!!
Amen Bro. and thank you for making this. More info has come out about the so-called oldest codex's. These books are very good.
"Was Codex Sinaiticus written in 1840?", by Jack Moorman
"Neither oldest Nor best", by David Sorenson
"Is the worlds oldest Bible a fake", by David Daniels
"Who faked the worlds oldest Bible", by David Daniels
Hi, can you please provide a source for the claim that the Waldensians had a text as far back as 120AD? From all that I can find they were named after Peter Waldo (Valdo, or Valdes) from 12th century France.I can't find anything backing their being around earlier than that.
Excellent work!
Some of the Byzantine texts go back to the 4th century. They have been used by Greek speaking people since that time. Thousands of copies were made. These copies are in a high degree of agreement. This is how God has preserved His Word.
The modern claim that the original text was lost is not based on fact.
Thank you for this.
can you send me your powerpoint presentation??
ya, I have not watched the video.... but after reading the comments subscribed to the channel. I am sure I will spend a lot of time here in the future.
Thanks brother
This presentation should reach the Bible Academic Circles. I wonder what will be their response on this.
I've been studying the Arguments for the textus receptus for years. It really is a no-brainer.
The copyright of every modern version is held by zondervan, the same company that owns the rights to the Satan's Bible.
If you open up your church has different translations, the New World Translation says that the word was a god the first chapter of John.
They say the new versions are supposed to reduce confusion, but the fruits are confusion.
These new versions are an endless problem
Your claims are misleading. Zondervan publishes many versions, they aren’t the sole copyright owner of “every modern version.” For example, the NASB is copyrighted by The Lockman Foundation.
The New World Translation was made by and for Jehovah’s Witnesses who deny the deity of Christ. They’re on par with Mormons. So that version is really completely out of the question all together.
@@therockstar17 ok, they don't hold "EVERY" modern version. 90% of them.
My guess is that most people have Zondervan Bibles in their home.
@Adam H they dont hold rights to the KJV. Everyone prints the KJV.
The point is, they are in it for the money. KJV can't be because there is no copyright.
Thomas Nelson is also owned by Harper Collins. Same company.
Colossians 1.14 doesn’t make me question if “God” said this because that is all “Paul talking” Paul and his thoughts and opinions on the faith is Not God talking
What about the reliability of the LXX?
Great question - what about it? And are you referring to Origen's Hexapla or the supposed BC Septuagint or the Codex Sinaiticus? I have been researching this issue as well and there's VERY little evidence of a BC Septuagint. If so, then all the "quotations" of the LXX in the NT are actually the LXX quoting the NT, not vice versa.
Case in point, go to CodexSinaiticus.org and look up Psalm 13/14. There is a HUGE chunk of text randomly added to one of the verses (I think it's highlighted in blue on the website). Where did all this text come from? Romans 3, because the scribe who wrote this Psalm accidentally quoted Paul for like 5 verses. Fun fact, the Codex Sinaiticus is the "oldest and best" version of the LXX that is available.
No reliability!!!!
If this information is correct and is freely available then HOW in the world is any biblical scholar siding with the Vaticanus and sinaiticus texts ?? EVERYTHING about them seems so off in so many ways . And lines like “ You shall not live by bread alone . Make no sense. There is clearly another sentence Jesus is about to speak which is in the king James “ But by every word of God “.
I just do not understand. Are they all blind ??
Brilliant work on the video. Truly eye opening
Awesome Work!!!!!!!! Thank!
Can you please share me the project link! I'm tired slandering my AKJV Bible.
Do we know what Greek manuscripts Erasmus used?
Should we be worried because he was a Catholic priest?
I agree. It's sort of like saying God's word which believers all over the world used for hundreds and hundreds of years was a bit wrong, but now, we've got the right one from this discovery just from the 1800's. I don't think it makes sense.
So which bible should I use? I want to buy my first.... is KJV the best? but the 1611 version or something?
Excellent content brother! Thank you for spreading the word. Literally, the beautiful words of God…
Awesome, thank you!
Great video!
Although there is some difference in the manuscripts they do not change any of the main doctrines i.e how to find the way of salvation, God has saved many people through the niv or any bibles that use the critical text.
When you fly over the Atlantic ocean, would you fly in a plane with only one of the four motors working? Or would you prefer a plane with all four motors working?
And yes, there are doctrinal differences, check the material in the links below the video.
Can not be true. Only one WORD is true.
@@Kongebarn I choose an American jet, not Chinese or Russian. I also choose to fly from the West.
@@bislig2alabama it is true look into it, God saved me through reading the niv.
God saved me also through the NIV He saves many through the modern bibles as well. He saved us in spite of us using the wrong bibles not because of them.
Thanks brother! Great work. I do say though, the Mark of the beast passage. The Greek word for In or On is the same. If you check On and In is used interchangeable with different passages. Like Rev 9:4 Mark of God "on" their forhead. So I don't see a problem.
this issue is very important, the issue of *which text* of the NT we are to follow... the debate of the Byzantine/TR text vs the Alexandrian text and the implications seen in modern Bible versions, will surely continue, and the debate is even more alive today ... theology is indeed affected by variant readings in the Greek texts... [nettopp derfor er det så viktig å få gjort dette riktig... jeg anbefaler at du studerer dette litt nøyere og forbereder et manus før du spiller inn en video og poster den på RUclips, og at du får engelsken mer nøyaktig, og detaljene mer presist, dette er for viktig til å skusle bort med unøyaktige opplysninger... beklager å si dette så kontant,... men det er ment konstruktivt.... :-)) ]
The last quote… C. Simonides wrote the manuscript. Thank you for your video.
So, the thing about Origen. He seems to the first person to use "Lucifer" as the proper name for the Devil and the subject of Isa 14:12. As we know, Origen thought that the Satan will be restored one day. Other Patristic writers followed Origen's views of Lucifer, including Jerome, who penned "Lucifer" into the Latin Vulgate, and that proper name ended up in the KJV. The KJV does provide an alternate rendering: "O Lucifer: O day star"; but, how is it that one can reject Origen and the Alexandrian writers; but embrace Origen's "Lucifer"; which he may have borrowed from pagan mythology; which has one or more "Lucifer" characters?
Since the recension and text type theories have been abandoned, why do Critical Text Only scholars admit their conclusions are wrong?
This has been so enlightening. However it just shows me how so very close to Jesus’ death that deception took root. That trinity verse for example. I hear you out when you say that it’s supposed to read as the KJV has it & you quoted a church father who used it. But then why does Irenaeus in Against Heresies (I thinkkk the book 4 intro) that “there is none other called GOD by the
Scriptures except for the father, the son, & those who possess the adoption.”
If he believed in the trinity surely that’s not what he’d have said. Moreover, I downloaded a Byzantine Bible module & 1 Jn 5:7 is NOT as the Textus receptus & KJV have it. & the Byzantine would belong to traditional, not critical.
The Vatican had nothing to do with Codex Sinaiaticus. Sinaiaticus was found in the St. Catherine's monastery. It is a Greek Orthodox monastery.
I am not a fan of Sinaiaticus, but you need to get your history correct. Vaticanus dates back to the 4th century AD. It is a historically trustworthy document.
Good episode
I have not read any bible, but i am intrested in reading the bible. But i have found out that most bibles is corrupt, i live in sweden, is there any correct bibles in sweden or should i read the kjv? Or possibly just the norwegian bible guds ord?
The best bible version there is, is the one you actually DO read. Read any version in sweden. Just be AWARE of of the list in the description. The Holy Spirit will grow you up even in a corrupted version.
Good points and if every true Christian would understand what happened they should not participate in the deception.
Some mistakes in your presentation are the false dates of so called earliest and best codex's. It's clear Codex Sinaiticus is not from the 4th century.
If you love God’s word then you would use traditional text. If the Greek compilation or translations you use take Jesus’ Deity out of 1Timothy 3:16 and John 3:16 or make Jesus lie to his brothers in John chapter 7 concerning going to the feast then that is not traditional text.
Why are there such ludicrous changes? Because modern Bible translators translate from a corrupted set of codex’s which jesuits, catholics and satanists compiled. They worked to replace reliable codex’s to translate from, instead using Codex Sinaiticus which was created in the 1800’s which they pass off as the oldest and best “old” Bible; Sinaiticus, they claim is 1500ish years older than it truly is. Then there is codex Alexandrinus which “appeared” about ten years after KJV 1611 was published, and codex Vaticanus which appeared in the Vatican around the 1400’s and was rejected by the scholars that worked on the KJV.
Not every verse in scripture was changed but there are changes throughout. In a nutshell, handing Bible Translators something “messed up” to translate “from” makes whatever they translate “to” wrong from the start.
One should review evidence in the Chick Tracts Official channel playlist on Sinaiticus to know more about this subject.
15:43 not "set you free" but "make you free"
You had made a comment that dispensationalism is the correct method in which to interpret passages in the Bible yet you are arguing for the textus receptus. Please research dispensationalism and the catholic counter reformation as far as the protestant bible goes. God bless you brother.
I wish the average anti-KJVO Christian knew this stuff. Then they can disagree with the facts, not just with the caricature in their minds.
Thank you!
Could you kindly let us know 1) where you studied textual critical studies and 2) where you were licensed to teach textual criticism and where you currently teach textual criticism? And 3) what textual critical scholars recognize you as an authority in the field?
APPEAL TO AUTHORITY - Believing just because an authority or “expert” believes something that it must be true.
@@John3.36 so you admit freely than that in your case, you are an appeal to a non-authority?
I’m not believing something because they are an expert, I am asking why the blue wild world should I believe you? You have zero authority,
@@jamesmongeau7191 he has given you sources hasn't he ?
Thanks for Showing that Eramarus a Catholic priest put it together 🙏🛐 I like the Duay-Rheims version KJV Luther In Germany & King James left out the Aprohpa books 📚📖⛪🛐 May God bless Catholic answers does nice stuff on the topic & a Good book the Bible proves the teachings of the Catholic church by Brother Peter Diamond of Mhfm on the net📖⛪🛐 The Catholic & Ortrodox & Church Father's put the Bible together many Catholic orders hand written the Scripture's before the printing press Let's Protect the Bible Christ Said Scripture's 📖 & Oral Tradition 🙏 God bless Jesus Mary and Joseph Pray for Us Christ Save Us for the world is falling apart to Liberalism 🛐📖🙏💯 Catholic 🛐
You said Westcott and Hort both worshipped mary. I had the same idea that both were catholic, but where do you get this from? I sincerely wanna know. In wikipedia it says both were anglican dudes
God bless
There is a book of the letters Wescott wrote to Hort and it says a great deal about him. You would be surprised at what he believed. He said the origin of species by Darwin impressed him more than the Bible. The letters were put out by his son.
Westcott and Hort's sons had their fathers' personal letters published. They were Catholic and they blast the Texts Receptus
I thought for a long time the Westcott and Hort held some wild beliefs. Unfortunately, a LOT of bad scholarly work exists on the pro-Majority/TR side of things, and almost every one of their quotes was taken (wildly) out of context. Also, it doesn't matter if WH were crazy if they did a good job translating (they didn't). Using the Genetic Fallacy is a bad line of argumentation and it is irrelevant. Tons of good reasons exist to ignore the modern Critical Text without criticizing the origin of it.
That comes from letters they wrote to each other and the letters were published by their sons after they died.
Yes I believe the Byzantine manuscripts are the correct manuscript tradition, hence why I mainly use the NKJV. I confess however that i do also use other translations.
Around 9:30 he states that the Antioch manuscripts were just a little newer; I would like to know what manuscript he is referring to. The quotes from the church fathers is a strong argument; alternatively, the Byzantine manuscripts almost all date from the 9th Century onward, which for me throws some water on the fire of the argument about their number.
The majority date 9th century onward, but many date to shortly after the 300s AD as well. The argument that the modernists claim is basically that those verses/segments of verses were a *late addition*. All you have to do to disprove such a strong claim is to provide even one piece of evidence that the reading predates the 300s AD, which is Kongebarn's (well-researched) claim.
2 Tim 2:15- Study... changed.
You seem to really know your stuff. I love your zeal for truth.
What do you think of brother James White and brother John Maurther? I turn to them alot for answers and explanations that are not to clean in the English Bible.
They are wolves in sheep clothing. Calvinism and trinity doctrine is a heresy. Godhead is in the bible, but not trinity.
James White is very deceptive. He has vested interest in the critical text because he works for the lockman foundation.
My NKJV had everything correct to the original Textus Receptus, and it’s easily readable as apposed to the original KJV. There are footnotes though that try to tell you were the NU Text and M Text omitted words. But you can choose to ignore them lol
You mean the first edition of Erasmus?
What about the MEV translation that uses the Majority/Received text? Well?
Revelation 13:16 is again a transnational issue, not a textual one.
Nobody guided by the Holy Spirit will be misled regarding the deity of Christ, the atonement, the resurrection, and essential doctrines by reading modern translations.