Amen to that. Back before my left eye got injured, I had several Bibles wore out for years of use and study (and some still in good condition due to me being more careful with my books as I got older). I kind of miss using physical Bibles sometimes, but now I use Bible apps so I can zoom in and not let my scarred left eye prevent me from being able to read God’s Word.
Regarding the "Old King James Only" people: Here's the thing... 1- Do you think God would write a Bible that was only limited to one, specific translation? That means millions of people who read any translation other than the Old King James, are still condemned to Hell because they did not come to Jesus through the Old King James version. 2- If people can only find God through the Old King's English... then anyone who speaks only Spanish, Russian, Japanese, Chinese, German, Portuguese, or any of the 700+ languages on the planet, are also all condemned to Hell under the Old King James Only people. This is absolutely absurd an non-Biblical to say the least. 3- Furthermore, if these Old King James Only people are such fanatics about purity... then THEY should ALL spend the next 30 or 40 years learning Hebrew, Greek and Aramic along with all of their forgotten nuances of the time. THAT would be "true purity" in the texts... not some Old King James version that is a translation in and of itself. My Conclusion: The Old King James ONLY Cult is just that... a cult. They are adding to and taking away from The Word of God... which is strictly FORBIDDEN! They have turned salvation into a matter of WORKS, not the free gift of grace through our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ... by ANY Language. Pray for them but do not listen to them. Above all, do not argue with them because they are only disrupting and dividing the body of Christ... leading new, young Christians AWAY from the truth of the Bible. This is how Satan operates... truth mixed with lies. Remember that... Truth, mixed with Lies!
KJV isn't perfect, but it's the only Bible that the English speaker has. If there was every other English translation except KJV, I'd read the Russian Synodal Bible in my native language. And if that didn't exist, I would have to learn another language to read THE Bible. Modern translations are like alcohol free beer, taste alright, but it's not beer, no spirits.
I was ok with the KJV translation until that preacher that day told us that it was the only translation for me to trust! I’m still ok with it but it’s not my go to first but I will match it with other translation as I enjoy to do. I witness to JW witness’s from time to time and if you want to see a true cult that will tell you that their final authority is that corrupt NWT that really got me thinking how the KJV only group has made their way in to a cult also. I feel blessed to have so many other translations to work with . I have so many verses I’d rather read from certain translations that hit me differently! What a mess this has caused in the church!
I used to call myself TR only. Now I say TR preferred, though I read several translations a day. This would include CT translations. I wish I had come to this position years ago. I have a better understanding of God’s Word because of it.
I just came across your videos, and I must say I believe you are correct in your teaching. I use both the KJV and the NKJV. I pray God blesses you and enables you to continue in His ministry.
Well praise Jesus ! We need this energy in ALL of our churches ...Man may have fired you but , God clearly has not . I'm very blessee by your teachings, just found this channel .
Dear Pastor! I'm an outsider looking in. I found your channel after going down the rabbit hole of NIFB and KJVO. I really don't get the latter. To me, what they're teaching and what they're doing just flat out smacks of idolatry. No Christian Church and no Christian denomination, from Catholic right on down the line, teaches idolatry. Yet, when your pastors are throwing nonKJV Bibles across the room and when you're setting a physical object (ta biblia) above the message (o Logos), that's idolatry. Consider me subscribed! I look forward to seeing how your ministry grows, and hopefully thrives!
I’ve seen people leave the church over switching from the king James. It’s unfortunate. I’m glad you’re willing to take on this issue. Praying for you and those who watch.
@@marvinmallette6795the beast of Revelation 13 is a man and not a thing. His system is what you are referring to. I have a question for you. Are you familiar with postmillennialism and theonomy? Most KJVO folks such as myself are pre-millennial and pre-trib in our eschatology, but postmillennialism has been reborn as of late. They are kingdom builders who deny Jesus Christ His rightful inheritance in a slightly different way than the amillennialism crowd. They will say that we are to bring about His kingdom because He has empowered us to do so, and they will call you some very unimaginable things if you use a literal hermeneutic and acknowledge that Satan is the god of this world right now, just as we are told in 2 Corinthians 4:4 and that the kingdoms of this world will only be taken away from him when the creator of this world returns. Guess what? They all come from the same tree of Covenant Theology and we are talking some of the biggest names in Christianity today. Jeff Durbin, Doug Wilson and now the infamous Bible critic himself....James White. All of these men have one thing in common; they love their new versions. So yes, if my church were to switch from the Authorized Version to a new version, I would leave. God never intended for a believer to stay and "go along". When we get to that point, and we are edging ever more close to that point now, that is when the beast will be given authority. What do you think will happen to us KJVO dispensational, Bible believing Christians if the post-millenialist achieves his goal of taking over governments? We are not welcome in their system and these comments are indicative of that big time! I am not concerned because that blessed hope is all I need, but I am astonished at how fast this is playing out. I never thought the day would come where a professing believer would say that another believer had no backbone, no core or whatever other nonsense you muttered. All because they stand for something. What is your understanding of apostasy? It is falling from a standing position. I choose to remain standing until my Lord calls me home. You are truly looking at this wrong and my prayer is that you stop allowing an interaction or two to cloud your judgment. One that you may have had with someone who was overly stern or something with their KJVO position and maybe got under your skin. I see it totally different. What I see is a whole bunch of people who love to hear men who use slick talk that allows them ultimate freedom to choose what God said instead of reading the plain text of the KJV and accepting it as absolute truth. They can't all be right. God bless and know that I do not say these things with bitterness.
@@marvinmallette6795 Really? Many times it refers to Jesus as the Word and Jesus, Paul and disciples used the Scriptures. The book of Acts is slap full of the church using God’s Word to teach and help people believe. It is very foolish to think we don’t need the Word. I can’t imagine anyone worshiping the Bible, but I worship the One whom wrote it and we absolutely need it as a guide in our life. Pretending you don’t need God’s Word for wisdom is borderline self-idolatry.
@@marvinmallette6795 Yes the Spirit guides us and gives understanding, obviously, but do you think we can never be deceived? To think you don’t really need the Word or it could be idolatry is insanely foolish. How do you even know about Christ to begin with, the Word, you can’t be saved if you don’t hear the Gospel which is only in the Scriptures. 2 Tim. 3:16-17, Scripture is God breathed and absolutely necessary as the greater tool we can receive, not to be worshipped but used to educate ourselves.
Год назад+5
I am baffled at the interpretation that what God preserves in Psalm 12 are the words. Perhaps Spanish is clearer in the sense that it differentiates nouns by gender and thus is very specific about what the object of preservation is. In the Reina Valera version I'm using it is VERY clear (because of gendered nouns) that what God is preseving are the poor that were mentioned in verse 5 ("poor" masc. plural noun in verse 5, and "them" masc. plural pronoun in verse 7), and not the words (fem. plural noun) in verse 6. "Words" and "them" do not match by gender. The purpose of verse 6 is to say that God's words are true and do not fail when he promises what he will do for those that wait on Him the people from verse 5. Context matters.
The original KJV notes from the 1611 edition explain that the Hebrew says "him" where they translated "them" in Psalm 12:7. But a lot of people who read the KJV don't read those notes, or they have a Bible that does not have them.
It is not possible for God to guard us from this generation forever since neither "us" nor "this generation" will last forever. But the words can be preserved forever starting with "this generation"
Thank you so much for this video. It's very useful information. I enjoyed watching you and Mark Ward teaching about KJV history, etc. My desire is I pray for all of my brothers and sisters in Christ, who are KJVO, to always remember that we are family, and we serve the same Father in Heaven. I pray, with God's grace, for them not to cause division within the body of Christ. Let us stay together and reach out to the lost people who need the blood of Jesus Christ to be saved. Time is short. Blessing.
"I'm gonna beat this horse til its dead!" AMEN.If God had wanted us to read His Word in an archaic language, he wouldve made the writers of the new testament write in hebrew and command gentiles to learn that language. If the first generation of Christians were able to read the epsitles in their current language, so too should we be able.
Pastor Burris, I had not heard of you before yesterday. I say that for this reason, I want to know the truth. Period. I've been saved 8 years. I love the KJV, but I love the truth more. I appreciate your enthusiastic, loving yet reasonable addressing of this. I encourage you, sir, keep bringing the truth. Keep teaching. May God bless your efforts. I know it has cost you. Be not dismayed. Be not diverted. Those who love the light of the truth will be drawn to it.
@@biblehighlighter For the 138th time, you cannot refute my claim based on context of the English passage. You refute translation by showing what the text from which it was translated says. You are using symbolism, imagery, and more as the basis for your interpretation. Translation comes before interpretation. As I have shown in my videos, Jerome translated Daniel 3:25 based on your methodology. In doing so, he created the mess you now argue for. I don’t care how many times you say it. It does not make it factual. What matters is what was originally written. In the original language, it was not “Lucifer” nor was it a proper name in Isaiah 14:12. It was not “the son of God” that was originally written in Daniel 3:25. It was “a son of some gods” or “a son of the gods” (the definite article is inserted for readability in English). You have refuted nothing. You have only argued from the position of what you want the text to say based on your tradition - not what the original text says.
@@biblehighlighter, please explain this statement. You made it twice: “The context was also translated and the context even in Modern Bibles does not support your Alexandrian reading of Daniel 3:25”. What is an “Alexandrian reading” of Daniel 3:25. If you mean Alexandrian text type, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. This is Old Testament - not New. Besides all that, you keep missing one important question: “What did Nebuchadnezzar say?” Alexandrian and Byzantine text types have nothing to do with Daniel 3:25. Please do a little homework before replying. If you wish to learn, I will be happy to teach you. If you wish to continue this nonsense, then please go and try to find a “Byzantine” reading of Daniel 3:25 and show me how it differs from an “Alexandrian” reading. Oh, and don’t use textual criticism while you are doing it. Sir, my patience has grown incredibly thin towards you. You speak of things you know nothing about, you ignore my questions to you, you fail to acknowledge the difference between interpretation and translation, you are allowing perceived symbolism and typology to determine the actual words of the text (translation). I do not want to block you, but you really need to show some higher degree of understanding of this issue for me to continue communicating with you. But, I will not allow you to continue your ignorant replies to the comments of others. Respectfully, clean it up or go away.
@@timkhan3238The lofty opinions or more precisely the delusions of a KJV idolater. What is fake is the KJV only heresy. No scripture supports this man made tradition. So many words have changed meaning making the KJV even more inaccurate. That is why God has given us with more accurate modern translations. Translations that the KJV only cult call fake. The KJV only cult is a false . Yet Almighty God is using and blessing them to bring many to Christ But you have chosen to jump on the caravan of the KJV only heresy. No DVR supports your delusions of the so called pure and perfect KJV Because it is simply not true, just another lie from the KJV only cult Like the enemies of God in Nehemiah the KJV only cult make things up out of their heads
...... I'm seeing now that a lot of people are unaware how Bible translation works..... or how being a translator works in general........ this is just so strange to me. Christians devouring each other over translations; they do realize that the people in the bible did not speak modern languages, right? They do understand the nuance in different languages and how a translation will never be a 1 to 1 equivalent , right? I understand wanting what the original authors actually said but wouldn't it make more sense to learn the languages they spoke rather than arguing on various translations that probably contain errors because of the translation process? This is nuts to me......
Pastor Burris, Amen, on almost everything. One question: Aramaic? I know how critical text people define it, but it did not exist in Jesus day. Why do you use it? Assyrian or Syriac did exist, but it was not the lingua franca. Greek and Hebrew and Latin, in that order. Greek was the language of Helenistic Roman society, but the Jews spoke and read Hebrew. The Chaldean/Syriac was the language used in a small portion of Daniel, and the book of Esther, but that is it my friend. John 19:20 is the eye witness account of the beloved disciple. The record of Pilate's inscription reads: "This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin." No mention of Syriac or Aramaic as they like to call it. The lingua franca of Jesus day was Greek. Not the "Aramaic" that modern CT scholars claim. Thank you for the video. Well done!
Sir, thank you for your comment. It was cordial and respectful. It is much better than previous ones. I thought you were aware that I am not necessarily a "Critical Text person". I'm not exactly sure what your point is about Aramaic. The Old Testament was written Hebrew and the New Testament was written Greek. A small portion of the Old Testament and some of Jesus' sayings in the gospels are in Aramaic. Daniel 2:4b-7:28. Ezra 4:8-6:18 and 7:12-26 were originally produced in Aramaic. A phrase in Mark 5:41 and Matthew 27:46 are also Aramaic phrases. The lingua franca of Jesus' day was Greek. I have never said anything contrary to that. I teach that. Jesus did speak Aramaic as it is found in the New Testament. Hebrew was generally used in synagogues and in Temple worship, but we do know that Greek was also used in some synagogues. Latin was the official language of the Roman Empire and was used in legal and administrative contexts.
Some of the deacons of my childhood church used to pray in KJV English. They'd be speaking perfectly normally before prayer. Example: "Say, George, did you see that football game last night?" When they were called to do the mid-service prayer it was: "Dear Lord. We cometh to thine throne...and asketh thou to bless...." I've often wondered if those same men went to dinner after church and ordered their meal: "Bringeth forth thou, the leg and the breast of a she-chicken, which hath been fried. And also bringeth unto me potatoes which hath been mashed and place upon the potato which hath been mashed 1 hin of gravy. And a drink offering of tea which hath been made sweet with the nectar of the cane of sugar.
This practice is actually present in some of the most popular translations of the mid-20th century. The earliest editions of the RSV (1952), NEB (1970), and NASB (1971) all switched to Elizabethan English whenever someone addressed God.
on the "ye vs. he" difference. KJVO advocates themselves say it matters, as they use that very kinds of differences when arguing against versions that depart from the KJV..
Where is the love (Gal 5)? We are commanded to not be divisive. Claiming all other translations are corrupted is super divisive. And In Acts 2 the Holy Spirit (translated) the gospel message into everyone’s own language as the apostles preached, it was all equally the word of God. Peter didn’t command everyone to learn Greek or English.
Ah, I just saw you said 1769 “facsimile”. Yes, the original 1769 Oxford did not have the “and”; only the comma. There is a great resource called “Facts from 400 Years of KJV Editions: Do We Use a 1769 KJV?” by Rick Norris. Thanks for sharing!
It is as if they see themselves as the living embodiments of the KJV Bible… but isn’t Jesus the only living embodiment of God’s Word? Unfortunately the KJVO people have become like the Pharisees and the Sadducees… placing more importance on their tradition (in this case reading only the KJV of the Bible) over the actual word of God which the KJV is trying to spread to the world. It is the most tragic form of irony.
So I prayed tonight that I could have a preacher to listen to because most preachers I am finding myself in disagreement with. I am agreement with your teaching. Feel confident in your stance with kjv only. I like nkjv myself. Jumping through your videos, alot is clicking with my beliefs. Feels grounded and rich at the same time. Glory to God.
@@WatchingUntiltheEnd2 Timothy 4,3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears. Thats you friend.
@edcarson3113 a osas / no need for repentance doctrine fulfills this prophecy. Plenty of others also, I'm sure. King James was written to those 400 years ago. Nkjv and ESV are easier for today's understanding, and for understanding is why we study. 1 Timothy 6 verse 10 Kjv For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. Nkjv For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. All evil (kj) or all kinds of evil (nkj). Which makes more sense? Was the root of Cain's sin grounded in "the love of money"? What about people having an affair? Is this sin rooted in the "love of money"? When Eve believed the serpent over God's command not to eat of the tree, was it her "love of money"? How much we have heard this text quoted amongst ourselves? Whereas a nonbeliever can discredit us with little critical thinking. "ALL EVIL?" they could say, "Most murder is a crime of passion, not fueled by monetary gain." As the verse continues with it's warning ⚠️ it explains how chasing money will pull you out of following Christ and lead to many hardships. If we operate in our lusts/ covetousness, we will participate in many activities that are sinful. We are even all guilty of using this verse to dismiss people's error of chasing money, forgetting that we are told we can not serve 2 masters. I'm going on a tangent, as I tend to do, about the verse, but the nkjv is a better understanding.
@edcarson3113 a preacher who teaches repentance, what lust am I partaking? A better understanding of God's Word? If I have an issue with a verse, I will speak it. Whether it be kjv, nkjv, niv, etc. A better understanding of God by using God's Word is acceptable. Like the Catholic Church, historically using Latin and not making it where others can understand. (I believe the catholic church created a pharisees type of Christianity which those on the top were "closer" to God than everyone else) kjv only folks create a situation where the preacher, and his interpretation, becomes more the focus or accepted account. By all means, if you are listening to God's Word via nkj and have an epiphany, an understanding, then, of course, go to the kjv and compare the two. From my own experience, listening to nkj or esv, God has shown me an understanding that i kept missing via kjv. I go back to King James to check myself and see it there also.
As a believer with Autism who studied using both the KJV and the NIV as a child… yeah the KJV was almost impossible for me to understand at the start of my faith journey. Eventually I figured it out, but truthfully it also happened because I had an easier to read Bible translation that allowed me to “reverse engineer” the thous, thines, and thys of the older translation.
Not all can understand KJV. But it's true some versions have cleverly dropped some words deliberately to dilute to real meaning. I would suggest a non native English speaker to start with something like NIV and upgrade themselves to KJV which, in my opinion is the authentic version of Bible.
Great video I enjoy the KJV but wow, some of these KJVO people are not only wrong but quite unkind if you disagree with them, as you already know. Keep sharing the truth.
There are definitely some very aggressive and extreme people on the KJV-only side. That is why I also consider myself "KJV-preferred." ruclips.net/video/O_Efuk9hAGk/видео.html Thanks for putting this video out!
I lopve the KJV for it's poetic language but I'm not KJV only. I will use ESV, NLT, YLT and others. I heard some hick preacher say you shouldn't lean the original languages because Satan will use it to confuse you. I've been trying to find my faith now for a number of years, and it's wonderful to hear someone like you. Someone who came from where my Highschool (Harford Christian) tought. We come from a similar background though I never felt it was right in my spirit to drink the entire glass of KJV only coolaid. This is just some encouragement to you letting you know that at least someone out where in the void is getting something from what you teach.
@@igregmart Its a Bible that has known mistakes. Its not perfect. If you like it that is great. Its a beautiful sounding translation, but tell me where.... anywhere... in the Bible that says there will be this one infallible version and you will know it?
1) What I find ironic about KJV only proponents is that some of them are barely even fluent in American English! 2) King James was not a good man. He was one of the most evil and corrupt kings Britain ever had. Only had his name on the bible because he just happened to be king at the time it was commissioned by parliament
Thanks for standing for the truth! I’m newer to reading the Bible and fell into the rabbit hole of translations and was really worried I was getting a false Bible . So I got a few versions and when I read I actually have 2 or 3 Bibles open lol. I get people today are perversely twisting Gods word but things like the ESV are damn accurate from what Iv seen. And it helps me understand what the meaning is supposed to be. Also the people that did all the work with translations like nkjv, ESV, nasb, even the nlt have done amazing work getting the gospel to people around the world.
@@christopheryetzer what I’m saying is they did good work going deep into the old Greek and Hebrew Scriptures and spent a long time debating and discussing the best possible way to make it be accurate it English . Also the fact that there are people that don’t read well and the king James goes over their head so it’s nice that something like the NLT helps them understand Gods word for themselves . That’s the whole point that the original pilgrims fought and died for as the church made it illegal to print a Bible in English for the average farmer or worker . I used to think the nlt was a joke Bible but the more Iv read it and compared to the king James it blows my mind how well they have done in getting it across in modern easy to understand English. I know people have faults and make mistakes and I’m sure their are things in different translations that are off . That’s why I use multiple and compare .
@@christopheryetzer also I would add we don’t know Greek and Hebrew (at least I don’t) so I have to rely on translations and I don’t think the king James is any higher regard than some other of the well researched translations. We still need to go to the Greek and root languages and make sure that they didn’t get it wrong
@biblehighlighter, I have a sincere question for you. Have you ever researched why there is a difference in 1 Timothy 3:16 between versions? It is a great study. I will be glad to teach you about that. Perhaps after we discuss it, that 101 reasons for the KJV will be an even hundred.
@@biblehighlighter the footnote in the ESV for 1 Tim 3:16 takes care of the differences in the manuscripts. It’s really not that hard to understand that “He was manifested in the flesh” is referring to God. Again, in Gen 3 a footnote takes care of the difference in the manuscripts. A footnote points out that some manuscripts add “and fasting” in Mark 9:29. Nothing you mentioned has to do with the deity of Christ, his death, or resurrection from the dead, or that we are saved by faith in Christ. Sometimes, the renderings in the LXX were used because the translators believed it contained a more accurate reading than the Masoretic text, which was created centuries after the Septuagint. The ESV also uses a passage from the Dead Sea Scrolls In translating Deut 32:8, because it is the oldest text of parts of the Hebrew Bible we have, and it’s rendering makes more sense than the one from the Masoretic text. 1 John 5:7 was not in the TR until the 3rd edition (15th century), and Erasmus only put it in because one of his friends persuaded him to. It doesn’t appear in the Majority Text, so in all likelihood, it was an addition added into the Vulgate by a monk to bolster more support for the Trinity. But it’s not necessary to have it in the text, since many other verses point to the Triune nature of God. The NET has the most extensive notes, including notes on many translation decisions. Check it out sometime when you get a chance. It’s available free on the You Version app with all the notes included.
@@michaelshannon6558 I'd go further. 1 John 5:7 is trinitarian as much as it is modalist or mormon. It literally is compatiable the theology of every Christological tradition to have existed in Church History.. Fun fact, it is one of the favorite prooftext of Oneness Pentecostals/Modalists.
KJV onlyists don't know greek, hebrew nor latin..worse yet they would have rejected doctrines from the Anglican Church altogether since King James I was an Anglican himself
In order to understand the Bible, one must have the Holy Spirit (be saved) and "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (or just do your best (according to the ESV)). 2 Tim 2:15). Then study Greek and Hebrew because the KJV translators were not that smart, and especially listen to your priest (oops sorry i meant pastor) because he barely passed Greek with a C, so he knows better than you what the Bible says. Oh, and I forgot, God invented all the languages of the world at the tower of Babel, except English, so he doesn't know how to preserve His word in that one.
KJV Onlyists cannot even get past Genesis 1:1. The Hebrew clearly says heavens. Yet KJV Onlyists will twist the word "heaven" in a dozen ways to say it is plural. Can KJV Onlyists explain how Ps. 12 was understood in English Bible during the 1500s? The 1850 KJV is VERY different from the KJV most people own. How can a KJV Onlyist know what the correct reading of Jeremiah 34:16 is when one is not allowed to know what the Hebrew actually says?
Yes, brother, yes! When I was sixteen, I was given an old Bible. After reading, I called a pastor and asked why does the Bible says heavens (plural). The pastor first asked if I was a member, then he told me that I was thinking too deep and I just needed to stick to the 10 Commandments. It seemed like I offended him. I never asked again until 10 years later. I also am taking up Hebrew language. We've learned a song that came from Zechariah 2:14 (that verse isn't in many Bibles)
@@BloodofChrist-jx8te got any proof, because the Authorized KJV that had burn much fruit and built up people’s faith for over 400 years says heaven, and that’s proof enough if you have any faith
“ists” is a commonly used suffix…it means supporters of someone or something…like Papists are supporters of the Pope…realists are supporters of reality…theorists are supporters of a theory being discussed…onlyists are supporters of the strict use of the King James Bible as the only perfect English translation…and the final word from the mind of God for our end times…inspired from Him in an ongoing manner as a LIVING word with Holy Ghost power, …ie. Spirit and Life as Jesus taught…some of these “onlyists” become mean spirited, antagonistic, haughty, proud and extreme in their opinions, even teaching that you can’t be saved without using the KJB…no, truth is truth… even if scrawled on a wall about the “glorious Gospel”…the teaching of Christ…as the Lamb of God, the eternal person, the Son of God who gave himself for our salvation…He died and rose again for us as the Lord Jesus Christ, the only Saviour and “God manifest in the flesh” to be our sacrifice for sin so that we can be reconciled, redeemed and restored to God. if you believe (trust) with repentance (a change of your mind in agreement with God of what He has given us as a gift of His grace, love and mercy …and rejecting your own false ideas and unbelief instead…then in faith, trusting in the death, shed blood of the sinless Lord, His burial and His resurrection as the coming again King Jesus, you are saved…and sealed for your eternal future with the LORD. True salvation is secure…and permanent, never to be lost, removed or even renounced IF you were serious in asking to be saved to begin with…then your journey is “the walk of faith”…even if we later have a shipwrecked faith and deceive ourselves that we “no longer believe”, God is faithful even when we are not…dig into the word of God to see this in the New Testament record…once you are born of the Spirit of God, and genuinely saved, you cannot be unborn anymore than if you attempted to crawl back into your Mother’s womb trying to perform a reversal of your physical birth…
Love for the kjv only brethern??? Idk, there's an entire industry and an ai algorithm waiting to support this exact teaching, and will fund their pockets well while silencing the other side.
What is it with KJVO and PS 12:6-7? Who could believe that two verses authored approx 3000 years ago are directly connected to the KJV or any other translation for that matter? Have they all been brainwashed?
You’re right, it is a silly argument. It’s shameful that such arguments are causing people who once claimed to love each other are filled with spite instead.
@@billywalker21 because the people he's confronting: 1) put their bondage onto other s 2) weaken the Church's witness to a lost and dying world 3) weaken the faith of other Christians
@@DouglasNicholson-ff6ep Ten Commandments, you shall have no other gods before me. The KJV is not even the first English nor the language the Holy Scriptures was originally written in. So it is not even close to being able to be the only Holy Scriptures authorized by Yahweh.
@ThethomasJefferson People use “Authorized” as if a proclamation by an earthly, imperfect king is somehow relevant to accuracy, inspiration, and/or readability which it is NOT! 1. The claim of “Authorized” technically belongs to King Henry VII & his Great Bible - he proclaimed it “Authorized” ~75 years earlier! 2. Queen Elizabeth “Authorized” her Bishop Bible 43 years earlier! 3. So by 1611, authorizing a translation was certainly neither a new idea, nor significant, nor remotely or genuinely relevant to any mythical claims of superiority…
@@anthonykeve8894 you mean king Henry VIII and The Great Bible. But yes, and those are not even close to the first English translation of the Holy Scriptures either.
I really appreciate your candor in regard to this topic. Im not a KJV onlyist, i study multiple translations when i want to understand the scriptures, but seeing as how youve preached KJV only for so many years and youre willing to tell others that, yeah there are bad translations of the bible, but KJV is not the only translation we can read - that is commendable. Keep fixing your eyes on the Lord and bending to His will and he shall prosper you.
1/2 - This isn’t really a reasonable rebuttal of the average IFB church’s position on the KJV vs. modern versions. Almost every KJVO argument mentioned here is held by the likes of P. Ruckman and S. Anderson. I haven’t heard any preacher in any IFB church I’ve been in make any of these type of arguments in about 22 years and that happened to be a guest speaker making a silly claim, that the church didn’t hold to. Regardless, here are a few of my responses to the video. In regards to Psalm 12:6-7, whether “them” is talking about the word of God or talking about people, is an interpretation issue, not a translation issue. I’ve known people on both sides of the subject that know Hebrew that differ in their interpretation. I personally believe it is talking about the word of God. Throughout the Psalm, it talks about words, tongue, speak, saith, lips, etc. When you consider the people in the passage, they eventually would have died. They didn’t continue to live forever. Now the interpretation that purified seven times means the KJV was the 7th most purified translation, of course that’s ridiculous. This was written regarding the word of God in general, not a prophecy about the KJV. As you pointed out, it’s a comparison, it’s not saying the word of God needed to be purified. The argument is commonly made that there are no doctrinal variations between the KJV / Received Text and Modern Versions / Critical Text. Then the same people act as if it’s a major blow when there is a difference in Joshua 19:2 of “and” or “or.” Looking at the Hebrew, it can technically be translated as either into English, but context does show that “or” would be the most proper choice. We see that’s what it even said in the 1611 Cambridge. So it was later on that an Oxford printer updated it to “and,” possibly due to seeing all the other times the word “and” is used in that context. We can see that the text clearly says 13 cities though, not 14. And can likewise see in I Chronicles 4:28 that only Beersheba is mentioned. So Sheba was likely simply another variation of the name Beersheba for short. The other thing you mentioned was Jeremiah 34:16, pointing out that one edition uses “ye” and another uses “he.” It doesn’t take much research to realize that the printer could have easily by mistake vertically flipped the “y” into an “h.” These are examples of straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. To say that there are no significant variations between the KJV and the ESV, and no significant doctrinal variations between the Received Text and Critical Text traditions, but then claim that there are significant variations between a Cambridge and Oxford KJV edition. Even the whole debate of “is it supposed to say strain at a gnat, or strain out a gnat” is straining at a gnat. What I mean by swallowing a camel in the context of textual criticism is that between the text traditions and the respective translations, the KJV and ESV for example, show significant doctrinal differences in clarity. I Timothy 3:16 the received traditional text says that GOD was manifested in the flesh. The ESV changes it to “HE was manifested in the flesh,” which some religions teach the “he” is referring to Michael the Archangel, or simply that Jesus came as flesh, instead of clearly stating that it was GOD who was manifested in the flesh. The greek manuscript evidence is far in favor of the word properly being THEOS, translated as GOD, with further witness of this in ancient translations as well as quotations in the various church fathers writings. That is a much more significant variation than whether a word should have been “ye” or “he,” “and” or “or.” Another example would be Acts 8:37 being in the KJV but not in the ESV. It may get a little bit trickier with it being a semi-minority reading, but with proper textual criticism, context, ancient translations, and church father quotes, we then see that the majority witness testifies that Acts 8:37 is to be part of the Bible. Even in the context of the passage, a question is asked regarding what prevents him from getting baptized. The ESV has no answer being given. He simply gets baptized after asking the question. In the KJV, Philip emphasizes faith as a prerequisite to baptism and the eunuch professes that faith before Philip baptizes him. This verse is important as it teaches believers baptism as opposed to a non-faith infant baptism. The context makes no sense without the verse. It’s an incomplete thought. Even George Vance Smith who worked on the Revised Version of 1881 said that the new version they created has made great doctrinal changes. Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed, p. 46-48, written by George Vance Smith. “Since the publication of the revised New Testament, it has been frequently said that the changes of translation which the work contains are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view. In other words, that the great doctrines of popular theology remain unaffected, untouched by the results of the revision...Any such statement appears to be in the most substantial sense contrary to the facts of the case.” “The only instance in the New Testament in which the religious worship or adoration of Christ was apparently implied, has been altered by the Revision: 'At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,; is now to be read 'in the name. Moreover, no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to make up for this loss' as, indeed, it is well understood that the New Testament contains neither precept nor example which really sanction the religious worship of Jesus Christ.” “The word 'Atonement' disappears from the New Testament, and so do the connected phrases, 'faith in his blood, and 'for Christ's sake.' These so commonly used expressions are shewn to be misrepresentations of the force of the original words, such alterations evidently throwing the most serious doubt upon the important popular doctrine. It is little then to be wondered at, that the doctrinal results of the Revision should be either lightly estimated, or altogether denied.”
2/2 - With respect to what you said about the jot and tittle, referring to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. I’m in complete agreement with that. It was not speaking of an English letter or word, or that there could not be slight variations of acceptable translations of a word into English. For example, the greek word “yáp” as found in John 3:16 can be translated in English as “for” or “because.” The jot and tittle of “yáp” will never change. The translation of the word into english though can be accurately translated as FOR or BECAUSE (they mean the exact same thing). So both “For God so loved the world, that he gave..” and “Because God so loved the world, that he gave…” might both be considered translated correctly. However, seeing the flow of the sentence, “for” definitely sounds more natural. The KJV reads John 3:16 as “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Now let’s see a variation. “Because God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not die, but have eternal life.” That variation did not cause it to be corrupt, nor did it remove a “jot” or “tittle” from God’s word. We see variations like this in the KJV and its predecessors. But the variations of today’s modern versions and the KJV are much different as already demonstrated. Now let’s imagine another variation of John 3:16 to read as follows: “Because he loved the world, he gave his son, that if someone believes in Jesus, then he will not die but can live forever.” That would not be faithfully representing the jots and tittles so to speak of the Greek for John 3:16. It would be a removal as well as an alteration of jots and tittles. That’s where things are no longer just a minor variation that both can be correct, but rather becomes a corruption of the text. The KJV is the infallible preserved word of God because it is a faithful translation of the proper manuscript family with a primarily formal method of translation, not because of any re-inspiration or double-inspiration. If my KJV ends up having a printing error, which I’ve had one where the words fell off of the page from a poor run of the printing press on that page, did not mean that everything else I had was not the word of God. I simply needed to add the words back to the page that should have been there. The ESV may contain parts of the word of God, but there are many more drastic differences than are much more serious than a simple flip of a “y” into an “h.” The ESV is largely a formal equivalency translation, so it will be more accurate than the NIV which is primary a dynamic equivalency translation. However, the major variations and errors between the various critical text manuscripts themselves, plus the even greater variation from the received text falls subpar from being a thoroughly faithful translation of God’s word, but rather has serious corruptions. It is not fiction that the Textus Receptus / Byzantine Text Tradition was the text readily available and used throughout the history of the Christian church. It is not fiction that the Critical Text was not readily available until the 1880’s. It is not fiction that many Christians opposed the critical text at that time, and why Westcott, Hort, and the majority on the committee made a vow of secrecy when they decided to shift to using the critical text instead of using the received text to simply make minor language updates. Thankfully John Burgon exposed this. It is not fictional that the Critical Text comes from the Alexandrian line of manuscripts. It is not fictional that the theological school of thought in Alexandria was largely heretical and their scholars rejected a literal interpretation of scripture in places where it should have been believed literally, and instead was allegorized and reinterpreted to “spiritualize” the text to have a complete different meaning. In summary, pointing out the minor variations of KJV editions is indeed straining at a gnat when the major variations (major doctrinal issues included) between the two text lines and their respective translations are ignored. That’s swallowing a camel. Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: But the word of our God shall stand for ever.
I personally don’t care what bible translation anyone uses it’s not my personal concern. I choose the KJV because it’s timeless and beautifully written but I could care less what my church uses.
kjvo has to be ridiculous on principle alone ... i CAN gor for kjvb(est) ... but that is in ENGLISH ... oh my gosh, must the Bible be rendered in ENGLISH to be authoritative? of course, which is why it was written in Hebrew and Greek, right? this is the same problem with all of these baptist sub-groups and off-shoots ... guess there are no valid churches in russia or mongolia or korea, right? uh, this just in ... every nation, tribe and tongue will be there in the final redemption
Thank you for your ongoing ministry and all your hard work. I look forward to more videos on this subject in the near future. God bless you and reward you.
Jonathan , before I would converse with you I'd need to know if you believe there is any perfect Bible and if there is would it be your final authority on all matters of faith and practice ?
You have already been conversing with me. I believe just like the KJV translators. I believe the meanest translation faithfully translated from the original languages is the Word of God. You cannot even tell me which KJV is perfect. If I were to go and buy a PERFECT King James Bible, which should I buy - an Oxford or Cambridge? I look forward to your answer.
@@edcarson3113 But how can two books that say different things both be perfect? Are you admitting that two books can both be the Word of God even though they do not read exactly the same?
@@edcarson3113 I have answered this question for you multiple times already. You still haven’t truthfully answered mine. You have said, “any KJV Holy Bible” will do. But how can that be when they don’t all say the same thing. Which one is perfectly perfect?
Pastor Burris, I don't know you and you don't know me. But please know I am praying for you. There are so many people out there like you who are slowly leaving the King James Only movement. These people do exist. Grace and peace to you and yours.
Okay, so below are I believe ALL the arguments against the KJB. All of which are great arguments with people that have not done any study on the matter. I would say though a majority are dishonest if given by someone who has gone to Bible College or Seminary. Now, the question is, can you as a person stating the KJB is not the Word of God deal with the issues related to the critical text variants, and non-agreement in translation, and the copyright application requirements and copyright protections issues related to any critical text bible? I am but a ploybow in the pew, so it should be easy to refute any arguments I have. I don't know Greek, I have never sentence diagrammed New Testament passages, I am of average at best intelligence. “Problems” with the KJB (all true, with major caveats): 1. No doctrines are impacted in modern versions of the Bible. 2. The KJB translators were not KJVO, and believed there would be updates. 3. The KJB translators acknowledged many issues related to translation and did not claim perfection. 4. The KJB is under copyright just like modern versions. 5. King James had some involvement and instructions on how the Bible was translated. 6. The KJB translators were not allowed to use / not use certain words. 7. The KJB has archaic words and words that have changed meaning. 8. The KJB has undergone major revisions, tens of thousands of changes. 9. The KJB has had changes in meaning as late as 1769. 10. We have better scholarship today than in 1611. 11. We have more extant and older manuscripts than they did in 1611. 12. There are more than two versions of the KJB in print currently. 13. The KJB used translations from the Vulgate. 14. 1 John 5:7&8 and Revelation 16:5 have little if any support. 15. The KJB does not agree to any of the varying published Textus Receptus editions in 1611. 16. KJVO by default believes in re-inspiration. 17. KJB was translated by a bunch of Anglicans. 18. If you don’t know Greek and Hebrew or have expertise in textural criticism, you can’t understand the issues or really have a deep understanding of the Bible. 19. Modern bibles are easier to read and more understandable.
You said, “as a person stating the KJB is not the Word of God…” This is absolutely a false assertion. I have never made such a statement and never will. Please correct your false statement.
@@pastorburris How can you claim that the KJB is the Word of God when it contains errors in both Manuscript Selection as well as Translation? I am not making a person attack, I am just stating if a person believes the KJB is riddled with errors than it can not by definition be the Word of God. What pastors don't realize when they move to modern versions is what they are really doing is telling the congregation we do NOT have the Word of God, but based on Scholarship we have a reasonable approximation of what, through the science of Textural Criticism, advancement leading to better translation, what the inspired originals might have said. If we go with a James White Bibliology, we have can have confidence we have the best either though the NASB1995 or the LSB but still no assurance it is correct. if we go with the Mark Ward bibliology of all versions being equally accurate based on the translation method class, we have nothing based on variants between versions of textural selection and contradictory translation. We can say Bart Ehrman is a heretic all we want, but all he has done is take the Critical Text ideology to it's logical and rational conclusion. But if you say the KJB is the Word of God, what Chapter in the KJB to you believe is 100% correct? You can not answer that because you know I will point out a modern version that is in disagreement and ask you to warn those that use it of it's error. This is the trap that Mark Ward is in, his is very intelligent and knowledgeable, but he can not call out what he knows as errors in modern versions because it would ruin his narrative. While I can deal with 1 John 5:7 and Rev 16:5, you can not as a critical text advocate defend the thousands of changes between the ESV, NASB, NIV, NRSVue, etc.
@@casey1167 You said, "[I]f a person believes the KJB is riddled with errors than it can not by definition be the Word of God." I think you know what I'm about to quote in response... *[W]e we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, etc. A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For what ever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?*
@@MAMoreno Oh yes, I know what you will quote. BUT, I do believe you know my answer..... you yourself explained what the very meanest translation they were referring to is, and you would agree all Bibles they speak of in foreign languages are based on the TR family of manuscripts, and the traditional Hebrew text. You would also agree the KJB translators were under the rules set forth by, or approved by King James, and you would agree the rules for translation of modern version are presented to the US Copyright Office through FormVA with the attestation the requirements for, and the compliance of other extant copy written protection has been complied with. But let us invoke the KJB Translators.... would they have even dreamed of the translation of 1 Cor 6:9 in the NRSVue or the related footnote? Would they have in a million year said there was even a possibility the ESV in Gen 3:16 was in anyway allowable? Would the KJB Translators in a million years have reworded what they felt was a correct passage in the Bishop's Bible in order not the violate the copyright of the Bishop's? The answers are clearly no. While you can state what the KJB translators clearly said and believed, to extrapolate that to modern versions is almost comical in nature. Also, if the purpose of your statement is to state approval of what I would believe is the correct translation of the providentially preserved Word of God with what again? the "meanest"??
Facts don't matter to those folks though. It doesn't matter what evidence you present them, they won't change. I know people personally who hold to the "pure Cambridge text" position. It's all ridiculous and sad.
@@igregmartWhere is the scripture that supports that statement?. There is not one, so it is nothing more than pride, arrogance, ignorance and presumption. Sums up the KJV only cult precisely.
to everyone in the comment section: Please stop coming at him with anger, hatred and wrath. You're giving this gentleman exactly what he wants. You're showing him exactly who he perceives you to be. who cares if someone uses an ESV or KJV. the only thing that matters is what's in your heart. The only thing that matter is we must trust the lord Jesus Christ and that he died for our sins at Calvary. So who cares what he believes or thinks. God gave us free will and we aren't forced to watch his RUclips or go to his church building. Let's use our freewill to serve and put our energy and time where it matters. At the end of the day we all have to answer for our own works and if were truly saved or not.
In my experience, most IFBs just want to plug their ears and go “lalala” at opinions they don’t like. Instead of addressing the arguments, they lob insults and accusations. They’re not a reasonable bunch. They’d rather kick you out than to question themselves.
I just watched your video about being removed as pastor. Then went to your channel and watched this one. You have indeed done your homework! You presented several things I had not heard before. I mostly prefer the NIV or the CSB. But I do fondly appreciate the KJV and others. Nothing like Luke 2 read from the KJV! Next I plan to watch your video about Daniel and Isaiah. Bless you, brother! 👍🏻🙏
The comments made about Psalm 12:6-7 being fulfilled by the KJV is blatantly arrogant and patently ignorant. English is not even a Biblical language in that English did not exist during the Biblical period.
One KJV I have, is copyright 1977, Thomas Nelson Inc Nashville / New York. Where does this fit in? It does not give the version date. It does NOT include the epistle dedicatory, or translator's preface: "To the most high and mighty prince, James ... The Translators of the BIBLE wish grace, Mercy, and Peace, through JESUS CHRIST our LORD." HOW could a publisher call it a KJV, when THAT is removed? :--}>
@@biblehighlighter Thank you for that. I had not heard of the Aitken Bible before. I just now looked it up online. Found the history very interesting. You can buy it for $150. Not sure if it included either the epistle dedicatory, or the translators' preface. :--}>
Jeremiah 34:16 is absolutely not a contradiction between the two versions. What are you on, dude? Both the oxford and the cambridge editions are referring to the same subject, the nation of Israel. The he and ye differences are a matter of varying interpretations of standardized english, namely whether the slaves should be considered a collective possession of israel as a whole (true, within this context) or a personal possession of israel (also true within this context) There is literally zero practical difference between the two phrases. Its a glorified font change. The Joshua 19:2 phrase is the same thing. Genesis 26:33 relates that Beer-sheba is named such because Isaac named the place where his servants digged up a well and called it “Sheba”, thus, verse 33 relates “the name of the city is beersheba unto this day” So Sheba is the name which Isaac gave to the city, and Beersheba is the name which the people gave to the city after Isaac. Both names were plainly contemporary to the Israelites, so both readings are the same. If I say Donald Trump was born in New york city and new York, then later i say “Donald Trump was born in new york or new york city” I am saying the precise same thing both times. Sheba was used both to refer to the particular well and to refer to the city as a whole. So both readings are equally accurate. And/or statements are a thing, ya know. Quite literally an issue of semantics. I understand that you are reaching towards the lowest common denominator of KJV onlyist arguments, but hardly any Authorized Bible believer would hold to so stringent a standard as you suppose we do, so much so that we dont allow any paraphrase or font change. The new testament text of the KJV renders Joshua in the book of Acts as “Jesus” because that is the proper greek rendering. But in the old testament the KJV plainly renders it “Joshua”. Is this a contradiction as well? No. Same meaning, different words. If that were the depth of difference between the authorized scriptures and the new readings, then our only uproar would be an uproar from the undue inexpedience of a new translation which states the same passage in a less meaningful way with less meaningful language. But in addition to the somewhat minor sin of inexpedience, every single new version of the Bible contains within them expressly different interpretations both amongst themselves and from the authorized text, a direct violation of 1 corinthians 14:26. If you are even remotely familiar with the kjv only issue you know this to be true. Lets speak of a highly significant variation of “he”, namely 1 Timothy 3:16 which in the modern versions is dubiously rendered either as “which” “he” or “who”, virtually any pronoun with which they can supplant the true and established reading and early attestation to the church’s belief in the divinity of Christ “…God was manifest in the flesh…” There can be almost no difference of an order of magnitude higher than the difference between the authoritative reading “God” and the dubious and empty reading of “which” “who” or “he”. To even whisper a comparison between the barely semantic oxford/cambridge readings and the wide gulf between the av text/modern perversion texts is tantamount to sacrilege. You should know better.
@CB19815 Very long on words, short on substance. You seem to dislike his nit picking. He’s just imitating his critics Allow this man of God his facts-supported opinion.
I’m a “fundamentalist” and I would never use the KJV as a study Bible. In fact, I don’t use it all all. It’s an archaic out of date translation riddled with errors.
@ 1 John 5:7, the closing verses of Mark, Luke 2:14, beginning of John 8, John 8:18, the proper reading is God, Luke 17:21 Jesus is not saying the kingdom of God is within you, He’s saying it’s in your midst, and those are just the ones off the top of my head. The KJV is a great translation, it has its problems just like any other translation. It is not a divine translation.
You cannot reason with these individuals who hold true to the KJVO. I have personally encountered theses individuals and I think it boils down to spiritual pride and they will use circular arguments to maintain the KJVO position. For what it is worth, I think this is a big distraction for you and encourage you to move forward in your calling as a pastor.
1. 2:24-30: "I've had people tell me that they could come and sit with me and show me how I got it wrong. When I invite them, they waffle." Response: Maybe they're hungry. How about breakfast at either of the two Waffle Houses in Charlotte where you could reason together at? 2. "Well, if the 1900 Cambridge edition of the King James translation of Psalm 12:6-7 was good enough for Israel's King David, then it's good enough for me." (;-) 3. Regarding the calumny of those who say about you "I don't believe the Bible, I'm not saved, enjoy burning in hell, I am lost, a heretic, a false prophet," seeking forgiveness on their behalf I respond "Wherefore, I abhor myself and repent in dust and ashes" (Job 42:6, KJV). 4. Jonathan, I consider your position of 'KJV preferred' over 'KJV only' as analogous to financial investing where preferred stock shares, while more expensive, yield both a greater return and greater dividends. 5. God willing, may your ministry continue to be a reflection of these words: "To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice." (John 18:37, KJV)
Taking baby Christians and feeding them tough meat, when they have no teeth, is a common problem…it is best to ground your “Bible” students, fellowship and/or congregation in sound doctrine using your KJB for your preaching and teaching even while they use whatever “version” they were introduced to…If they are unsaved, the emphasis on the “glorious Gospel” and the sound doctrine of Christ, will “birth” them…and start their journey and “walk of faith” with the Lord Jesus Christ as a growing Christian… and over time you can introduce them to the other sound doctrines for their growth from a KJB framework, even while they begin to see the differences for themselves as the Holy Spirit opens their eyes of understanding… Requiring teachers in your work to have a consistent ministry with the KJB is a good thing as long as they don’t insult, denigrate or force people beyond their level of spiritual maturity and understanding…A loving and kind presentation of the Bible controversy will win people to the truth…but avoidance of condemnation and criticism is wise until you have an audience ready for more of the detailed back story…the Satanic conspiracy that is at work in this matter. Too many KJV only extremists have done a disservice to the body of Christ. When asked “Which Bible version do you use?” I answer, “I USE all of them to compare carefully when needed to the only one I TRUST completely, 100%, that is, the KJB 1769 Cambridge edition…which is the pure, preserved and perfect words God has chosen…when they ask, “how do you know for sure?” …that’s the time to begin your careful unfolding of the doctrine of the word of God itself…it’s supernatural nature as truly HOLY and trustworthy …it’s complete accuracy and on going inspiration from God’s hand as a LIVING book. The words that He speaks to us through the KJB are “Spirit and Life”, IF we in faith receive them seriously as the very words of the LIVING and true MOST HIGH God and Godhead, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are ONE. (As in one family, one nation, one army etc. - plurality and perfect unity in oneness…)
@@biblehighlighter No, it would not make a difference. I believe you are simply biased. I do not believe any translation is the absolute perfect word of God.
@@biblehighlighter I agree some modern translations are terrible. However, the ESV I read does not teach any of the bad things you mentioned. I happen to believe there are several good translations out there. When you compare the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, CSB, etc., no major doctrine is changed.
*Love God* with all you heart and soul and mind and strength. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after Righteousness Pray without ceasing. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus... *LOVE* covers a multitude of sins. We are saved by GRACE. Each one of those sentences is a Bible verse. Anyone can google them if there is a need to know which ones they are. It is a short version of something called *The Royal Path of Life* that leads to the Place of *Amazing Wonderfulness* where we will be Blissfully astounded at the Love of God and the Majesty of God in ways that cannot be done on earth. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus....... who is now *seated at the right hand of the Throne of God.* (Hebrews 12:2) What would the Creator prefer to have...... an NIV reader whose heart is on fire with with being in alignment with the above things.... ******OR****** a KJV reader whose is lukewarm about being in alignment with the above things. ????? SMH stands for "shake my head" in internet language. That's how I feel about what is typed in the description that's under this video. Sad stuff. It's about *LOVE.* And so we know and rely on the Love that God has for us. *God is Love.* Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. (1 John 4:16) ...
@@timkhan3238 Well we are in agreement that it's about humility and obedience. If you are saying that God wants me to throw away any Bibles in my house (fake Bibles) because they are not a KJV Bibles... I do not feel His call to do that. So I guess we will have to respectfully agree to disagree about that. Sally humbly believes and commences her life in obedience but she passes through this world doing that using an NIV Bible. She just has an easier time understanding and relating to modern English vs. KJV English. Frank humbly believes and commences his life in obedience and he passes through this world using a KJV Bible. In terms of Eternal SALVATION is there any difference at all between the two? My very best guess is that God's answer to that is NO. Also my very best guess is that God is much more about LOVE then most people think He is. When we've been here ten thousand years Bright, shining as the sun We've no less days to sing God's praise Than when we first begun ...
I urge you to read through all of these comments, including your own, and honestly tell me that love is being displayed towards those of us who simply believe with all of our heart that God gave us His perfect word.
@@timkhan3238 Amen brother! His signature is upon the King James Bible and it is without one single error. My comment was to the original post by the way.
@@flman9684 *Love* God with all your heart and soul and mind and strength. *Love* your neighbor as yourself. *Love* your enemies and do good to them. --The words of Jesus. If you really think about it, if anyone was really doing that who has time for anything other than Love? I don't have the time or inclination to read through the comments but I think I hear what you are saying just from what you typed. Hey I wish you nothing but Love my friend. My first comment was me just having a moment of exasperation that this noble pastor was being called "a heretic, a false prophet and more" as he said in his typed message under the video.... "because the Spirit doesn't give lost people a love for the true Word of God." It seems quite reasonable to assume that calling this pastor a "lost" person not only misses the center of the target, it misses the whole target as well. flman9684.... I hope you have a nice day.
@@messageoflove1969 Thank you for the kind response. It is truly a rarity these days. It is obvious that you have a level of humility that far exceeds many. I am satisfied that you understand the point that I was making, in that the bitterness towards other members of the body of Christ comes from all sides. I would like to point one more thing out as a warning to be aware of those who come across as kind, but inwardly are not harboring near as much love for the brethren as they portray. I am speaking of the very one who made this video. This man cleverly stated that he was only touching on one commenter, and then followed that up by saying that the one commenter represented the majority. Very sneaky indeed. He also made a slander video of another Pastor in which he made some very strong accusations and misrepresentations of what the man teaches. He also called those who follow this particular Pastors teachings rabid and went on to say that he has not found a single man using a whiteboard that teaches right doctrine. He is very very divisive. To make it worse, I called him out on it, and he did not even touch on his obvious wrongdoing and sin. Instead, he used his seminary training and the doctrine that he believes in an attempt to bait me and back me into a corner and cause me to write something that he could use against me. He absolutely can not see anyone else's doctrine as legit, because he is as dogmatic as I have seen. Seriously, I never once called the man lost or anything else other than a false accuser and a liar because he exhibited both in his slander video against a fellow Pastor. But this man accused me of blasphemy because he absolutely can not exhibit grace to anyone who sees things differently than himself and those he learned from. Anyway, I just wanted you to see these things from my perspective. Just because someone is soft in speech doesn't mean that their motive is pure. I feel as though he seeks approval and praise and loves to make others look lesser than himself. Much love to you as well my friend, and again, thank you for the most kind response.
I thought I’d scroll through the comments…I’m just in shock…I do wonder if some are even watching your videos in their entirety? I continue to look forward to seeing what the Lord has laid on your heart to share. I appreciate your thoroughness and honesty. As always, y’all are in our prayers🙏
Maybe this has been answered, so forgive me if I'm repeating myself. Are any who are "KJV only" advocates actually using the 1611 version? I really would have a hard time believing that, because it's almost unreadable. I've got a Scofield, for instance, and it's called a "King James Version." But it isn't. Many 1611 words have been replaced by ones we use today. The letter "v" in the 1611 version, when used in words that we spell with a "u," are updated with "u." Scofield doesn't say "Trvust in the Lord..." It says "Trust in the Lord..." So is the Scofield only for "compromisers"?
very few actually use the 1611. they usually have one of (i think) 7 updates and they either have the Cambridge or the Oxford. not of them have even read the letter to the read by the translators that for some reason was removed from all modern printings (after 1800) of the kjv. the translators themselves would not even be KJVO
@@L5player I am not even close to being a King James Onlyist, but I do like reading the translation in facsimile form, complete with the original spelling and typeface. In a way, doing so emphasizes both the KJV's indisputable literary beauty and its impracticality as the primary translation for the church in the 21st century.
Some just seem to want to jump on these pathetic arguments as they know they are wrong but love when other wayward believers support their own silly notions. It's without question that the KJV is the perfect, inerrant word in the English language that was so used by God in sweeping revivals throughout the world and these perversions coincided with no missions, broadly taught false doctrine and a general decline of the outward church. Stand on God's word like the Philadelphians brethren and keep preaching the word and not philosophy. Lord bless.
Pastor, I appreciate so much your commitment to preach Biblically. If you’re not familiar with him, I highly recommend Mark Ward’s channel and work to this topic. Thank you for the example of refraining from ad hominem and sticking with the truth.
John 8:58 in the KJV, the I AM statement seems like a small error on the surface, but it in fact is a HUGE error that was deliberately contrived to fit with another error in Exodus 3:14-15 to lead people to think I AM is a name for God which makes Jesus become God in weak minded people who gobble up such nonsense. PART 1 Did Jesus say "I am God? The use of uppercase letters when translating "ego eimi" in John 8:58 and "ego eimi ho on" in Exodus 3:14, is deceptive and misleads people to think Jesus is YHWH. The Greek expression, "ego eimi" is never used as a name for YAHWEH, Jesus, or anyone. The Greek in Exodus 3:14 reads "ego eimi ho on" "ego eimi" translates (I am) "ho on" translates (the one who is)." There is no connection between "ego eimi" in John 8:58 and "ego eimi ho on" in Exodus 3:14-15. Furthermore, God said to Moses, “Tell the children of Israel this: ‘I am the one who is [ego eimi ho on] Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered, my memorial to all generations. ~ Moses, Exodus 3:14-15. "I am YAHWEH, that is my name." Isaiah 42:8 The truth has been established by two witnesses. Believe it or perish. People also need to be aware that the verse numbers are not in the original Hebrew, they are added. There is no sentence breaks either. Therefore, it is improper to break up verses 14 and 15 in Exodus 3. They must be read together as one statement. Reading Exodus 3:14 and claiming the Greek expression "ego eimi ho on" is the same as "ego eimi" in John 8:58 does an injustice to the word of YHWH. The 70 plus Hebrew scholars that translated the Hebrew texts into Greek (LXX) chose to translate "EHYEH ASHER EHYEH" as "ego eimi ho on" which translates to English as "I am the one who is" The next verse tells us that the "WHO" is "YAHWEH." Should we ignore the 70 or more Hebrew scholars who all agreed to the above translation? Jesus NEVER EVER says I am YHWH. Jesus tells us his Father is greater then he is, and greater than ALL. In John 8:58 Jesus was declaring himself to be the Messiah who was prophesied to come before Abraham existed. He was not declaring himself to be God. CONTEXT is needed to understand this final declaration by Jesus that comes at the end of a long conversation. The Greek expression is "ego eimi." This expression is not a name for anyone. JOHN 4: 25 The woman said to him, “I know that the Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.” 26 Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he (ego eimi).” [the Messiah]. JOHN 7: 28 So Jesus cried out while teaching in the temple, saying, “You both know me, and know where I am from. And I have not come on my own, but he who sent me is true, whom you do not know. 29 I know him because I am from him, and he sent me.” 31 But many of the multitude believed in him, and they said, “When the Christ [Messiah] comes, will he do more signs than those that this man has done?” [It's a rhetorical question with an obvious answer. Jesus is the Messiah and there is no other like him]. JOHN 8: 18. I am one who testifies about myself, and the Father who sent me testifies about me.” [proof Jesus is not the Father YHWH]. 19. Therefore they said to him, “Where is your Father?” Jesus answered, “You know neither me, nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” [people who think Jesus is YHWH do not know Jesus or the Father. They worship a god of foolish men's own making]. 24. That is why I said to you that you will die in your sins. For unless you believe that I am the one, you will die in your sins.” [I am the one, meaning the Messiah, the one who was prophesied to come before Abraham existed]. The Bible is quite clear on this fact. Deuteronomy 18:18; Genesis 3:15 25. So they said to him, “Who are you?” Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been telling you from the beginning. [this is a no brainer. Jesus declared himself to be the Messiah from the beginning and he proved it by fulfilling prophecy and doing miracles]. 28 So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one. And I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me, I speak these things. [again, proving Jesus is not YHWH. People who think Jesus is YHWH, know nothing of the Father or the Son. They are delusional. YHWH has not revealed Himself or His Son to them. They Follow a Jesus of their own making]. 42. Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and am here; for I have not come on my own, but he sent me. [Jesus is not YHWH....proof text]. 43. Why do you not understand what I am saying? Because you are not able to hear my word. [People who willfully believe Jesus is YHWH are not able to hear the words of Jesus, they are spiritually dead and willfully ignorant]. 44. You are of your father the Devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar, and the father of them. 45. But because I speak the truth, you do not believe me. 46. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe me? 47. The one who is of God hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear them is that you are not of God.” 54. Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’ 55. And you have not known him, but I know him. And if I were to say, ‘I do not know him,’ then I would be like you: a liar. But I know him, and keep his word. 56. Your father Abraham was overjoyed that he would see my day, and he saw it, and rejoiced.” REV Bible Translation gets it right. ["saw" means KNEW and UNDERSTOOD the prophecies concerning Jesus coming] 57. Therefore, the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” [they misunderstood Jesus words]. 58. Before Abraham existed, I am ("he"), or, ("the one"). WHO? The one Jesus declared himself to be from the beginning (John 4:25-26; John 7:28-31; John 8:18-19-24-25-28; John 8:42-47). Jesus said he is the Messiah who was prophesied to come. Jesus is not YHWH. He never said he was YHWH. That is the evidence. That is the CONTEXT. END OF PART 1
PART 2: I AM THE ONE WHO IS YAHWEH Deuteronomy 18:18 has YHWH saying He would raise up a prophet "like Moses" from among the people (of Israel) etc.. So is YHWH a liar? That's what the "Jesus is God" cults want us to believe. "I AM" in uppercase is a mistranslation in the 1611 KJV because it changes the common Greek expression "ego eimi" into a proper noun. Other English Bibles that copied the error are corrupt. Many newer revisions of old translations have corrected the error by translating "ego eimi" as "I am he" or "I am the one." MORE PROOF: "See now that I, I am he (YAHWEH), and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." Deuteronomy 32: 39 ["I am" in the above verse points to YHWH as being the "he", so it means "I am YAHWEH"] See Deuteronomy 32: 1-39 for context. It's all about YHWH. That's who "he" is in verse 39. In John 8:58 Jesus is telling the Jews that he is the Messiah that was prophesied to come before Abraham existed. That's the proper interpretation that respects the immediate and remote contexts without causing conflict with other scriptures. Conflict means someone got it wrong. People who refuse to resolve conflicting interpretations demonstrate their complete lack of reverence for the word of YHWH while claiming the opposite. They are deceived. Abraham learned of those prophecies from YHWH. He knew and understood (spiritually saw with the eyes of his heart and understanding) the prophecies of the coming messiah and he rejoiced over it. The Greek "ego eimi" in John 8:24 and John 8:58 translates to English as: "I am the one" (the Messiah). Elsewhere the phrase *ego eimi* is translated: “I am [he]”-Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; John 18:5-8; John 6:20. "I am [the one]" who (ho) you are speaking with (John 4:26) Jesus declares himself to be the Messiah in response to the woman who refers to the coming of Messiah in the previous verse. John 4:25 "I am" (one who testifies) John 8:18 "I am" (going away) John 8:21 Where "I am" (going) John 8:21 and John 8:22 "I am" (from above) John 8:23 "I am" (the light of the world) John 8:12 “I am [he]" or "I am [the one]" meaning: I am the Messiah John 8:24; John 8:28; John 8:58 “It is I”-Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; "I am" (not worthy) Matthew 3:11 "I am" (not alone) John 8:16 "I am" (generous) Matthew 20:15 The point is: "ego eimi" is a popular Greek expression that means I am something or someone and what the someone or something is relates back to the subject within the context. In the case of John 8:58 it refers to the Messiah....the anointed one of God who was prophesied to come long before Abraham was born. See Deuteronomy 18:18. In John 8:58 Jesus is telling the Jews that he was in God's foreknowledge, plan, and purpose for redeeming mankind before Abraham existed. Jesus is not saying that he pre-existed as a being in heaven before Abraham existed. The view that Jesus preexisted conflicts with the Bible. Jesus never claimed to be “coequal with God.” He declared that his Father "is the only one who is truly God” (John 17:3). Jesus declared his Father is greater than he is. John 14:28. Jesus declared his Father is greater than all. John 10:29. That refutes coequal right there....full stop. More proof: Many English translations of John 8:58 no longer parrot the KJV error. They supply the word “he” or "the one" to render the Greek to English properly as "I am he" or "I am the one" and they no longer use uppercase I AM which was clearly an error. The entire context for John 8:24 and 8:58 is centered around the Pharisees not believing Jesus is the Messiah. From John 7:40 to John 8:58 Jesus is providing proof to the Pharisees that he is the Messiah. Jesus never once said to the Jews that he is YHWH. John 8:56 states: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad." The Pharisees misunderstood Jesus. They thought Jesus was declaring to have existed before Abraham. Why would any Christian want to believe the trash that came from the mouths of those Pharisees? "SAW" is being used in the spiritual sense of KNOWING AND UNDERSTANDING. DO YOU SEE IT? Means do you know and understand it now? "Abraham UNDERSTOOD the prophecies concerning the coming Day of Messiah because God told him it was coming. Abraham accepted the prophecies, he knew and understood them, and he rejoiced. We use the words "seen" and "saw" for knowing an understanding all the time, yet for some reason when people read the Bible they think it always refers to physically seeing with the eyes so they believe the Pharisees' false conclusion and reject the context. CONCLUSION In John 8:58 Jesus did not claim the name for YHWH that was given to Moses in Exodus 3:14-15 and Jesus did not claim to exist before Abraham. Both claims are unBiblical and conflict with the immediate and remote context. Conflict with other verses and themes in the Bible means someone got it wrong. In the case at hand the trinitarians and oneness believers are wrong. By drawing attention to the mistranslation "I AM" and connecting it to Exodus 3:14 they are changing the entire focus and meaning of Jesus statement. In the context of YAH’s plan and foreknowledge, from the beginning, the Messiah was prophesied to come, before Abraham existed. In simple terms, Jesus was in YHWH's mind and in His plan for man’s redemption, long before Abraham lived. In John 4:25, the woman at the well says to Jesus, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called the Christ); when that one comes, he will declare all things to us.” In verse 26, Jesus says to her, "I who speak to you am he' (ego eimi) - I am he: the Messiah; I am the one you are speaking about. Jesus never declares himself to be YHWH. To say otherwise causes conflict and contradicts the Bible. Jesus essentially told the Jews that his Father is greater then their father Abraham. To the Jews, this was blasphemy. Once Jesus said this, the Jews took up stones to stone him.
@@autumn_armyworm I've been saved according to faith, belief, and confession since 1964.....Paul's Gospel is the only one that saves in this dispensation since Paul was entrusted with it. So, You are a false accuser and YAHWEH absolutely hates false accusers. You just brought judgement on yourself, so you better retract you mean spirited comment and repent.
@@johnspartan98 Do you sincerely have nothing better to do than spend hours making sure everyone knows how much wiser you are than they? Just a bit prideful perhaps? Maybe Matthew 18:3-4 is worth a look unless it is also inaccurate? Faith has always been the necessity to His Salvation Gal. 3 points out Gen. 15:6 as Abraham had faith in Yahweh we are children of Abraham by faith. There has always been one Gospel of Salvation through Yeshua. As far as Jesus not being God I’m not sure how you can justify that when: Rev. 1:8, John 10:30 & 38 / 14:6-11 / 17:11 / 20:28, Colo 1:15-18, among others seem very clear to me. Hopefully that will keep you entertained for a few hours, I hope despite our differences, we will be able to rejoice together for eternity with our Father in heaven!
I love KJV, I have both 1769 (Oxford) and 1873 (Cambridge) edition in my house. But I mainly use Thai Translation (THSV and TBS1971) because I'm Thai People (Thailand). If KJV is required for Salvation. Should I and our friend in church must go to Hell? For me, KJV is very good and faithful translation but it's not God.
Okay, I'll show you. In English, we turn a singular into a plural by adding an s. The Hebrew (and Aramaic) clearly does not but implies a plural. For example, the word for "kings" in Daniel 2:47, "Lord of kings," is written as a singular but clearly meant as a plural. Nebuchadnezzar said, "son of God." To have him say, son of the gods, makes no logical sense. What pagan religion had multiple gods giving birth to a shared son? I can't think of any.
@@MAMoreno I'm assuming you are referring to one male and one female god. If so, then the habit of that day, being radically different than our feminized world today, the king would not have acknowledged the female god by saying "gods" but would have acknowledged the male god only by saying "son of god". Since the king was roasting the three men known to worship the one true God then his saying, "son of God" makes much more sense than "son of gods". I find all kinds of errors in the English translations (all the English translations) of the Bible. This is one place the KJV got it right.
how do they answer for the difference in the Lords Prayer in Matthew and in Luke when they claim that the removal of the last line in the prayer in the modern translations remove the deity of Christ and the kingdom of God?? i have yet to receive a answer from any of the KJVO cultist on this. every jot and tittle (sp?) matters, right?
@@casey1167 how do you understand it? the KJV cult claim that because the last line in matthew of the lords prayer is missing then all modern translations are false. its placed as a footnote. in luke of the KJV the line is also missing yet nothing is stated. KJVO use two standards for evaluation. the presupposition that the Gold Standard is the "perfect" KJV (something the translators never said about their own translation) and a different standard for everything else, including (according to some like Dr. Gipp) the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. all of which must be corrected to the English of the KJV. if they would use the same standard for both the KJV and the modern translations then they would find that there are issues of concern for what is essentially a English Translation of the Scriptures.
It's hard to take what you're saying seriously when you tell partial truths and exaggerated truth. People that are genuinely trying to help without an agenda don't do that . And again like your other videos you've placed yourself in a echo chamber. You claim that no one will answer you I responded 3 times with my phone number and email saying I'd absolutely talk to you, 2 of those comments were deleted and the last ignored. Again I'd like to listen to you but I have a hard time when I feel someone is intentionally being deceptive
I do not delete comments. I have only blocked two people in the history of this channel and that was for communicating threats. Which video did you respond to. I will gladly go back to find your comments.
I will be glad to speak with this gentleman. I have not seen any of his previous comments. There are a lot and I do not see every single one. I am searching for them now.
*Conversation 1:* Person A - The NIV contains errors. Person B - Are you saying that the Bible contains errors? Person A - No, I'm saying that an English translation contains errors. *Conversation 2:* Person A - The KJV contains errors. Person B - Are you saying that the Bible contains errors? Person A - No, I'm saying that an English translation contains errors. *If you think that a translation of the Bible contains errors, that doesn't mean that you think that the Bible itself contains errors. The errors come from faulty translation choices, not from the original Hebrew and Greek texts.*
@@kayheart1413 Yes, but the errors are typically not significant enough to make a translation useless. (At worst, most translations in English are simply redundant.)
Thank you for this video Jonathan. I have a Cambridge in my office and a Schuyler in my study and I will need to check those two examples in my study bible. I believe the point of your video towards KJVO is very simple: There is variation between KJV version bibles so which one is the true, preserved KJV? Now let me get to work and get answers from some highly regarded scholars in KJV. Will post their responses.
We all wish we had a Bible that was perfectly accurate. But in His wisdom He has allowed errors so that the twisted and wicked would stumble in them. When a lover of Lord sees a error in the scripture he just wants to find correct answer so he can draw closer to God. When a hater of the Lord sees a error in the scripture he decieves his heart by his lust of sin and makes allowance for his wickedness of mind and heart.
Do the authors themselves say that their writings were imparted to them by the "Holy Ghost"? They, if any one, must have known whether they were writing the story of their personal experiences and observations freely and of their own accord, or whether they were only being employed as "instruments" by God's Spirit. If they wrote their accounts on their own impulse in a purely human style, they would, quite naturally, make no special mention of the fact. If, however, they acted merely as "instruments of God's Spirit," they were in duty bound to acknowledge the fact and give the credit to God. They were obliged to do what the writers of the Old Testament had done. Whenever these announced or recorded a revelation from God, they repeatedly emphasized the fact that it was a divine revelation. So often that it becomes almost wearisome, we read, "Thus says Jehovah," or "God spoke." Of the books of the New Testament, only one, The Revelation of John, was communicated by an angel. What is more, John stresses this fact in the very opening sentence of his book. The authors of all the other books of the New Testament say nothing about the operation of any supernatural influence upon the writing of their reports. Luke, on the contrary, expressly states in the first few lines of his gospel that he has compiled his story in quite the ordinary human way. He writes: "Many before me have undertaken to write the story of the well-established events that happened among us. Their accounts agree with what we are told by those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning, and who appeared in public to proclaim the truth. Having looked carefully into all of the facts from the very outset, I have also decided to write them down in historical order and to send my account to you, most noble Theophilus, in order that you may convince yourself of the truth of that which you have learned by word of mouth." His account, therefore, contains the things that were told to him by eyewitnesses, and not those that were imparted to him by the "Holy Ghost."
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
By the way a Bible in bad shape, from use, is usually a sign of a life that is good shape.
Amen to that. Back before my left eye got injured, I had several Bibles wore out for years of use and study (and some still in good condition due to me being more careful with my books as I got older). I kind of miss using physical Bibles sometimes, but now I use Bible apps so I can zoom in and not let my scarred left eye prevent me from being able to read God’s Word.
Regarding the "Old King James Only" people:
Here's the thing...
1- Do you think God would write a Bible that was only limited to one, specific translation?
That means millions of people who read any translation other than the Old King James, are still condemned to Hell because they did not come to Jesus through the Old King James version.
2- If people can only find God through the Old King's English... then anyone who speaks only Spanish, Russian, Japanese, Chinese, German, Portuguese, or any of the 700+ languages on the planet, are also all condemned to Hell under the Old King James Only people.
This is absolutely absurd an non-Biblical to say the least.
3- Furthermore, if these Old King James Only people are such fanatics about purity... then THEY should ALL spend the next 30 or 40 years learning Hebrew, Greek and Aramic along with all of their forgotten nuances of the time.
THAT would be "true purity" in the texts... not some Old King James version that is a translation in and of itself.
My Conclusion:
The Old King James ONLY Cult is just that... a cult.
They are adding to and taking away from The Word of God... which is strictly FORBIDDEN! They have turned salvation into a matter of WORKS, not the free gift of grace through our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ... by ANY Language.
Pray for them but do not listen to them. Above all, do not argue with them because they are only disrupting and dividing the body of Christ... leading new, young Christians AWAY from the truth of the Bible.
This is how Satan operates... truth mixed with lies.
Remember that... Truth, mixed with Lies!
It's always had cult feels when interacting with some KJV Onlyidts.
KJV isn't perfect, but it's the only Bible that the English speaker has. If there was every other English translation except KJV, I'd read the Russian Synodal Bible in my native language. And if that didn't exist, I would have to learn another language to read THE Bible. Modern translations are like alcohol free beer, taste alright, but it's not beer, no spirits.
I was ok with the KJV translation until that preacher that day told us that it was the only translation for me to trust! I’m still ok with it but it’s not my go to first but I will match it with other translation as I enjoy to do. I witness to JW witness’s from time to time and if you want to see a true cult that will tell you that their final authority is that corrupt NWT that really got me thinking how the KJV only group has made their way in to a cult also. I feel blessed to have so many other translations to work with . I have so many verses I’d rather read from certain translations that hit me differently! What a mess this has caused in the church!
I used to call myself TR only. Now I say TR preferred, though I read several translations a day. This would include CT translations. I wish I had come to this position years ago. I have a better understanding of God’s Word because of it.
I think that is a very respectable position to hold.
God's Word is Spirit, not letter. Modern translations are made of only letters, no Spirit.
@@TheFightingSheep Ok. How do you prove such a position?
@@customstoryteller Test it with the Spirit - the only way anyone can tell truth from error.
@@TheFightingSheep Ok. But you could literally say this with any translation.
KJVO are a cult. Some will say your not saved unless you read the King Jimmy
It’s sad!
*you're
I just came across your videos, and I must say I believe you are correct in your teaching. I use both the KJV and the NKJV. I pray God blesses you and enables you to continue in His ministry.
I have been in touch with Mark Ward who holds you in high regard. Stay the course my friend. :)
Thanks Pastor Jonathan for having the courage to address this topic.
Well praise Jesus !
We need this energy in ALL of our churches ...Man may have fired you but , God clearly has not .
I'm very blessee by your teachings, just found this channel .
Dear Pastor! I'm an outsider looking in. I found your channel after going down the rabbit hole of NIFB and KJVO. I really don't get the latter. To me, what they're teaching and what they're doing just flat out smacks of idolatry. No Christian Church and no Christian denomination, from Catholic right on down the line, teaches idolatry. Yet, when your pastors are throwing nonKJV Bibles across the room and when you're setting a physical object (ta biblia) above the message (o Logos), that's idolatry.
Consider me subscribed! I look forward to seeing how your ministry grows, and hopefully thrives!
I’ve seen people leave the church over switching from the king James. It’s unfortunate. I’m glad you’re willing to take on this issue. Praying for you and those who watch.
@@marvinmallette6795the beast of Revelation 13 is a man and not a thing. His system is what you are referring to.
I have a question for you. Are you familiar with postmillennialism and theonomy? Most KJVO folks such as myself are pre-millennial and pre-trib in our eschatology, but postmillennialism has been reborn as of late. They are kingdom builders who deny Jesus Christ His rightful inheritance in a slightly different way than the amillennialism crowd. They will say that we are to bring about His kingdom because He has empowered us to do so, and they will call you some very unimaginable things if you use a literal hermeneutic and acknowledge that Satan is the god of this world right now, just as we are told in 2 Corinthians 4:4 and that the kingdoms of this world will only be taken away from him when the creator of this world returns. Guess what? They all come from the same tree of Covenant Theology and we are talking some of the biggest names in Christianity today. Jeff Durbin, Doug Wilson and now the infamous Bible critic himself....James White. All of these men have one thing in common; they love their new versions. So yes, if my church were to switch from the Authorized Version to a new version, I would leave. God never intended for a believer to stay and "go along". When we get to that point, and we are edging ever more close to that point now, that is when the beast will be given authority. What do you think will happen to us KJVO dispensational, Bible believing Christians if the post-millenialist achieves his goal of taking over governments? We are not welcome in their system and these comments are indicative of that big time! I am not concerned because that blessed hope is all I need, but I am astonished at how fast this is playing out. I never thought the day would come where a professing believer would say that another believer had no backbone, no core or whatever other nonsense you muttered. All because they stand for something. What is your understanding of apostasy? It is falling from a standing position. I choose to remain standing until my Lord calls me home. You are truly looking at this wrong and my prayer is that you stop allowing an interaction or two to cloud your judgment. One that you may have had with someone who was overly stern or something with their KJVO position and maybe got under your skin. I see it totally different. What I see is a whole bunch of people who love to hear men who use slick talk that allows them ultimate freedom to choose what God said instead of reading the plain text of the KJV and accepting it as absolute truth. They can't all be right. God bless and know that I do not say these things with bitterness.
@@biblehighlighterAmen Amen
@@marvinmallette6795
Really? Many times it refers to Jesus as the Word and Jesus, Paul and disciples used the Scriptures. The book of Acts is slap full of the church using God’s Word to teach and help people believe. It is very foolish to think we don’t need the Word. I can’t imagine anyone worshiping the Bible, but I worship the One whom wrote it and we absolutely need it as a guide in our life.
Pretending you don’t need God’s Word for wisdom is borderline self-idolatry.
@@marvinmallette6795
Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.
@@marvinmallette6795
Yes the Spirit guides us and gives understanding, obviously, but do you think we can never be deceived? To think you don’t really need the Word or it could be idolatry is insanely foolish. How do you even know about Christ to begin with, the Word, you can’t be saved if you don’t hear the Gospel which is only in the Scriptures. 2 Tim. 3:16-17, Scripture is God breathed and absolutely necessary as the greater tool we can receive, not to be worshipped but used to educate ourselves.
I am baffled at the interpretation that what God preserves in Psalm 12 are the words. Perhaps Spanish is clearer in the sense that it differentiates nouns by gender and thus is very specific about what the object of preservation is. In the Reina Valera version I'm using it is VERY clear (because of gendered nouns) that what God is preseving are the poor that were mentioned in verse 5 ("poor" masc. plural noun in verse 5, and "them" masc. plural pronoun in verse 7), and not the words (fem. plural noun) in verse 6. "Words" and "them" do not match by gender. The purpose of verse 6 is to say that God's words are true and do not fail when he promises what he will do for those that wait on Him the people from verse 5. Context matters.
The original KJV notes from the 1611 edition explain that the Hebrew says "him" where they translated "them" in Psalm 12:7.
But a lot of people who read the KJV don't read those notes, or they have a Bible that does not have them.
It is not possible for God to guard us from this generation forever since neither "us" nor "this generation" will last forever. But the words can be preserved forever starting with "this generation"
Thank you so much for this video. It's very useful information. I enjoyed watching you and Mark Ward teaching about KJV history, etc. My desire is I pray for all of my brothers and sisters in Christ, who are KJVO, to always remember that we are family, and we serve the same Father in Heaven. I pray, with God's grace, for them not to cause division within the body of Christ. Let us stay together and reach out to the lost people who need the blood of Jesus Christ to be saved. Time is short. Blessing.
It sounds to me that you hold to the same view of the Bible that the translators of the KJV held to. So you're in good company!
"I'm gonna beat this horse til its dead!" AMEN.If God had wanted us to read His Word in an archaic language, he wouldve made the writers of the new testament write in hebrew and command gentiles to learn that language. If the first generation of Christians were able to read the epsitles in their current language, so too should we be able.
Pretty much what happens in Islam.
@@padraicbrown6718 exactly right! never thought of that. islam reuires readin in arabic to interpret the koran
Where is there a modern bible that is as accurate as the Old King James? I can't find one?
Pastor Burris, I had not heard of you before yesterday. I say that for this reason, I want to know the truth. Period. I've been saved 8 years. I love the KJV, but I love the truth more. I appreciate your enthusiastic, loving yet reasonable addressing of this. I encourage you, sir, keep bringing the truth. Keep teaching. May God bless your efforts. I know it has cost you. Be not dismayed. Be not diverted. Those who love the light of the truth will be drawn to it.
@timkhan3238, you are the very person I am warning people of in these videos.
@@biblehighlighter For the 138th time, you cannot refute my claim based on context of the English passage. You refute translation by showing what the text from which it was translated says. You are using symbolism, imagery, and more as the basis for your interpretation. Translation comes before interpretation. As I have shown in my videos, Jerome translated Daniel 3:25 based on your methodology. In doing so, he created the mess you now argue for. I don’t care how many times you say it. It does not make it factual. What matters is what was originally written. In the original language, it was not “Lucifer” nor was it a proper name in Isaiah 14:12. It was not “the son of God” that was originally written in Daniel 3:25. It was “a son of some gods” or “a son of the gods” (the definite article is inserted for readability in English). You have refuted nothing. You have only argued from the position of what you want the text to say based on your tradition - not what the original text says.
@@biblehighlighter, please explain this statement. You made it twice: “The context was also translated and the context even in Modern Bibles does not support your Alexandrian reading of Daniel 3:25”. What is an “Alexandrian reading” of Daniel 3:25. If you mean Alexandrian text type, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. This is Old Testament - not New.
Besides all that, you keep missing one important question: “What did Nebuchadnezzar say?”
Alexandrian and Byzantine text types have nothing to do with Daniel 3:25. Please do a little homework before replying. If you wish to learn, I will be happy to teach you. If you wish to continue this nonsense, then please go and try to find a “Byzantine” reading of Daniel 3:25 and show me how it differs from an “Alexandrian” reading. Oh, and don’t use textual criticism while you are doing it.
Sir, my patience has grown incredibly thin towards you. You speak of things you know nothing about, you ignore my questions to you, you fail to acknowledge the difference between interpretation and translation, you are allowing perceived symbolism and typology to determine the actual words of the text (translation).
I do not want to block you, but you really need to show some higher degree of understanding of this issue for me to continue communicating with you. But, I will not allow you to continue your ignorant replies to the comments of others. Respectfully, clean it up or go away.
@@timkhan3238The lofty opinions or more precisely the delusions of a KJV idolater. What is fake is the KJV only heresy. No scripture supports this man made tradition. So many words have changed meaning making the KJV even more inaccurate. That is why God has given us with more accurate modern translations. Translations that the KJV only cult call fake. The KJV only cult is a false . Yet Almighty God is using and blessing them to bring many to Christ
But you have chosen to jump on the caravan of the KJV only heresy. No DVR supports your delusions of the so called pure and perfect KJV
Because it is simply not true, just another lie from the KJV only cult
Like the enemies of God in Nehemiah the KJV only cult make things up out of their heads
...... I'm seeing now that a lot of people are unaware how Bible translation works..... or how being a translator works in general........ this is just so strange to me. Christians devouring each other over translations; they do realize that the people in the bible did not speak modern languages, right? They do understand the nuance in different languages and how a translation will never be a 1 to 1 equivalent , right? I understand wanting what the original authors actually said but wouldn't it make more sense to learn the languages they spoke rather than arguing on various translations that probably contain errors because of the translation process? This is nuts to me......
Yeah, it is nuts. You are right about that.
Pastor Burris,
Amen, on almost everything. One question: Aramaic? I know how critical text people define it, but it did not exist in Jesus day. Why do you use it? Assyrian or Syriac did exist, but it was not the lingua franca. Greek and Hebrew and Latin, in that order. Greek was the language of Helenistic Roman society, but the Jews spoke and read Hebrew. The Chaldean/Syriac was the language used in a small portion of Daniel, and the book of Esther, but that is it my friend.
John 19:20 is the eye witness account of the beloved disciple. The record of Pilate's inscription reads: "This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin." No mention of Syriac or Aramaic as they like to call it. The lingua franca of Jesus day was Greek. Not the "Aramaic" that modern CT scholars claim. Thank you for the video. Well done!
Sir, thank you for your comment. It was cordial and respectful. It is much better than previous ones. I thought you were aware that I am not necessarily a "Critical Text person". I'm not exactly sure what your point is about Aramaic. The Old Testament was written Hebrew and the New Testament was written Greek. A small portion of the Old Testament and some of Jesus' sayings in the gospels are in Aramaic. Daniel 2:4b-7:28. Ezra 4:8-6:18 and 7:12-26 were originally produced in Aramaic. A phrase in Mark 5:41 and Matthew 27:46 are also Aramaic phrases. The lingua franca of Jesus' day was Greek. I have never said anything contrary to that. I teach that. Jesus did speak Aramaic as it is found in the New Testament. Hebrew was generally used in synagogues and in Temple worship, but we do know that Greek was also used in some synagogues. Latin was the official language of the Roman Empire and was used in legal and administrative contexts.
Some of the deacons of my childhood church used to pray in KJV English. They'd be speaking perfectly normally before prayer. Example: "Say, George, did you see that football game last night?" When they were called to do the mid-service prayer it was: "Dear Lord. We cometh to thine throne...and asketh thou to bless...."
I've often wondered if those same men went to dinner after church and ordered their meal: "Bringeth forth thou, the leg and the breast of a she-chicken, which hath been fried. And also bringeth unto me potatoes which hath been mashed and place upon the potato which hath been mashed 1 hin of gravy. And a drink offering of tea which hath been made sweet with the nectar of the cane of sugar.
This practice is actually present in some of the most popular translations of the mid-20th century. The earliest editions of the RSV (1952), NEB (1970), and NASB (1971) all switched to Elizabethan English whenever someone addressed God.
I noticed this in the UK with some KJO churches, it was cringe and I was embarrassed they were doing it.
on the "ye vs. he" difference. KJVO advocates themselves say it matters, as they use that very kinds of differences when arguing against versions that depart from the KJV..
Ye is plural you. He isnt plural is it..
Also the Kjv only people dont have a kjv they use the blaney edition. Youre both wrong.
FYI:
A Chart for comparing Oxford and Cambridge KJV Editions
Scripture Reference
Oxford KJV
Cambridge KJV
Genesis 15:13
their's
theirs
Genesis 26:20
our's
ours
Genesis 46:12
Zarah
Zerah
Deuteronomy 11:24
your's
yours
Joshua 13:18
Jahaza
Jahazah
Joshua 19:2
and Sheba
or Sheba
Joshua 19:19
Haphraim
Hapharaim
1 Samuel 31:2
Melchi-shua
Malchi-shua
2 Samuel 21:21
Shimeah
Shimea
1 Kings 8:56
LORD
Lord
2 Chronicles 33:19
sins
sin
Ezra 2:2
Mizpar
Mispar
Ezra 4:10
Asnapper
Asnappar
Psalm 107:27
wit's end
wits' end
Psalm 148:8
vapours
vapour
Proverbs 20:25
enquiry
inquiry
Proverbs 20:29
grey
gray
Ecclesiastes 8:17
farther
further
Jeremiah 34:16
whom he
whom ye
Amos 2:2
Kerioth
Kirioth
Naham 3:16
fleeth
flieth
Matthew 2:7
enquired
inquired
Matthew 4:1
spirit
Spirit
Mark 1:19
farther
further
Luke 6:20
your's
yours
1 Corinthians 4:15
instructers
instructors
Revelation 2:6
Nicolaitanes
Nicolaitans
Revelation 21:10
chrysolyte
chrysolite
Where is the love (Gal 5)? We are commanded to not be divisive. Claiming all other translations are corrupted is super divisive.
And In Acts 2 the Holy Spirit (translated) the gospel message into everyone’s own language as the apostles preached, it was all equally the word of God. Peter didn’t command everyone to learn Greek or English.
Amen!
Funnily, my 1769 Oxford facsimile says "Beer-sheba, Sheba, and Moladah" (neither "and" nor "or"). XD
Ah, I just saw you said 1769 “facsimile”. Yes, the original 1769 Oxford did not have the “and”; only the comma. There is a great resource called “Facts from 400 Years of KJV Editions: Do We Use a 1769 KJV?” by Rick Norris. Thanks for sharing!
@@pastorburris Next to the Roman text 1611 line-by-line reprint (which you also have) it's the most important KJV I've got.
there is a distinct difference between attacking the KJV and attacking the KJVO cult. the KJVO cult do not see this fact
It is as if they see themselves as the living embodiments of the KJV Bible… but isn’t Jesus the only living embodiment of God’s Word? Unfortunately the KJVO people have become like the Pharisees and the Sadducees… placing more importance on their tradition (in this case reading only the KJV of the Bible) over the actual word of God which the KJV is trying to spread to the world. It is the most tragic form of irony.
The "attack" mindset causes the target audience to put up even more defenses than they already had.
So I prayed tonight that I could have a preacher to listen to because most preachers I am finding myself in disagreement with.
I am agreement with your teaching. Feel confident in your stance with kjv only. I like nkjv myself.
Jumping through your videos, alot is clicking with my beliefs.
Feels grounded and rich at the same time. Glory to God.
Once I gave my prayer, I opened yt, and yours was the 1st video. Never b4 have you been recommended.
@@WatchingUntiltheEnd2 Timothy 4,3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.
Thats you friend.
@edcarson3113 a osas / no need for repentance doctrine fulfills this prophecy. Plenty of others also, I'm sure.
King James was written to those 400 years ago. Nkjv and ESV are easier for today's understanding, and for understanding is why we study.
1 Timothy 6 verse 10
Kjv
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
Nkjv
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
All evil (kj) or all kinds of evil (nkj). Which makes more sense?
Was the root of Cain's sin grounded in "the love of money"?
What about people having an affair? Is this sin rooted in the "love of money"?
When Eve believed the serpent over God's command not to eat of the tree, was it her "love of money"?
How much we have heard this text quoted amongst ourselves? Whereas a nonbeliever can discredit us with little critical thinking.
"ALL EVIL?" they could say, "Most murder is a crime of passion, not fueled by monetary gain."
As the verse continues with it's warning ⚠️ it explains how chasing money will pull you out of following Christ and lead to many hardships.
If we operate in our lusts/ covetousness, we will participate in many activities that are sinful.
We are even all guilty of using this verse to dismiss people's error of chasing money, forgetting that we are told we can not serve 2 masters.
I'm going on a tangent, as I tend to do, about the verse, but the nkjv is a better understanding.
@edcarson3113 a preacher who teaches repentance, what lust am I partaking?
A better understanding of God's Word?
If I have an issue with a verse, I will speak it. Whether it be kjv, nkjv, niv, etc.
A better understanding of God by using God's Word is acceptable.
Like the Catholic Church, historically using Latin and not making it where others can understand. (I believe the catholic church created a pharisees type of Christianity which those on the top were "closer" to God than everyone else) kjv only folks create a situation where the preacher, and his interpretation, becomes more the focus or accepted account.
By all means, if you are listening to God's Word via nkj and have an epiphany, an understanding, then, of course, go to the kjv and compare the two.
From my own experience, listening to nkj or esv, God has shown me an understanding that i kept missing via kjv. I go back to King James to check myself and see it there also.
@@WatchingUntiltheEndwhich Bible do believe?
Not use but believe?
titus 3:10 talks about divisive folks & we are to warn them 2x & pray for them
majoring on the minors, the KJV'ers need to grow up
So what is your final authority?
Try teaching KJV vernacular to an autistic child. It's a great way to totally confuse them.
Many KJV Onlyists seem to be okay with leaving misleading and obsolete words in the KJV as they are.
As a believer with Autism who studied using both the KJV and the NIV as a child… yeah the KJV was almost impossible for me to understand at the start of my faith journey. Eventually I figured it out, but truthfully it also happened because I had an easier to read Bible translation that allowed me to “reverse engineer” the thous, thines, and thys of the older translation.
Not all can understand KJV. But it's true some versions have cleverly dropped some words deliberately to dilute to real meaning. I would suggest a non native English speaker to start with something like NIV and upgrade themselves to KJV which, in my opinion is the authentic version of Bible.
I find your videos to be very down to earth and easy to understand...
You also have a good grasp on the knowledge... thank you
Great video I enjoy the KJV but wow, some of these KJVO people are not only wrong but quite unkind if you disagree with them, as you already know. Keep sharing the truth.
I grew up in the sixties and as a child I was put off reading the Bible, as the KJV was the only one I was aware of/ available to me.
There are definitely some very aggressive and extreme people on the KJV-only side. That is why I also consider myself "KJV-preferred." ruclips.net/video/O_Efuk9hAGk/видео.html
Thanks for putting this video out!
I lopve the KJV for it's poetic language but I'm not KJV only. I will use ESV, NLT, YLT and others. I heard some hick preacher say you shouldn't lean the original languages because Satan will use it to confuse you.
I've been trying to find my faith now for a number of years, and it's wonderful to hear someone like you. Someone who came from where my Highschool (Harford Christian) tought. We come from a similar background though I never felt it was right in my spirit to drink the entire glass of KJV only coolaid.
This is just some encouragement to you letting you know that at least someone out where in the void is getting something from what you teach.
God bless brother. KEEP GOING ON.
You should do a convo with Dr. James White
Love the guy. He’s been a great help to me.
By the time of Muhammad (late 6th century), the Bible had already been translated into about 70 different languages.
Yea we know
I didn’t know that.
That's good, but it does not negate the fact that the King James version is THE HOLY BIBLE for all English speaking people.
@@igregmart Its a Bible that has known mistakes. Its not perfect. If you like it that is great. Its a beautiful sounding translation, but tell me where.... anywhere... in the Bible that says there will be this one infallible version and you will know it?
1) What I find ironic about KJV only proponents is that some of them are barely even fluent in American English! 2) King James was not a good man. He was one of the most evil and corrupt kings Britain ever had. Only had his name on the bible because he just happened to be king at the time it was commissioned by parliament
In all fairness,y accent causes me to sound like I am barely fluent in American English myself 😂
Thanks for standing for the truth! I’m newer to reading the Bible and fell into the rabbit hole of translations and was really worried I was getting a false Bible . So I got a few versions and when I read I actually have 2 or 3 Bibles open lol. I get people today are perversely twisting Gods word but things like the ESV are damn accurate from what Iv seen. And it helps me understand what the meaning is supposed to be.
Also the people that did all the work with translations like nkjv, ESV, nasb, even the nlt have done amazing work getting the gospel to people around the world.
@@christopheryetzer what I’m saying is they did good work going deep into the old Greek and Hebrew Scriptures and spent a long time debating and discussing the best possible way to make it be accurate it English . Also the fact that there are people that don’t read well and the king James goes over their head so it’s nice that something like the NLT helps them understand Gods word for themselves . That’s the whole point that the original pilgrims fought and died for as the church made it illegal to print a Bible in English for the average farmer or worker .
I used to think the nlt was a joke Bible but the more Iv read it and compared to the king James it blows my mind how well they have done in getting it across in modern easy to understand English. I know people have faults and make mistakes and I’m sure their are things in different translations that are off . That’s why I use multiple and compare .
@@christopheryetzer also I would add we don’t know Greek and Hebrew (at least I don’t) so I have to rely on translations and I don’t think the king James is any higher regard than some other of the well researched translations. We still need to go to the Greek and root languages and make sure that they didn’t get it wrong
@biblehighlighter, I have a sincere question for you. Have you ever researched why there is a difference in 1 Timothy 3:16 between versions? It is a great study. I will be glad to teach you about that. Perhaps after we discuss it, that 101 reasons for the KJV will be an even hundred.
@@biblehighlighter the footnote in the ESV for 1 Tim 3:16 takes care of the differences in the manuscripts. It’s really not that hard to understand that “He was manifested in the flesh” is referring to God. Again, in Gen 3 a footnote takes care of the difference in the manuscripts. A footnote points out that some manuscripts add “and fasting” in Mark 9:29. Nothing you mentioned has to do with the deity of Christ, his death, or resurrection from the dead, or that we are saved by faith in Christ. Sometimes, the renderings in the LXX were used because the translators believed it contained a more accurate reading than the Masoretic text, which was created centuries after the Septuagint. The ESV also uses a passage from the Dead Sea Scrolls In translating Deut 32:8, because it is the oldest text of parts of the Hebrew Bible we have, and it’s rendering makes more sense than the one from the Masoretic text.
1 John 5:7 was not in the TR until the 3rd edition (15th century), and Erasmus only put it in because one of his friends persuaded him to. It doesn’t appear in the Majority Text, so in all likelihood, it was an addition added into the Vulgate by a monk to bolster more support for the Trinity. But it’s not necessary to have it in the text, since many other verses point to the Triune nature of God.
The NET has the most extensive notes, including notes on many translation decisions. Check it out sometime when you get a chance. It’s available free on the You Version app with all the notes included.
@@michaelshannon6558 I'd go further. 1 John 5:7 is trinitarian as much as it is modalist or mormon. It literally is compatiable the theology of every Christological tradition to have existed in Church History.. Fun fact, it is one of the favorite prooftext of Oneness Pentecostals/Modalists.
KJV onlyists don't know greek, hebrew nor latin..worse yet they would have rejected doctrines from the Anglican Church altogether since King James I was an Anglican himself
In order to understand the Bible, one must have the Holy Spirit (be saved) and "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (or just do your best (according to the ESV)). 2 Tim 2:15). Then study Greek and Hebrew because the KJV translators were not that smart, and especially listen to your priest (oops sorry i meant pastor) because he barely passed Greek with a C, so he knows better than you what the Bible says. Oh, and I forgot, God invented all the languages of the world at the tower of Babel, except English, so he doesn't know how to preserve His word in that one.
AMEN!
KJV Onlyists cannot even get past Genesis 1:1.
The Hebrew clearly says heavens. Yet KJV Onlyists will twist the word "heaven" in a dozen ways to say it is plural.
Can KJV Onlyists explain how Ps. 12 was understood in English Bible during the 1500s?
The 1850 KJV is VERY different from the KJV most people own.
How can a KJV Onlyist know what the correct reading of Jeremiah 34:16 is when one is not allowed to know what the Hebrew actually says?
Yes, brother, yes! When I was sixteen, I was given an old Bible. After reading, I called a pastor and asked why does the Bible says heavens (plural). The pastor first asked if I was a member, then he told me that I was thinking too deep and I just needed to stick to the 10 Commandments. It seemed like I offended him. I never asked again until 10 years later.
I also am taking up Hebrew language. We've learned a song that came from Zechariah 2:14 (that verse isn't in many Bibles)
Can you ever read Hebrew? Words can be translated different ways, which text are you using?
@@BloodofChrist-jx8te got any proof, because the Authorized KJV that had burn much fruit and built up people’s faith for over 400 years says heaven, and that’s proof enough if you have any faith
@@BloodofChrist-jx8te
aYou have a right to be wrong.
Amen brother
"Onlyists" 😂 never heard that word before. 😂
Neither have I.
The term has been around for a while.
@JR-lg7fd christianese
“ists” is a commonly used suffix…it means supporters of someone or something…like Papists are supporters of the Pope…realists are supporters of reality…theorists are supporters of a theory being discussed…onlyists are supporters of the strict use of the King James Bible as the only perfect English translation…and the final word from the mind of God for our end times…inspired from Him in an ongoing manner as a LIVING word with Holy Ghost power, …ie. Spirit and Life as Jesus taught…some of these “onlyists” become mean spirited, antagonistic, haughty, proud and extreme in their opinions, even teaching that you can’t be saved without using the KJB…no, truth is truth… even if scrawled on a wall about the “glorious Gospel”…the teaching of Christ…as the Lamb of God, the eternal person, the Son of God who gave himself for our salvation…He died and rose again for us as the Lord Jesus Christ, the only Saviour and “God manifest in the flesh” to be our sacrifice for sin so that we can be reconciled, redeemed and restored to God. if you believe (trust) with repentance (a change of your mind in agreement with God of what He has given us as a gift of His grace, love and mercy …and rejecting your own false ideas and unbelief instead…then in faith, trusting in the death, shed blood of the sinless Lord, His burial and His resurrection as the coming again King Jesus, you are saved…and sealed for your eternal future with the LORD. True salvation is secure…and permanent, never to be lost, removed or even renounced IF you were serious in asking to be saved to begin with…then your journey is “the walk of faith”…even if we later have a shipwrecked faith and deceive ourselves that we “no longer believe”, God is faithful even when we are not…dig into the word of God to see this in the New Testament record…once you are born of the Spirit of God, and genuinely saved, you cannot be unborn anymore than if you attempted to crawl back into your Mother’s womb trying to perform a reversal of your physical birth…
i know lots of kjv only people i agree with u
Clearly, you are called to take this on. Your love for the KJV only brethren shows in your stand for the truth. 1 Corinthians 13:6.
As a person who will only use the King James verfsion I am not feeling the love, I see someone picking a fight.
Love for the kjv only brethern???
Idk, there's an entire industry and an ai algorithm waiting to support this exact teaching, and will fund their pockets well while silencing the other side.
What is it with KJVO and PS 12:6-7? Who could believe that two verses authored approx 3000 years ago are directly connected to the KJV or any other translation for that matter? Have they all been brainwashed?
Yes
You’re right, it is a silly argument. It’s shameful that such arguments are causing people who once claimed to love each other are filled with spite instead.
@@billywalker21 because the people he's confronting:
1) put their bondage onto other s
2) weaken the Church's witness to a lost and dying world
3) weaken the faith of other Christians
I’m not a KJV only, but I have a few KJVs and I will check it out.
@@DouglasNicholson-ff6ep Ten Commandments, you shall have no other gods before me.
The KJV is not even the first English nor the language the Holy Scriptures was originally written in.
So it is not even close to being able to be the only Holy Scriptures authorized by Yahweh.
@ThethomasJefferson
People use “Authorized” as if a proclamation by an earthly, imperfect king is somehow relevant to accuracy, inspiration, and/or readability which it is NOT!
1. The claim of “Authorized” technically belongs to King Henry VII & his Great Bible - he proclaimed it “Authorized” ~75 years earlier!
2. Queen Elizabeth “Authorized” her Bishop Bible 43 years earlier!
3. So by 1611, authorizing a translation was certainly neither a new idea, nor significant, nor remotely or genuinely relevant to any mythical claims of superiority…
@@anthonykeve8894 you mean king Henry VIII and The Great Bible.
But yes, and those are not even close to the first English translation of the Holy Scriptures either.
I really appreciate your candor in regard to this topic. Im not a KJV onlyist, i study multiple translations when i want to understand the scriptures, but seeing as how youve preached KJV only for so many years and youre willing to tell others that, yeah there are bad translations of the bible, but KJV is not the only translation we can read - that is commendable. Keep fixing your eyes on the Lord and bending to His will and he shall prosper you.
1/2 - This isn’t really a reasonable rebuttal of the average IFB church’s position on the KJV vs. modern versions. Almost every KJVO argument mentioned here is held by the likes of P. Ruckman and S. Anderson. I haven’t heard any preacher in any IFB church I’ve been in make any of these type of arguments in about 22 years and that happened to be a guest speaker making a silly claim, that the church didn’t hold to. Regardless, here are a few of my responses to the video.
In regards to Psalm 12:6-7, whether “them” is talking about the word of God or talking about people, is an interpretation issue, not a translation issue. I’ve known people on both sides of the subject that know Hebrew that differ in their interpretation. I personally believe it is talking about the word of God. Throughout the Psalm, it talks about words, tongue, speak, saith, lips, etc. When you consider the people in the passage, they eventually would have died. They didn’t continue to live forever. Now the interpretation that purified seven times means the KJV was the 7th most purified translation, of course that’s ridiculous. This was written regarding the word of God in general, not a prophecy about the KJV. As you pointed out, it’s a comparison, it’s not saying the word of God needed to be purified.
The argument is commonly made that there are no doctrinal variations between the KJV / Received Text and Modern Versions / Critical Text. Then the same people act as if it’s a major blow when there is a difference in Joshua 19:2 of “and” or “or.” Looking at the Hebrew, it can technically be translated as either into English, but context does show that “or” would be the most proper choice. We see that’s what it even said in the 1611 Cambridge. So it was later on that an Oxford printer updated it to “and,” possibly due to seeing all the other times the word “and” is used in that context. We can see that the text clearly says 13 cities though, not 14. And can likewise see in I Chronicles 4:28 that only Beersheba is mentioned. So Sheba was likely simply another variation of the name Beersheba for short. The other thing you mentioned was Jeremiah 34:16, pointing out that one edition uses “ye” and another uses “he.” It doesn’t take much research to realize that the printer could have easily by mistake vertically flipped the “y” into an “h.” These are examples of straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. To say that there are no significant variations between the KJV and the ESV, and no significant doctrinal variations between the Received Text and Critical Text traditions, but then claim that there are significant variations between a Cambridge and Oxford KJV edition. Even the whole debate of “is it supposed to say strain at a gnat, or strain out a gnat” is straining at a gnat.
What I mean by swallowing a camel in the context of textual criticism is that between the text traditions and the respective translations, the KJV and ESV for example, show significant doctrinal differences in clarity. I Timothy 3:16 the received traditional text says that GOD was manifested in the flesh. The ESV changes it to “HE was manifested in the flesh,” which some religions teach the “he” is referring to Michael the Archangel, or simply that Jesus came as flesh, instead of clearly stating that it was GOD who was manifested in the flesh. The greek manuscript evidence is far in favor of the word properly being THEOS, translated as GOD, with further witness of this in ancient translations as well as quotations in the various church fathers writings. That is a much more significant variation than whether a word should have been “ye” or “he,” “and” or “or.” Another example would be Acts 8:37 being in the KJV but not in the ESV. It may get a little bit trickier with it being a semi-minority reading, but with proper textual criticism, context, ancient translations, and church father quotes, we then see that the majority witness testifies that Acts 8:37 is to be part of the Bible. Even in the context of the passage, a question is asked regarding what prevents him from getting baptized. The ESV has no answer being given. He simply gets baptized after asking the question. In the KJV, Philip emphasizes faith as a prerequisite to baptism and the eunuch professes that faith before Philip baptizes him. This verse is important as it teaches believers baptism as opposed to a non-faith infant baptism. The context makes no sense without the verse. It’s an incomplete thought. Even George Vance Smith who worked on the Revised Version of 1881 said that the new version they created has made great doctrinal changes.
Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed, p. 46-48, written by George Vance Smith.
“Since the publication of the revised New Testament, it has been frequently said that the changes of translation which the work contains are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view. In other words, that the great doctrines of popular theology remain unaffected, untouched by the results of the revision...Any such statement appears to be in the most substantial sense contrary to the facts of the case.”
“The only instance in the New Testament in which the religious worship or adoration of Christ was apparently implied, has been altered by the Revision: 'At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,; is now to be read 'in the name. Moreover, no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to make up for this loss' as, indeed, it is well understood that the New Testament contains neither precept nor example which really sanction the religious worship of Jesus Christ.”
“The word 'Atonement' disappears from the New Testament, and so do the connected phrases, 'faith in his blood, and 'for Christ's sake.' These so commonly used expressions are shewn to be misrepresentations of the force of the original words, such alterations evidently throwing the most serious doubt upon the important popular doctrine.
It is little then to be wondered at, that the doctrinal results of the Revision should be either lightly estimated, or altogether denied.”
2/2 - With respect to what you said about the jot and tittle, referring to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. I’m in complete agreement with that. It was not speaking of an English letter or word, or that there could not be slight variations of acceptable translations of a word into English. For example, the greek word “yáp” as found in John 3:16 can be translated in English as “for” or “because.” The jot and tittle of “yáp” will never change. The translation of the word into english though can be accurately translated as FOR or BECAUSE (they mean the exact same thing). So both “For God so loved the world, that he gave..” and “Because God so loved the world, that he gave…” might both be considered translated correctly. However, seeing the flow of the sentence, “for” definitely sounds more natural.
The KJV reads John 3:16 as “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
Now let’s see a variation. “Because God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not die, but have eternal life.”
That variation did not cause it to be corrupt, nor did it remove a “jot” or “tittle” from God’s word. We see variations like this in the KJV and its predecessors. But the variations of today’s modern versions and the KJV are much different as already demonstrated. Now let’s imagine another variation of John 3:16 to read as follows:
“Because he loved the world, he gave his son, that if someone believes in Jesus, then he will not die but can live forever.”
That would not be faithfully representing the jots and tittles so to speak of the Greek for John 3:16. It would be a removal as well as an alteration of jots and tittles. That’s where things are no longer just a minor variation that both can be correct, but rather becomes a corruption of the text.
The KJV is the infallible preserved word of God because it is a faithful translation of the proper manuscript family with a primarily formal method of translation, not because of any re-inspiration or double-inspiration. If my KJV ends up having a printing error, which I’ve had one where the words fell off of the page from a poor run of the printing press on that page, did not mean that everything else I had was not the word of God. I simply needed to add the words back to the page that should have been there. The ESV may contain parts of the word of God, but there are many more drastic differences than are much more serious than a simple flip of a “y” into an “h.” The ESV is largely a formal equivalency translation, so it will be more accurate than the NIV which is primary a dynamic equivalency translation. However, the major variations and errors between the various critical text manuscripts themselves, plus the even greater variation from the received text falls subpar from being a thoroughly faithful translation of God’s word, but rather has serious corruptions.
It is not fiction that the Textus Receptus / Byzantine Text Tradition was the text readily available and used throughout the history of the Christian church. It is not fiction that the Critical Text was not readily available until the 1880’s. It is not fiction that many Christians opposed the critical text at that time, and why Westcott, Hort, and the majority on the committee made a vow of secrecy when they decided to shift to using the critical text instead of using the received text to simply make minor language updates. Thankfully John Burgon exposed this. It is not fictional that the Critical Text comes from the Alexandrian line of manuscripts. It is not fictional that the theological school of thought in Alexandria was largely heretical and their scholars rejected a literal interpretation of scripture in places where it should have been believed literally, and instead was allegorized and reinterpreted to “spiritualize” the text to have a complete different meaning.
In summary, pointing out the minor variations of KJV editions is indeed straining at a gnat when the major variations (major doctrinal issues included) between the two text lines and their respective translations are ignored. That’s swallowing a camel.
Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: But the word of our God shall stand for ever.
Kjv preferred but love Nkjv and NLT and Nasb and Esv
❤️
I personally don’t care what bible translation anyone uses it’s not my personal concern. I choose the KJV because it’s timeless and beautifully written but I could care less what my church uses.
"And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." (KJV blasphemy)
kjvo has to be ridiculous on principle alone ... i CAN gor for kjvb(est) ... but that is in ENGLISH ... oh my gosh, must the Bible be rendered in ENGLISH to be authoritative? of course, which is why it was written in Hebrew and Greek, right?
this is the same problem with all of these baptist sub-groups and off-shoots ... guess there are no valid churches in russia or mongolia or korea, right? uh, this just in ... every nation, tribe and tongue will be there in the final redemption
Thank you for your ongoing ministry and all your hard work. I look forward to more videos on this subject in the near future. God bless you and reward you.
Jonathan , before I would converse with you I'd need to know if you believe there is any perfect Bible and if there is would it be your final authority on all matters of faith and practice ?
You have already been conversing with me. I believe just like the KJV translators. I believe the meanest translation faithfully translated from the original languages is the Word of God. You cannot even tell me which KJV is perfect. If I were to go and buy a PERFECT King James Bible, which should I buy - an Oxford or Cambridge? I look forward to your answer.
@@pastorburris
Any King James Holy Bible will do.
@@pastorburris the question is which Bible is your final authority?
@@edcarson3113 But how can two books that say different things both be perfect? Are you admitting that two books can both be the Word of God even though they do not read exactly the same?
@@edcarson3113 I have answered this question for you multiple times already. You still haven’t truthfully answered mine. You have said, “any KJV Holy Bible” will do. But how can that be when they don’t all say the same thing. Which one is perfectly perfect?
Pastor Burris, I don't know you and you don't know me. But please know I am praying for you. There are so many people out there like you who are slowly leaving the King James Only movement. These people do exist. Grace and peace to you and yours.
My favorite KJV is the NCPB from Cambridge made in 2005. It is in modern font and in paragraph form and has the 1611 foot notes.
I think that putting the 1611 marginal notes in current KJVs would eliminate a lot of these problems.
@@pastorburris as well as the preface to the 1611, in which the translators stated that their translation was not divinely inspired.
I like that one. However, I wish the font were larger for my aging eyes.
Do you have an ISBN for that one?
Very good!! You got that right, brother! Thank God for Holy Bible!
Well done!
Okay, so below are I believe ALL the arguments against the KJB. All of which are great arguments with people that have not done any study on the matter. I would say though a majority are dishonest if given by someone who has gone to Bible College or Seminary.
Now, the question is, can you as a person stating the KJB is not the Word of God deal with the issues related to the critical text variants, and non-agreement in translation, and the copyright application requirements and copyright protections issues related to any critical text bible?
I am but a ploybow in the pew, so it should be easy to refute any arguments I have. I don't know Greek, I have never sentence diagrammed New Testament passages, I am of average at best intelligence.
“Problems” with the KJB (all true, with major caveats):
1. No doctrines are impacted in modern versions of the Bible.
2. The KJB translators were not KJVO, and believed there would be updates.
3. The KJB translators acknowledged many issues related to translation and did not claim perfection.
4. The KJB is under copyright just like modern versions.
5. King James had some involvement and instructions on how the Bible was translated.
6. The KJB translators were not allowed to use / not use certain words.
7. The KJB has archaic words and words that have changed meaning.
8. The KJB has undergone major revisions, tens of thousands of changes.
9. The KJB has had changes in meaning as late as 1769.
10. We have better scholarship today than in 1611.
11. We have more extant and older manuscripts than they did in 1611.
12. There are more than two versions of the KJB in print currently.
13. The KJB used translations from the Vulgate.
14. 1 John 5:7&8 and Revelation 16:5 have little if any support.
15. The KJB does not agree to any of the varying published Textus Receptus editions in 1611.
16. KJVO by default believes in re-inspiration.
17. KJB was translated by a bunch of Anglicans.
18. If you don’t know Greek and Hebrew or have expertise in textural criticism, you can’t understand the issues or really have a deep understanding of the Bible.
19. Modern bibles are easier to read and more understandable.
You said, “as a person stating the KJB is not the Word of God…” This is absolutely a false assertion. I have never made such a statement and never will. Please correct your false statement.
@@pastorburris How can you claim that the KJB is the Word of God when it contains errors in both Manuscript Selection as well as Translation? I am not making a person attack, I am just stating if a person believes the KJB is riddled with errors than it can not by definition be the Word of God.
What pastors don't realize when they move to modern versions is what they are really doing is telling the congregation we do NOT have the Word of God, but based on Scholarship we have a reasonable approximation of what, through the science of Textural Criticism, advancement leading to better translation, what the inspired originals might have said.
If we go with a James White Bibliology, we have can have confidence we have the best either though the NASB1995 or the LSB but still no assurance it is correct.
if we go with the Mark Ward bibliology of all versions being equally accurate based on the translation method class, we have nothing based on variants between versions of textural selection and contradictory translation.
We can say Bart Ehrman is a heretic all we want, but all he has done is take the Critical Text ideology to it's logical and rational conclusion.
But if you say the KJB is the Word of God, what Chapter in the KJB to you believe is 100% correct? You can not answer that because you know I will point out a modern version that is in disagreement and ask you to warn those that use it of it's error. This is the trap that Mark Ward is in, his is very intelligent and knowledgeable, but he can not call out what he knows as errors in modern versions because it would ruin his narrative.
While I can deal with 1 John 5:7 and Rev 16:5, you can not as a critical text advocate defend the thousands of changes between the ESV, NASB, NIV, NRSVue, etc.
@@casey1167 You said, "[I]f a person believes the KJB is riddled with errors than it can not by definition be the Word of God."
I think you know what I'm about to quote in response...
*[W]e we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, etc. A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For what ever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?*
@@MAMoreno Oh yes, I know what you will quote. BUT, I do believe you know my answer..... you yourself explained what the very meanest translation they were referring to is, and you would agree all Bibles they speak of in foreign languages are based on the TR family of manuscripts, and the traditional Hebrew text.
You would also agree the KJB translators were under the rules set forth by, or approved by King James, and you would agree the rules for translation of modern version are presented to the US Copyright Office through FormVA with the attestation the requirements for, and the compliance of other extant copy written protection has been complied with.
But let us invoke the KJB Translators.... would they have even dreamed of the translation of 1 Cor 6:9 in the NRSVue or the related footnote? Would they have in a million year said there was even a possibility the ESV in Gen 3:16 was in anyway allowable? Would the KJB Translators in a million years have reworded what they felt was a correct passage in the Bishop's Bible in order not the violate the copyright of the Bishop's? The answers are clearly no. While you can state what the KJB translators clearly said and believed, to extrapolate that to modern versions is almost comical in nature.
Also, if the purpose of your statement is to state approval of what I would believe is the correct translation of the providentially preserved Word of God with what again? the "meanest"??
Facts don't matter to those folks though. It doesn't matter what evidence you present them, they won't change. I know people personally who hold to the "pure Cambridge text" position. It's all ridiculous and sad.
This video alone proves you wrong. This proves you are in an echo chamber and unwilling to grow and learn.
Why should I "change" and stop declaring that the THE HOLY BIBLE for all English speaking people is the King James version.
Mormons and KJV Onlyists are both in anti-logic, feelings-based cults.
@@igregmartWhere is the scripture that supports that statement?. There is not one, so it is nothing more than pride, arrogance, ignorance and presumption. Sums up the KJV only cult precisely.
to everyone in the comment section: Please stop coming at him with anger, hatred and wrath. You're giving this gentleman exactly what he wants. You're showing him exactly who he perceives you to be. who cares if someone uses an ESV or KJV. the only thing that matters is what's in your heart. The only thing that matter is we must trust the lord Jesus Christ and that he died for our sins at Calvary. So who cares what he believes or thinks. God gave us free will and we aren't forced to watch his RUclips or go to his church building. Let's use our freewill to serve and put our energy and time where it matters. At the end of the day we all have to answer for our own works and if were truly saved or not.
In my experience, most IFBs just want to plug their ears and go “lalala” at opinions they don’t like. Instead of addressing the arguments, they lob insults and accusations. They’re not a reasonable bunch. They’d rather kick you out than to question themselves.
I just watched your video about being removed as pastor. Then went to your channel and watched this one. You have indeed done your homework! You presented several things I had not heard before. I mostly prefer the NIV or the CSB. But I do fondly appreciate the KJV and others. Nothing like Luke 2 read from the KJV! Next I plan to watch your video about Daniel and Isaiah. Bless you, brother! 👍🏻🙏
The comments made about Psalm 12:6-7 being fulfilled by the KJV is blatantly arrogant and patently ignorant. English is not even a Biblical language in that English did not exist during the Biblical period.
God bless you.
Love your profile image. I trust you are Reformed? May I ask your denominational affiliation? Just curious.
One KJV I have, is copyright 1977, Thomas Nelson Inc Nashville / New York.
Where does this fit in?
It does not give the version date.
It does NOT include the epistle dedicatory, or translator's preface:
"To the most high and mighty prince, James ... The Translators of the BIBLE wish grace, Mercy, and Peace, through JESUS CHRIST our LORD."
HOW could a publisher call it a KJV, when THAT is removed?
:--}>
@@biblehighlighter Thank you for that. I had not heard of the Aitken Bible before. I just now looked it up online. Found the history very interesting.
You can buy it for $150.
Not sure if it included either the epistle dedicatory, or the translators' preface.
:--}>
Jeremiah 34:16 is absolutely not a contradiction between the two versions.
What are you on, dude?
Both the oxford and the cambridge editions are referring to the same subject, the nation of Israel.
The he and ye differences are a matter of varying interpretations of standardized english, namely whether the slaves should be considered a collective possession of israel as a whole (true, within this context) or a personal possession of israel (also true within this context)
There is literally zero practical difference between the two phrases. Its a glorified font change.
The Joshua 19:2 phrase is the same thing. Genesis 26:33 relates that Beer-sheba is named such because Isaac named the place where his servants digged up a well and called it “Sheba”, thus, verse 33 relates “the name of the city is beersheba unto this day”
So Sheba is the name which Isaac gave to the city, and Beersheba is the name which the people gave to the city after Isaac. Both names were plainly contemporary to the Israelites, so both readings are the same.
If I say Donald Trump was born in New york city and new York, then later i say “Donald Trump was born in new york or new york city” I am saying the precise same thing both times. Sheba was used both to refer to the particular well and to refer to the city as a whole. So both readings are equally accurate. And/or statements are a thing, ya know.
Quite literally an issue of semantics.
I understand that you are reaching towards the lowest common denominator of KJV onlyist arguments, but hardly any Authorized Bible believer would hold to so stringent a standard as you suppose we do, so much so that we dont allow any paraphrase or font change.
The new testament text of the KJV renders Joshua in the book of Acts as “Jesus” because that is the proper greek rendering.
But in the old testament the KJV plainly renders it “Joshua”. Is this a contradiction as well? No. Same meaning, different words.
If that were the depth of difference between the authorized scriptures and the new readings, then our only uproar would be an uproar from the undue inexpedience of a new translation which states the same passage in a less meaningful way with less meaningful language.
But in addition to the somewhat minor sin of inexpedience, every single new version of the Bible contains within them expressly different interpretations both amongst themselves and from the authorized text, a direct violation of 1 corinthians 14:26.
If you are even remotely familiar with the kjv only issue you know this to be true. Lets speak of a highly significant variation of “he”, namely 1 Timothy 3:16 which in the modern versions is dubiously rendered either as “which” “he” or “who”, virtually any pronoun with which they can supplant the true and established reading and early attestation to the church’s belief in the divinity of Christ “…God was manifest in the flesh…”
There can be almost no difference of an order of magnitude higher than the difference between the authoritative reading “God” and the dubious and empty reading of “which” “who” or “he”.
To even whisper a comparison between the barely semantic oxford/cambridge readings and the wide gulf between the av text/modern perversion texts is tantamount to sacrilege.
You should know better.
@CB19815
Very long on words, short on substance. You seem to dislike his nit picking. He’s just imitating his critics
Allow this man of God his facts-supported opinion.
I’m a “fundamentalist” and I would never use the KJV as a study Bible. In fact, I don’t use it all all. It’s an archaic out of date translation riddled with errors.
Name one sir.
@ 1 John 5:7, the closing verses of Mark, Luke 2:14, beginning of John 8, John 8:18, the proper reading is God, Luke 17:21 Jesus is not saying the kingdom of God is within you, He’s saying it’s in your midst, and those are just the ones off the top of my head. The KJV is a great translation, it has its problems just like any other translation. It is not a divine translation.
You cannot reason with these individuals who hold true to the KJVO. I have personally encountered theses individuals and I think it boils down to spiritual pride and they will use circular arguments to maintain the KJVO position. For what it is worth, I think this is a big distraction for you and encourage you to move forward in your calling as a pastor.
I am not seeking revenge. I am on a rescue mission. I have people, including pastors, asking for my help on this issue.
1. 2:24-30: "I've had people tell me that they could come and sit with me and show me how I got it wrong. When I invite them, they waffle."
Response: Maybe they're hungry. How about breakfast at either of the two Waffle Houses in Charlotte where you could reason together at?
2. "Well, if the 1900 Cambridge edition of the King James translation of Psalm 12:6-7 was good enough for Israel's King David, then it's good enough for me." (;-)
3. Regarding the calumny of those who say about you "I don't believe the Bible, I'm not saved, enjoy burning in hell, I am lost, a heretic, a false prophet," seeking forgiveness on their behalf I respond "Wherefore, I abhor myself and repent in dust and ashes" (Job 42:6, KJV).
4. Jonathan, I consider your position of 'KJV preferred' over 'KJV only' as analogous to financial investing where preferred stock shares, while more expensive, yield both a greater return and greater dividends.
5. God willing, may your ministry continue to be a reflection of these words: "To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice." (John 18:37, KJV)
😊
I quit that last church because of this issue! kJV only allowed!
Taking baby Christians and feeding them tough meat, when they have no teeth, is a common problem…it is best to ground your “Bible” students, fellowship and/or congregation in sound doctrine using your KJB for your preaching and teaching even while they use whatever “version” they were introduced to…If they are unsaved, the emphasis on the “glorious Gospel” and the sound doctrine of Christ, will “birth” them…and start their journey and “walk of faith” with the Lord Jesus Christ as a growing Christian… and over time you can introduce them to the other sound doctrines for their growth from a KJB framework, even while they begin to see the differences for themselves as the Holy Spirit opens their eyes of understanding…
Requiring teachers in your work to have a consistent ministry with the KJB is a good thing as long as they don’t insult, denigrate or force people beyond their level of spiritual maturity and understanding…A loving and kind presentation of the Bible controversy will win people to the truth…but avoidance of condemnation and criticism is wise until you have an audience ready for more of the detailed back story…the Satanic conspiracy that is at work in this matter.
Too many KJV only extremists have done a disservice to the body of Christ. When asked “Which Bible version do you use?” I answer, “I USE all of them to compare carefully when needed to the only one I TRUST completely, 100%, that is, the KJB 1769 Cambridge edition…which is the pure, preserved and perfect words God has chosen…when they ask, “how do you know for sure?” …that’s the time to begin your careful unfolding of the doctrine of the word of God itself…it’s supernatural nature as truly HOLY and trustworthy …it’s complete accuracy and on going inspiration from God’s hand as a LIVING book. The words that He speaks to us through the KJB are “Spirit and Life”, IF we in faith receive them seriously as the very words of the LIVING and true MOST HIGH God and Godhead, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are ONE. (As in one family, one nation, one army etc. - plurality and perfect unity in oneness…)
Pastor Burris, I enjoyed your video and I will keep you in my prayers. I'm sorry people are so mean to you.
@@biblehighlighter Thank you for your reply. I grew up with the KJV. I don't hate it but I prefer the ESV. I hope we can just agree to disagree.
@@biblehighlighter No, it would not make a difference. I believe you are simply biased. I do not believe any translation is the absolute perfect word of God.
@@biblehighlighter I agree some modern translations are terrible. However, the ESV I read does not teach any of the bad things you mentioned. I happen to believe there are several good translations out there. When you compare the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, CSB, etc., no major doctrine is changed.
@@jamest4659Essentially Satans Version... Of course you prefer it.
Get a grip of your senses.
*Love God* with all you heart and soul and mind and strength.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after Righteousness
Pray without ceasing.
Let us fix our eyes on Jesus...
*LOVE* covers a multitude of sins.
We are saved by GRACE.
Each one of those sentences is a Bible verse.
Anyone can google them if there is a need to know which ones they are.
It is a short version of something called *The Royal Path of Life* that leads
to the Place of *Amazing Wonderfulness* where we will be Blissfully astounded
at the Love of God and the Majesty of God in ways that cannot be done on earth.
Let us fix our eyes on Jesus....... who is now *seated at the right hand of the Throne of God.*
(Hebrews 12:2)
What would the Creator prefer to have......
an NIV reader whose heart is on fire with with being in alignment with the above things....
******OR******
a KJV reader whose is lukewarm about being in alignment with the above things.
?????
SMH stands for "shake my head" in internet language. That's how I feel about
what is typed in the description that's under this video. Sad stuff.
It's about *LOVE.*
And so we know and rely on the Love that God has for us. *God is Love.*
Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.
(1 John 4:16)
...
@@timkhan3238 Well we are in agreement that it's about humility and obedience. If you are saying that God wants me to throw away any Bibles in my house (fake Bibles) because they are not a KJV Bibles... I do not feel His call to do that. So I guess we will have to respectfully agree to disagree about that. Sally humbly believes and commences her life in obedience but she passes through this world doing that using an NIV Bible. She just has an easier time understanding and relating to modern English vs. KJV English. Frank humbly believes and commences his life in obedience and he passes through this world using a KJV Bible.
In terms of Eternal SALVATION is there any difference at all between the two? My very best guess
is that God's answer to that is NO. Also my very best guess is that God is much more about LOVE then most people think He is.
When we've been here ten thousand years
Bright, shining as the sun
We've no less days to sing God's praise
Than when we first begun
...
I urge you to read through all of these comments, including your own, and honestly tell me that love is being displayed towards those of us who simply believe with all of our heart that God gave us His perfect word.
@@timkhan3238 Amen brother! His signature is upon the King James Bible and it is without one single error. My comment was to the original post by the way.
@@flman9684 *Love* God with all your heart and soul and mind and strength. *Love* your neighbor as yourself. *Love* your enemies and do good to them. --The words of Jesus. If you really think about it, if anyone was really doing that who has time for anything other than Love? I don't have the time or inclination to read through the comments but I think I hear what you are saying just from what you typed. Hey I wish you nothing but Love my friend. My first comment was me just having a moment of exasperation that this noble pastor was being called "a heretic, a false prophet and more" as he said in his typed message under the video.... "because the Spirit doesn't give lost people a love for the true Word of God." It seems quite reasonable to assume that calling this pastor a "lost" person not only misses the center of the target, it misses the whole target as well.
flman9684.... I hope you have a nice day.
@@messageoflove1969 Thank you for the kind response. It is truly a rarity these days. It is obvious that you have a level of humility that far exceeds many.
I am satisfied that you understand the point that I was making, in that the bitterness towards other members of the body of Christ comes from all sides.
I would like to point one more thing out as a warning to be aware of those who come across as kind, but inwardly are not harboring near as much love for the brethren as they portray. I am speaking of the very one who made this video.
This man cleverly stated that he was only touching on one commenter, and then followed that up by saying that the one commenter represented the majority. Very sneaky indeed. He also made a slander video of another Pastor in which he made some very strong accusations and misrepresentations of what the man teaches. He also called those who follow this particular Pastors teachings rabid and went on to say that he has not found a single man using a whiteboard that teaches right doctrine. He is very very divisive.
To make it worse, I called him out on it, and he did not even touch on his obvious wrongdoing and sin. Instead, he used his seminary training and the doctrine that he believes in an attempt to bait me and back me into a corner and cause me to write something that he could use against me. He absolutely can not see anyone else's doctrine as legit, because he is as dogmatic as I have seen. Seriously, I never once called the man lost or anything else other than a false accuser and a liar because he exhibited both in his slander video against a fellow Pastor. But this man accused me of blasphemy because he absolutely can not exhibit grace to anyone who sees things differently than himself and those he learned from. Anyway, I just wanted you to see these things from my perspective. Just because someone is soft in speech doesn't mean that their motive is pure. I feel as though he seeks approval and praise and loves to make others look lesser than himself.
Much love to you as well my friend, and again, thank you for the most kind response.
awesome
Thank you again, Pastor Burris. Praying for you and for God to use you as is His will.
Thank you!
I thought I’d scroll through the comments…I’m just in shock…I do wonder if some are even watching your videos in their entirety? I continue to look forward to seeing what the Lord has laid on your heart to share. I appreciate your thoroughness and honesty. As always, y’all are in our prayers🙏
Maybe this has been answered, so forgive me if I'm repeating myself. Are any who are "KJV only" advocates actually using the 1611 version? I really would have a hard time believing that, because it's almost unreadable.
I've got a Scofield, for instance, and it's called a "King James Version." But it isn't. Many 1611 words have been replaced by ones we use today. The letter "v" in the 1611 version, when used in words that we spell with a "u," are updated with "u." Scofield doesn't say "Trvust in the Lord..." It says "Trust in the Lord..."
So is the Scofield only for "compromisers"?
Great questions. Virtually no one actually uses a 1611. Believe it or not, there are a small handful of people who do only use it. I have met some.
very few actually use the 1611. they usually have one of (i think) 7 updates and they either have the Cambridge or the Oxford. not of them have even read the letter to the read by the translators that for some reason was removed from all modern printings (after 1800) of the kjv. the translators themselves would not even be KJVO
@@pastorburris I can't believe there are sources that even have them for sale. It's like reading Chaucer. Yeah, it can be done; but really?
@@L5player I am not even close to being a King James Onlyist, but I do like reading the translation in facsimile form, complete with the original spelling and typeface. In a way, doing so emphasizes both the KJV's indisputable literary beauty and its impracticality as the primary translation for the church in the 21st century.
@@L5player Chaucer? Has you bothered to try to read the original 1611? Or the Bishop's? Pretty easy to read actually.
Using the same worn out arguments, we’ve heard over and over again and we’re still king James only
On his website he recommends James White’s book lol, that’s all I needed to know.
Some just seem to want to jump on these pathetic arguments as they know they are wrong but love when other wayward believers support their own silly notions. It's without question that the KJV is the perfect, inerrant word in the English language that was so used by God in sweeping revivals throughout the world and these perversions coincided with no missions, broadly taught false doctrine and a general decline of the outward church. Stand on God's word like the Philadelphians brethren and keep preaching the word and not philosophy. Lord bless.
@robbie12359
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Pastor, I appreciate so much your commitment to preach Biblically. If you’re not familiar with him, I highly recommend Mark Ward’s channel and work to this topic. Thank you for the example of refraining from ad hominem and sticking with the truth.
John 8:58 in the KJV, the I AM statement seems like a small error on the surface, but it in fact is a HUGE error that was deliberately contrived to fit with another error in Exodus 3:14-15 to lead people to think I AM is a name for God which makes Jesus become God in weak minded people who gobble up such nonsense.
PART 1
Did Jesus say "I am God?
The use of uppercase letters when translating "ego eimi" in John 8:58 and "ego eimi ho on" in Exodus 3:14, is deceptive and misleads people to think Jesus is YHWH.
The Greek expression, "ego eimi" is never used as a name for YAHWEH, Jesus, or anyone.
The Greek in Exodus 3:14 reads "ego eimi ho on"
"ego eimi" translates (I am)
"ho on" translates (the one who is)."
There is no connection between "ego eimi" in John 8:58 and "ego eimi ho on" in Exodus 3:14-15.
Furthermore, God said to Moses, “Tell the children of Israel this: ‘I am the one who is [ego eimi ho on] Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered, my memorial to all generations.
~ Moses, Exodus 3:14-15.
"I am YAHWEH, that is my name." Isaiah 42:8
The truth has been established by two witnesses. Believe it or perish.
People also need to be aware that the verse numbers are not in the original Hebrew, they are added. There is no sentence breaks either. Therefore, it is improper to break up verses 14 and 15 in Exodus 3.
They must be read together as one statement.
Reading Exodus 3:14 and claiming the Greek expression "ego eimi ho on" is the same as "ego eimi" in John 8:58 does an injustice to the word of YHWH.
The 70 plus Hebrew scholars that translated the Hebrew texts into Greek (LXX) chose to translate "EHYEH ASHER EHYEH" as "ego eimi ho on" which translates to English as "I am the one who is"
The next verse tells us that the "WHO" is "YAHWEH."
Should we ignore the 70 or more Hebrew scholars who all agreed to the above translation?
Jesus NEVER EVER says I am YHWH. Jesus tells us his Father is greater then he is, and greater than ALL.
In John 8:58 Jesus was declaring himself to be the Messiah who was prophesied to come before Abraham existed. He was not declaring himself to be God.
CONTEXT is needed to understand this final declaration by Jesus that comes at the end of a long conversation.
The Greek expression is "ego eimi." This expression is not a name for anyone.
JOHN 4:
25 The woman said to him, “I know that the Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.”
26 Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he (ego eimi).” [the Messiah].
JOHN 7:
28 So Jesus cried out while teaching in the temple, saying, “You both know me, and know where I am from. And I have not come on my own, but he who sent me is true, whom you do not know.
29 I know him because I am from him, and he sent me.”
31 But many of the multitude believed in him, and they said, “When the Christ [Messiah] comes, will he do more signs than those that this man has done?”
[It's a rhetorical question with an obvious answer. Jesus is the Messiah and there is no other like him].
JOHN 8:
18. I am one who testifies about myself, and the Father who sent me testifies about me.” [proof Jesus is not the Father YHWH].
19. Therefore they said to him, “Where is your Father?” Jesus answered, “You know neither me, nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.”
[people who think Jesus is YHWH do not know Jesus or the Father. They worship a god of foolish men's own making].
24. That is why I said to you that you will die in your sins. For unless you believe that I am the one, you will die in your sins.”
[I am the one, meaning the Messiah, the one who was prophesied to come before Abraham existed]. The Bible is quite clear on this fact. Deuteronomy 18:18; Genesis 3:15
25. So they said to him, “Who are you?” Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been telling you from the beginning. [this is a no brainer. Jesus declared himself to be the Messiah from the beginning and he proved it by fulfilling prophecy and doing miracles].
28 So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one. And I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me, I speak these things.
[again, proving Jesus is not YHWH. People who think Jesus is YHWH, know nothing of the Father or the Son. They are delusional. YHWH has not revealed Himself or His Son to them. They Follow a Jesus of their own making].
42. Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and am here; for I have not come on my own, but he sent me. [Jesus is not YHWH....proof text].
43. Why do you not understand what I am saying? Because you are not able to hear my word. [People who willfully believe Jesus is YHWH are not able to hear the words of Jesus, they are spiritually dead and willfully ignorant].
44. You are of your father the Devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar, and the father of them.
45. But because I speak the truth, you do not believe me.
46. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe me?
47. The one who is of God hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”
54. Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’
55. And you have not known him, but I know him. And if I were to say, ‘I do not know him,’ then I would be like you: a liar. But I know him, and keep his word.
56. Your father Abraham was overjoyed that he would see my day, and he saw it, and rejoiced.” REV Bible Translation gets it right.
["saw" means KNEW and UNDERSTOOD the prophecies concerning Jesus coming]
57. Therefore, the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”
[they misunderstood Jesus words].
58. Before Abraham existed, I am ("he"), or, ("the one").
WHO? The one Jesus declared himself to be from the beginning (John 4:25-26; John 7:28-31; John 8:18-19-24-25-28; John 8:42-47).
Jesus said he is the Messiah who was prophesied to come.
Jesus is not YHWH. He never said he was YHWH.
That is the evidence.
That is the CONTEXT.
END OF PART 1
PART 2: I AM THE ONE WHO IS YAHWEH
Deuteronomy 18:18 has YHWH saying He would raise up a prophet "like Moses" from among the people (of Israel) etc.. So is YHWH a liar? That's what the "Jesus is God" cults want us to believe.
"I AM" in uppercase is a mistranslation in the 1611 KJV because it changes the common Greek expression "ego eimi" into a proper noun. Other English Bibles that copied the error are corrupt. Many newer revisions of old translations have corrected the error by translating "ego eimi" as "I am he" or "I am the one."
MORE PROOF:
"See now that I, I am he (YAHWEH), and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." Deuteronomy 32: 39
["I am" in the above verse points to YHWH as being the "he", so it means "I am YAHWEH"] See Deuteronomy 32: 1-39 for context. It's all about YHWH. That's who "he" is in verse 39.
In John 8:58 Jesus is telling the Jews that he is the Messiah that was prophesied to come before Abraham existed. That's the proper interpretation that respects the immediate and remote contexts without causing conflict with other scriptures. Conflict means someone got it wrong. People who refuse to resolve conflicting interpretations demonstrate their complete lack of reverence for the word of YHWH while claiming the opposite. They are deceived.
Abraham learned of those prophecies from YHWH. He knew and understood (spiritually saw with the eyes of his heart and understanding) the prophecies of the coming messiah and he rejoiced over it.
The Greek "ego eimi" in John 8:24 and John 8:58 translates to English as:
"I am the one" (the Messiah). Elsewhere the phrase *ego eimi* is translated:
“I am [he]”-Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; John 18:5-8; John 6:20.
"I am [the one]" who (ho) you are speaking with (John 4:26) Jesus declares himself to be the Messiah in response to the woman who refers to the coming of Messiah in the previous verse. John 4:25
"I am" (one who testifies) John 8:18
"I am" (going away) John 8:21
Where "I am" (going) John 8:21 and John 8:22
"I am" (from above) John 8:23
"I am" (the light of the world) John 8:12
“I am [he]" or "I am [the one]" meaning: I am the Messiah John 8:24; John 8:28; John 8:58
“It is I”-Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50;
"I am" (not worthy) Matthew 3:11
"I am" (not alone) John 8:16
"I am" (generous) Matthew 20:15
The point is: "ego eimi" is a popular Greek expression that means I am something or someone and what the someone or something is relates back to the subject within the context. In the case of John 8:58 it refers to the Messiah....the anointed one of God who was prophesied to come long before Abraham was born. See Deuteronomy 18:18.
In John 8:58 Jesus is telling the Jews that he was in God's foreknowledge, plan, and purpose for redeeming mankind before Abraham existed. Jesus is not saying that he pre-existed as a being in heaven before Abraham existed. The view that Jesus preexisted conflicts with the Bible.
Jesus never claimed to be “coequal with God.” He declared that his Father "is the only one who is truly God” (John 17:3).
Jesus declared his Father is greater than he is. John 14:28.
Jesus declared his Father is greater than all. John 10:29.
That refutes coequal right there....full stop.
More proof:
Many English translations of John 8:58 no longer parrot the KJV error. They supply the word “he” or "the one" to render the Greek to English properly as "I am he" or "I am the one" and they no longer use uppercase I AM which was clearly an error.
The entire context for John 8:24 and 8:58 is centered around the Pharisees not believing Jesus is the Messiah. From John 7:40 to John 8:58 Jesus is providing proof to the Pharisees that he is the Messiah. Jesus never once said to the Jews that he is YHWH.
John 8:56 states:
"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad." The Pharisees misunderstood Jesus. They thought Jesus was declaring to have existed before Abraham. Why would any Christian want to believe the trash that came from the mouths of those Pharisees?
"SAW" is being used in the spiritual sense of KNOWING AND UNDERSTANDING.
DO YOU SEE IT? Means do you know and understand it now?
"Abraham UNDERSTOOD the prophecies concerning the coming Day of Messiah because God told him it was coming. Abraham accepted the prophecies, he knew and understood them, and he rejoiced.
We use the words "seen" and "saw" for knowing an understanding all the time, yet for some reason when people read the Bible they think it always refers to physically seeing with the eyes so they believe the Pharisees' false conclusion and reject the context.
CONCLUSION
In John 8:58 Jesus did not claim the name for YHWH that was given to Moses in Exodus 3:14-15 and Jesus did not claim to exist before Abraham. Both claims are unBiblical and conflict with the immediate and remote context. Conflict with other verses and themes in the Bible means someone got it wrong. In the case at hand the trinitarians and oneness believers are wrong. By drawing attention to the mistranslation "I AM" and connecting it to Exodus 3:14 they are changing the entire focus and meaning of Jesus statement.
In the context of YAH’s plan and foreknowledge, from the beginning, the Messiah was prophesied to come, before Abraham existed. In simple terms, Jesus was in YHWH's mind and in His plan for man’s redemption, long before Abraham lived.
In John 4:25, the woman at the well says to Jesus,
“I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called the Christ); when that one comes, he will declare all things to us.”
In verse 26, Jesus says to her, "I who speak to you am he' (ego eimi) - I am he: the Messiah; I am the one you are speaking about. Jesus never declares himself to be YHWH. To say otherwise causes conflict and contradicts the Bible.
Jesus essentially told the Jews that his Father is greater then their father Abraham. To the Jews, this was blasphemy. Once Jesus said this, the Jews took up stones to stone him.
Give it a rest. You are not a Christian.
@@autumn_armyworm I've been saved according to faith, belief, and confession since 1964.....Paul's Gospel is the only one that saves in this dispensation since Paul was entrusted with it.
So, You are a false accuser and YAHWEH absolutely hates false accusers. You just brought judgement on yourself, so you better retract you mean spirited comment and repent.
@@johnspartan98 Silence Satan!
@@johnspartan98
Do you sincerely have nothing better to do than spend hours making sure everyone knows how much wiser you are than they? Just a bit prideful perhaps? Maybe Matthew 18:3-4 is worth a look unless it is also inaccurate? Faith has always been the necessity to His Salvation Gal. 3 points out Gen. 15:6 as Abraham had faith in Yahweh we are children of Abraham by faith. There has always been one Gospel of Salvation through Yeshua. As far as Jesus not being God I’m not sure how you can justify that when: Rev. 1:8, John 10:30 & 38 / 14:6-11 / 17:11 / 20:28, Colo 1:15-18, among others seem very clear to me. Hopefully that will keep you entertained for a few hours, I hope despite our differences, we will be able to rejoice together for eternity with our Father in heaven!
This is very low level. This guy just might be intimate friends with Mark Ward.
🤪
I love KJV, I have both 1769 (Oxford) and 1873 (Cambridge) edition in my house. But I mainly use Thai Translation (THSV and TBS1971) because I'm Thai People (Thailand). If KJV is required for Salvation. Should I and our friend in church must go to Hell?
For me, KJV is very good and faithful translation but it's not God.
I love how easy it is to respond to arguments in a monologue.
I love public debate. Would you like to challenge me?
@pastorburris where are the videos of your public debates?
Okay, I'll show you.
In English, we turn a singular into a plural by adding an s. The Hebrew (and Aramaic) clearly does not but implies a plural. For example, the word for "kings" in Daniel 2:47, "Lord of kings," is written as a singular but clearly meant as a plural.
Nebuchadnezzar said, "son of God." To have him say, son of the gods, makes no logical sense. What pagan religion had multiple gods giving birth to a shared son? I can't think of any.
The Babylonian religion did have certain gods who were the offspring of two other gods.
@@MAMoreno
I'm assuming you are referring to one male and one female god. If so, then the habit of that day, being radically different than our feminized world today, the king would not have acknowledged the female god by saying "gods" but would have acknowledged the male god only by saying "son of god".
Since the king was roasting the three men known to worship the one true God then his saying, "son of God" makes much more sense than "son of gods".
I find all kinds of errors in the English translations (all the English translations) of the Bible. This is one place the KJV got it right.
how do they answer for the difference in the Lords Prayer in Matthew and in Luke when they claim that the removal of the last line in the prayer in the modern translations remove the deity of Christ and the kingdom of God?? i have yet to receive a answer from any of the KJVO cultist on this. every jot and tittle (sp?) matters, right?
Could you explain this a bit. I believe I have an answer for you if I understand your statement.
@@casey1167 how do you understand it?
the KJV cult claim that because the last line in matthew of the lords prayer is missing then all modern translations are false. its placed as a footnote. in luke of the KJV the line is also missing yet nothing is stated. KJVO use two standards for evaluation. the presupposition that the Gold Standard is the "perfect" KJV (something the translators never said about their own translation) and a different standard for everything else, including (according to some like Dr. Gipp) the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. all of which must be corrected to the English of the KJV. if they would use the same standard for both the KJV and the modern translations then they would find that there are issues of concern for what is essentially a English Translation of the Scriptures.
It's hard to take what you're saying seriously when you tell partial truths and exaggerated truth. People that are genuinely trying to help without an agenda don't do that . And again like your other videos you've placed yourself in a echo chamber. You claim that no one will answer you I responded 3 times with my phone number and email saying I'd absolutely talk to you, 2 of those comments were deleted and the last ignored. Again I'd like to listen to you but I have a hard time when I feel someone is intentionally being deceptive
You call him. It is not up to him to call you. Go visit and sit down with him.
@@curtpui what? He asked if I would sit down with him, I said yes and sent my contact information.... it was deleted. I didn't ask to talk to him.
I do not delete comments. I have only blocked two people in the history of this channel and that was for communicating threats. Which video did you respond to. I will gladly go back to find your comments.
Again, I do not delete comments.
I will be glad to speak with this gentleman. I have not seen any of his previous comments. There are a lot and I do not see every single one. I am searching for them now.
So God’s words has many errors in the Bible?!
*Conversation 1:*
Person A - The NIV contains errors.
Person B - Are you saying that the Bible contains errors?
Person A - No, I'm saying that an English translation contains errors.
*Conversation 2:*
Person A - The KJV contains errors.
Person B - Are you saying that the Bible contains errors?
Person A - No, I'm saying that an English translation contains errors.
*If you think that a translation of the Bible contains errors, that doesn't mean that you think that the Bible itself contains errors. The errors come from faulty translation choices, not from the original Hebrew and Greek texts.*
@@MAMoreno so basically every single Bible translation has errors. Okay.
@@kayheart1413 Yes, but the errors are typically not significant enough to make a translation useless. (At worst, most translations in English are simply redundant.)
@@MAMoreno okay.
God bless you brother.
I am grieved you are going through this. I am praying for you and your family.
Amen
amen..bro
ESV inserts the word “sovereign” into Rev 6:10 & Acts 4:24. Lv your videos.
Thank you for your teaching and insight. God bless.
Thank you for this video Jonathan. I have a Cambridge in my office and a Schuyler in my study and I will need to check those two examples in my study bible. I believe the point of your video towards KJVO is very simple:
There is variation between KJV version bibles so which one is the true, preserved KJV?
Now let me get to work and get answers from some highly regarded scholars in KJV. Will post their responses.
I look forward to hearing what you find.
You are right. I pray some will listen to you.
We all wish we had a Bible that was perfectly accurate. But in His wisdom He has allowed errors so that the twisted and wicked would stumble in them.
When a lover of Lord sees a error in the scripture he just wants to find correct answer so he can draw closer to God.
When a hater of the Lord sees a error in the scripture he decieves his heart by his lust of sin and makes allowance for his wickedness of mind and heart.
Do the authors themselves say that their writings were imparted to them by the "Holy Ghost"? They, if any one, must have known whether they were writing the story of their personal experiences and observations freely and of their own accord, or whether they were only being employed as "instruments" by God's Spirit. If they wrote their accounts on their own impulse in a purely human style, they would, quite naturally, make no special mention of the fact. If, however, they acted merely as "instruments of God's Spirit," they were in duty bound to acknowledge the fact and give the credit to God. They were obliged to do what the writers of the Old Testament had done. Whenever these announced or recorded a revelation from God, they repeatedly emphasized the fact that it was a divine revelation. So often that it becomes almost wearisome, we read, "Thus says Jehovah," or "God spoke."
Of the books of the New Testament, only one, The Revelation of John, was communicated by an angel. What is more, John stresses this fact in the very opening sentence of his book. The authors of all the other books of the New Testament say nothing about the operation of any supernatural influence upon the writing of their reports. Luke, on the contrary, expressly states in the first few lines of his gospel that he has compiled his story in quite the ordinary human way. He writes: "Many before me have undertaken to write the story of the well-established events that happened among us. Their accounts agree with what we are told by those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning, and who appeared in public to proclaim the truth. Having looked carefully into all of the facts from the very outset, I have also decided to write them down in historical order and to send my account to you, most noble Theophilus, in order that you may convince yourself of the truth of that which you have learned by word of mouth." His account, therefore, contains the things that were told to him by eyewitnesses, and not those that were imparted to him by the "Holy Ghost."
Thanks for this video. I have struggled with the KJVO position going back and forth.
C. H. Spurgeon said, in His day, that He preferred the Revised Version, because He said it was more accurate.