Dr. James White Reveals Which Bible Translation Is MOST Reliable
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 сен 2024
- Should Christians exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible? In this video, Todd Friel interviews Dr. James White on which Bible translation is the MOST reliable, and it’s NOT what most people think.
See more at: www.wretched.tv
The question 'Which Bible Translation is Most Reliable," wasn't answered here.
Clearly the KJB. 4 SILENCING VERSES - Here are the 4 verses I compare with people. There is rarely an argument when a King James and a new version are laid open and compared side by side. Watch this:
-- Matthew 17:21 removed in new versions because Satan didn’t want God’s people to know how to cast him out
-- Romans 8:1 chopped in half because Satan wants believers to believe his ‘once saved always saved’ lie
-- Colossians 1:14 “through his BLOOD” removed because the LORD Jesus is Satan’s enemy
-- 1 John 5:7 the clearest verse in the Bible on the triune nature of God all but removed because Satan didn’t want God’s people to understand the nature of the Godhead.
@@SafeGuardYourSoul all very good points, but on the enduring word app by David Guzik, whom also quoted Spurgeon, in Romans 8:1 that 2nd half of the verse wasn’t in the ancient manuscripts and was most likely added by copyist who either made a mistake or thought he could help.
Also, v1 of Romans 8 is the thesis statement of the first 15 verses of this chapter. Satan, the author of the OSAS/eternal security message (Gen 2:17; 3:4) doesn't want people to know that they must be saved - be "in Christ" - and yet also, God requires that they walk after the Spirit, not the flesh. Read v1-15 afresh and you will see that v1 is the divine thesis statement of this passage. In v6 and 13 He speaks of requiring that after He brings us into Christ, we must be "spiritual minded" and allow the Holy Spirit to empower us to live in the Spirit not the flesh which brings death - separation from God.@@BrendenSavage
@@SafeGuardYourSoul thank you for responding. Always appreciate learning more. Grace and peace be upon to you.
-Brenden Savage bondservant of Jesus Christ
You are exemplary of the brethren of Christ dear brother. Thank you kindly for sharing also. @@BrendenSavage
The niv translation is one of the most ridiculed, i never believed in God until I ended up in pit of depression from drink and drugs addictions, no-one witnessed to me, i got on my knees in wholehearted repentance and received through Gods grace alone forgiveness through Jesus's sacrifice on the cross and I am now reading the niv translation which God placed on the bedside locker in the clinic I was in from addictions.
Glory to God.
I think the reason why some dump on the NIV is because for a couple of decades it was very popular. Once people started to realize there are translations that are more direct and not as paraphrased into english, it became edgy to trash the NIV.
@@QuietlyContemplating "but we have better translations available. "
Yes, I know. I believe I at least implied as much in my comment. My point is that for a couple of decades it was very fashionable to use the NIV...then it wasn't and people decided to trash it all of a sudden because that was new fashion. I know this because I lived through it. I just find both reactions to the NIV equally silly and faddish.
I personally never used it. My favorite was the NASB for a long time.
Im relatively new to all this translation animosity. I discovered the KJV and i hold it as my root and the translation i enjoy the most. But its also the absolutely most challenging!!!
My wife gifted me a NIV upon my 1000 days sober. I immediately fell head over heels for the translation. I actually gifted copies to all 4 of my kids i was so impressed with it. Now, I’m currently enjoying the NASB.
But there is one fact that remains. The KJV is my root!!! All other translations for me are used to support my understanding of Gods Word THROUGH the KJV.
I think if more people used such a method things would be less judgmental.
@@JosephAquino1430 That's a very good point and God willingly people will pick up on that good sound advice .
Glory to God.
I love the NIV
God has never, currently does not, nor will he ever have TWO BIBLES (far less 200) that contradict each other. The issue is: Has God kept his word in PRESERVING his word. The answer is yes.
It is titled the King James Bible.
Scripture that supports the KJV is where God has preserved his word? There is not one so you are just teaching the KJV only deception. Also which of the at least ten different revisions of the KJV is the so called preserved word of God? Again still no scripture that supports the KJV deception.
@@henrylaurel1188 Brother; It is of no interest to me what James Whyte, Wretched, John MacArthur, et at have to say. I am only interested in what God has already said. No where in God's word has he said that he would preserve the KJB, the ESV, the NASB, etc. He has said that he would PRESERVE his WORDS (Plural). Two Bibles that CONTRADICT each other CANNOT both be God's word - You want to believe that, go right ahead.
Let us compare:
Revelation 19:8 (KJB) And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
Every other Bible (including the NKJV words this verse:
Revelation 19:8
(8) it was granted her to clothe herself with fine linen, bright and pure”- for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints.
And that is only one verse.
God has already said that he is not the author of CONFUSION, and that we are not save by our WORKS.
What Whyte and the rest are calling God is a LIAR.
I am not talking about salvation (please understand), God has either preserved his WORD or he has not. The choice is yours.
I use the KJB because it is DIFFEREBNT from all other Bibles. YOu take your PICK. I ain't stopping you.
Did he say which one was most accurate or did I miss that part?
Doctor White is a 'harmoniser' he thinks all Bibles are equal. Don't believe him.
so did i
You didn't miss it. He never said (unless they removed it in editing), though I would guess from his comments either the NASB or the ESV.
That just proves he doesn’t know what he is talking about @@KevinJohnson-ge5xs
@@KevinJohnson-ge5xsCorrect, the most accurate are the NASB, NKJV, NLT, NIV, ESV, RSV, CSB, NRSV and the NET.
He is simply stating historical fact on where our current Bibles came from. When your reading Gods word you most definitely need to understand that context is of the utmost importance. Understanding the worldview of the original writers and how through translation from one language to another there has most definitely been ( by the writers own admittance) some slight mistakes. To discredit this to be honest would be foolish. God has preserved his word and will always do so but we are are to be wise in this and diligently seek His truth.
Perfectly said
Go watch the films I recommended to Todd Friel.
The Latin Vulgate and Douay Rheims is a good Bible.
Are u telling this are the same? Revelation 22:14
King James Version
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Other versions Revelation 22:14
14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to cthe tree of life and that dthey may enter the city by the gates
Are u telling this are the same? Revelation 22:14
King James Version
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Other versions Revelation 22:14
14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to cthe tree of life and that dthey may enter the city by the gates
I love the king James version I will gladly stick to the old version there’s something wonderful about it of course being totally blind from birth I love reading the Bible I don’t have a braille copy of the king James version but I do have it on CD for those that want to hear the king James Bible on audio cd for those that are new to it I highly recommend the holy Bible old and New Testament King James version by Alexander Scourby he does a marvelous job at reading the Bible I love how he reads it and it is good to get the 2017 remastered version and it’s great I love it.
Is it hard to find braille copies of the KJV? It does sound "more Holy," doesn't it? 😂😂
@@saltyolbroad2962 are used to have the braille version of the king James version of the Bible I think I will get one eventually thank you have to order it I’m not sure where my friends have a copy of it I love listening to it on CD the way Alexander Scourby read that it’s amazing on audio cd.
I honestly think it hinges on what the individual reader prefers, as long as there are no issues of straight up changing the meaning of a passage. Me personally, I prefer the NKJV, seeing as I grew up with the KJV, it is easier for me to follow along.
2 Peter 1:20-21
King James Bible
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
The problem with saying the individual gets to make a choice is that makes the individual the private interpreter.
All the versions don't say the same thing. They can't all be the word of God when they disagree.
1 Corinthians 1:10 King James Bible
“Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.”
Mine says this, mine says that, well mine says this and mine says that. Welcome to a new version Bible study.
Look at this verse in 3 modern versions:
New International Version
The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!
New Living Translation
This amazed them. But Jesus said again, “Dear children, it is very hard to enter the Kingdom of God.
English Standard Version
And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God!
Is it hard or difficult to enter the Kingdom of God?
Mark 10:24 King James Bible
And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
Or is it difficult for those that trust in riches because they have a god they don't want to give up to come in faith the the one true God?
Blessings
@@doylebecker4765 you are grasping at straws, hard and difficult within context mean the same or portray the same meaning (which is the point)
@@doylebecker4765 Hey, I'm sure you meant no foul, but you have taken these verses out of their context. In the NIV, Jesus's point about the rich having a difficult time entering heaven is still made in verses 23 and 25 of Mark 10. You quoted Mark 24. I think all it is is that the more modern translators may have removed the middle "the rich" to avoid redundancy. I disagree with the move if that is the case, because Jesus means to say all He says. Anyway, God bless thee for ever😉
@@DE-dv1du Interesting how you use thee.
Many have been born again by the word of God. Many versions still have the words of God in them, but have so many errors, so I will stick with the King James Bible as opposed to other versions.
Thee, thou, thine etc, t words are all singular forms in the original languages with pronouns. Whereas y words are plural, ye, you, your (in the King James). I am very thankful that God preserved his word and is Sovereign enough to do so in the King James Bible.......even though the word Sovereign never appears in the Bible once (KJB)........well except in the preface to the Sovereign King James.
But, compare "in context".....yes context is important, John 3:7, as Jesus is only talking to Nicodemus in the passage.
Without the plural form of you, or singular thee, in context the NIV would read.
You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’
If a school teacher says you must do the worksheet, in the English language you could be singular or plural, so you take the context of who is there and who is meant. If the context had the teacher speaking to the "one" student that was late with the worksheet, it applies to the one student, but if the whole class is addressed it is applied to all. However only Nicodemus is there in John 3. This version again misdirects salvation, as do other versions that corrupt the word of God......beware the scribes as Jesus said.
Only Nicodemus has to be born again in John 3:7, in context in the NIV. Sad day.
King James Bible
John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Now knowing that t-words are singular, thee means Jesus is addressing Nicodemus with a clear point. He then says "ye" must be born again. So plural means everyone. Everyone must be born again.
What so many dismiss as archaic is the hand of God preserving his word as he said he would do.
They can't all be the words of God when they say different things. I will stick to the preserved word of God, the King James Bible.
Psalm 12
6The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Praise the Lord he is Sovereign and was able to do this and didn't need modern "Greek and Hebrew" scholars/scribes to correct his word (NIV, ESV, NASB, RSV et all and NKJV is the worst with the subtle changes).
He was able to preserve it. Now in the Laodicean age that is falling away from his word and going to Calvinism(aka back to the Catholic Church), Charismaticism (back to the Catholic Church and mysticism), infant baptism (not Biblical and Catholic), etc, people are going for the versions that are causing people to deviate from the pure word of God.
I hope this blesses you.
The Latin Vulgate and Douay Rheims is a good Bible.
The only bible I’d trust is the KJV only all the rest of the bibles was corrupted and don’t even match verses same as the KJV also KJV is the only bible that doesn’t have verses removed from its book. Also KJV has been proven it’s pure and preserved bible and actually reliable and the most popular bible being read today
Is it a perfect translation?
I’ve read, cover to cover the new King James Version, the NIV84, NASB, and parts of about a dozen other translations. I also have a NASB version linked to Strongs on my iPad. For different reasons I liked all three of the Bible versions that I’ve completely read. With the Olive Tree Bible app, I usually have two versions open side by side when I study.
I’ve gravitated to mostly using the NASB version as the easiest to understand but often refer to other version as I do and constantly look at the Strongs.
Love the NASB.
1:30, "he wasn't trying to be snarky"; of course he wasn't trying, White is always snarky. It comes naturally to him!
A good translation is one that is read
I wouldn't teach that rule to my students. Have you heard of the Passion Translation, the Pirate's Translation, the Queen James Version, the Living bible, the Message bible, the Living bible, the Good News bible, the Contempory English version, the Mormon edition or many others? There are some heretical bibles (notice the lower case b - they don't deserve to be called Bibles) out there. Choose wisely, my friend.
Did he ever even name the most reliable version in this video?
King James
@@mrswray he said the exact opposite. Let me summarize for you: King James bible was tranlated off relativly few manuscripts (less an a dozen) and did not even have a full manuscript for the book of Revelation. It laso had a mandate from King James himself who wanted it written a partucular way to legitimize his church, and rulership, and divorce. Thus it is a skecthy version that most Puritains rejected (rightly so) . Addditionally the editors themselves, in the preface, say it is best to keep the bible up to date with more manuscripts when found. Thus more modern version using the eccletic texts ,which usually mark footnotes for the textus recepticus and other textual variants; give you the best of both worlds.
Hope that helps! :)
6:36 Is the question and he doesn't answer it.
He went on to rant about the 'restrictions' of the translators by KJ. Really?
Now we live in a world where woke governments and citizenry are trying to 'restrict' our words.
We live in a cancel culture.
We still sinonomously use assembly and church.
Adultery was and still remain a sin in the KJ.
It's, now we have bibles based on 'better and newer' manuscripts that are making homosexuality, sodomy and feminism more acceptable!
I learned from the KJV Bible that sodomy and homosexuality are sins and that a wife must submit to a own husband just as the the church (body or assembly of believers) are to be subjected to Jesus Christ; as Jesus is subjected to His Father.(Chain of command and responsibility)
This Dr might be confusing the issues why the England separated from the Roman Catholic Church to form the English Catholic Church or the Anglican Church.
This king wanted to marry again in 'contra' to the Bible but sought the Pope's permission and was denied!
Now, that same thing which the king wanted back then, is now permitted and endorsed by all of christianity(religion)!
So, now it's normal to remarry after a divorce and the death of a spouse.
The last chapter of the last book of the Bible gives a warning ⚠️ about adding and subtracting from the Bible.
Did the translators of the KJB made an error with that or did they introduced new material?
@@V21ICSorry. The more people step away from the Bible the more they insert these ideas. It isn't a Bible translation problem.
@@jakeroon No, it only hinders the truth!
I am just now seeing this after it was produced nine years ago. To be fair, it would be great to also have someone from "the other side" of the debate, pro KJV, as opposed to James White who takes the opposite position. David Daniels would be great to have on Wretched. He is a trained linguist and well researched on the history and transmission of the English text.
There are debates. This wasn’t a platform for that.
❤ No lie … I LOVE the Message Bible … best Bible translation ever in English 🩸 In Jesus Name
They seem to not want to know the Truth about this issue.
It scary crazy
Brother David is Awesome 😎
The thing that everyone misses is the sentence structure, it make a huge difference also, words like believeth, the th is added on bececause the tence there is continuous percent tence, I've tried all the newer ones, they've been watered down, there is no power in them, I'm not a scholar, left school in grade 9, but I am filled with the Holy Ghost, The King James Bible was the first book I ever read, I'm 73 now and I'm still reading it
@@barrybarnard836 What is John 1:11-13 saying, meaning?
Now that we have a hundred translations and some with new pronouns. I think I'll stay with the older versions thank you.
What if “new” pronouns are more faithful to the earliest texts?
I know you are not serious. No thinking person would offer such stupidity. What part of God created a man and a women could be misunderstood. God ordained marriage between one man and one woman. Anything else is an affront to God.@@Kaddywompous
@@robertkauffman8137 I am serious. What pronouns specifically were changed? Which verses? What were the pronouns in the earliest texts in those specific cases? If the translations are more faithful, who cares?
@@KaddywompousNIV erased Sons of GOD in John 1 a significant loss in meaning and intent-others may also do the same
@@robertkauffman8137 I'm with you, all these translations have watered down the Word. I'm not KJV only but that's what I go to with a Strong's Concordance.
They never said which is the most accurate translation is….
The Latin Vulgate and Douay Rheims is a good Bible.
James White loves to tear into the KJV but then never says which ones are the best translations 🤔
@@JozeemossAnyone who “tears” into the KJV is sus.
@@SeekTheLordJesusChrist7 Pretty much haha. Until the English speaking world can come up with another Bible that sounds as good and most importantly that is uncopywrited and in the Public Domain not given to filthy lucre I will stick to my KJV.
NASB1995 is the most accurate
GOD is able to preserve HIS WORD.
Very cool to see how social media has brought together some of these big names discussing Christ today.
And these big names are the reason the church is full luke warm idolaters who reject God's Holy word.
Worshipping man's intelligence rather than worshipping Jesus Christ and His word.
Psalm 138:2
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: For thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
@@KJBTRUTH Preaching the word to the world is NOT being “Luke warm”. Have you started a dialogue with these gentlemen as suggested in Matthew 18 or are you being a cranky stumbling block. Also, if you disagree, why support the RUclips algorithm and post online? More dialogue opens this conversation up to more people. Basically, your complaint ensures more people see the video.
The Latin Vulgate and Douay Rheims is a good Bible.
James White has no credibility.
You cannot fake the annointing and this man does not have it.
No matter how much education you have sir, Your education cannot replace the lack of anointing.
Does your idea of "annointing" mean King James only?
NET in my opinion, based on the largest cache of Hebrew manuscripts, add footnotes are by far the most detailed in giving explanations for why they choose the words they choose in each particular verse
Yeah, it's like more detailed than a study Bible.
The King James bible is NOT a translation, it is based in 6 other translations, which I will get to in a moment.
Here is the first instruction given to the "translators."
1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.
The base of the King James Bible is the Bishops' Bible, (Which was the main bible used in the USA until the Mid/Late 18th-> Early 19th Century when the KJV overtook the BB in the USA)
Then we get near the end of the instructions, and we get instruction 14:
14. These translations to be used, when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible: Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's [Rogers'], Whitchurch's [Cranmer's], Geneva."
The King James Bible is a compilation of the best translated parts of 6 English Bibles used in that time period.
It is not a word for word translation directly as claimed. Only the parts that did not agree between the other bibles used was then checked against the oldest manuscripts that they had at that time, then sent to other "translators" to ensure accuracy, then it was added to the new bible.
The best English word for word translation is the NASB, and the ESV. Those two translations are based on the not only the manuscripts used during the time that the KJV was being put together, but on much older manuscripts that we have since found. The KJV is also an accurate bible to use for deep study as well.
Those three are the best English versions of the bible.
The issue with the KJV is the 17-18th century English that has not been spoken in quite a long time. Many who have English as a second language have a very difficult time trying to read the KJV and understand what they are reading. Lots of those folks find the ESV a much easier read and better to understand.
That said, when I am doing a deep dive into Gods word, I use those three (NASB, ESV, KJV), along with the Amplified and NIV. (the NIV is a thought for thought translation).
For those who prefer the KJV, I say, drive on. But understand how you got the bible you are using.
Remember, at the Bema Seat judgment, I don't think one of the criteria for rewards is "what English version of the Bible did you use?"
When it’s all boiled down, we either have the word of God or we don’t. Comparing the King James Bible to the other versions shows there are obvious clear differences! God said he would preserve his word! Either he did or he didn’t! I for one believe he is powerful enough to preserve his word and has done so in the KJV Bible. If anyone would disagree with that a simple look of the history of Christianity shows beyond any doubt that God blessed the KJV Bible and the preaching of it for massive revivals. No other book in history has been blessed like that book! No other book I read speaks to me like that book!
Right on. The King James is the 7th in line from the previous English bibles from the textus recepticus .Five men where burned at the stake for their beliefs. I will stick with the King James. Show me how many died writing the new age bibles from Rome.
@@markcheshire4413 The only thing with the new versions of the Bible is someone is making a pile of money through copyrights!
There is a reason God gave us two ears and one mouth, why don't you listen to the video and educate yourself?!
@@johnygoodwin3441 James White is so full of himself it is funny 😆. Like nearly all Calvinists, he acts like he knows so much and yet is absolutely ignorant of where the different versions came from and how all others besides the KJV attack the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.
@@vanreichelderfer8053 a lot of words but no evidence to back them up
My personal preference is KJV w Strongs next to the ESV, and interlinear bibles. When the ESV and KJV diverge, look deeper. KJV does have translation issues.
The greatest problem I see when people have issues with the KJV is the time frame. It was written with 1600s English and definitions in mind, not 21st century American English. There is a vast range of definitions that no longer concur with each other. This is one reason why the younger generation is not looking in the KJB, because their young pastor told them from seminary it's archaic. We need to understand their writing and knowledge of their time. These scholars weren't unlearned. They were specifically trained in Greek, Hebrew and Latin. They had many Greek Manuscipts to look through and they rejected the Codex Vaticanus, which is used in modern translations.
Take comfort. Today, we see this as consoling another. Yet, the definition is:
com- with, together
fort- strength
Hence, a "Comforter" is One with strength. This was their intention.
mortify meant "to take life from." Today, mortify means to be scare intensely.
Big differences.
KJV does have "issues" with modern translations because the definitons have changed. I purposely use etymology to better understand why they used certain words, especially repentance. This would change our thinking if we understood their defintion of the word compared to today.
The modern definitions don't take much consideration into this. Rather, it tries to get people "interested" into their translation. This is why, since 1965, there have been 70 new translations, each with their own copyright to differentiate from another. They can't agree on everything. It's all the bottom dollar to entice one to buy their Bible.
I guess it depends what you mean by "reliable". Do you mean the most literal exact translation? The most readily understood? The most properly interpreted for modern readers?
How about the truest translation to the intent of the original words?
@@icorrectly I think that's probably closest, although wherever possible the genre and the tone of the writer should be maintained: beautiful poetry, etc, as long as it does no harm to the meaning and purpose of the text
@@christophertaylor9100 Oh, I thought you'd have an answer for me 😅 Trying to become more knowledgeable, but I don't know where to start and what texts provide the most accurate direction.
@@icorrectly The New American Standard Bible has the most direct, literal, word for word translation possible, although its awkward to read in some places as a result.
@@christophertaylor9100 Is the meaning lost through direct translation? If so, what do people tend to read for better interpretation?
I love love love the 1901-1929 American Standard Version.
ASV is absolutely the most direct literal translation but that can make it very difficult reading, too
@@christophertaylor9100
I love the ASV
I will read the ESV and preach from it until Jesus Christ tells me otherwise, and be there for those that are in need of Jesus Christ.
Nothing wrong with that… It’s a good translation… It’s not perfect… No translation is
@@veritas2145 I think that is the best take, right there. There are many excellent translations, and several poor ones. But to think that there is one single "correct" one is unwise. The "KJV ONLY" crowd astound me. I had one call me a heretic a while back because I quoted an ESV translation of a verse... a heretic, for reading a different translation than him! I like comparing translations, and even diving into commentaries when I want a deeper understanding of a verse I'm struggling over.
I read the Greek versions and Hebrew versions and compare between the KJV and NLV and well was horrified at the difference. To me from what I read KJV is so far the closest to the Greek and Hebrew
NASB is more accurate than the KJV
@@tomtemple69 not according to the original Hebrew and Greek I have been reading and comparing between
@@theboy1346 that was a different Goliath 🤦 KJV adds text in italic 2 Samuel 21:19 KJV
[19] And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Beth-lehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
The brother of isn't in the original manuscript
🤦🤦🤦 Nasb95 is the most accurate
@@theboy1346 that was 2 completely different events and battles, do you think there is only one Goliath in the history of the world?
How is Joseph the son of Jacob die in Genesis 50 but then Joseph son of Jacob is the husband of Mary???
@@theboy1346 2 Samuel 21:15-22 NASB1995
[15] Now when the Philistines were at war again with Israel, David went down and his servants with him; and as they fought against the Philistines, David became weary. [16] Then Ishbi-benob, who was among the descendants of the giant, the weight of whose spear was three hundred shekels of bronze in weight, was girded with a new sword, and he intended to kill David. [17] But Abishai the son of Zeruiah helped him, and struck the Philistine and killed him. Then the men of David swore to him, saying, “You shall not go out again with us to battle, so that you do not extinguish the lamp of Israel.” [18] Now it came about after this that there was war again with the Philistines at Gob; then Sibbecai the Hushathite struck down Saph, who was among the descendants of the giant. [19] There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. [20] There was war at Gath again, where there was a man of great stature who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number; and he also had been born to the giant. [21] When he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimei, David’s brother, struck him down. [22] These four were born to the giant in Gath, and they fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants.
Have you read 2 Samuel like at all? 1 and 2 Samuel are in chronological order, do you know anything about the Bible? Do you do any research about these matters at all?
Have no idea why this was named "Which Bible Translation is the Most Reliable". This is called "clouds without rain."
I got a degree in Religion, learned Greek and Hebrew so I can judge for myself. My opinion is ESV is the best for Nestle-Aland 28, and KJV for the Textus Receptus. Merely my thoughts.
I like the Geneva Bible of 1599. It's before the KJ. I like KJ for the poetic language tho! I mean, which sounds better? "He maketh me to lie down. . ." Or "He makes me lie down?" Plus, the KJ uses vocabulary! You might actually have to look up some words! 😂
That's why I use them side by side (tablet Bible) and also use an interlinear. I think the ESV is quite solid.
Go into an unbiased study on Ebernard Nestle and Kurt Eland.
You might be shocked at their beliefs.
@@n9wff Do you have a good reference?
The problem lies in that ESV and KJB differ in many parts of the Scriptures, and some parts at odds and contradictory. So, which one is right or wrong?
The Spirit speaks to you as you read any word of God! Jesus is the Word…the only word we need to know!
Learned more from this than most utube vids I've watched on the same topic
Nice murderer avatar
@@Tom-yo7zf Proof?
@@ShepherdMinistry it's part of the historical record that Calvinists do not even deny. Research it and see what I mean
@@Tom-yo7zf I have and it’s not true
@@ShepherdMinistry interesting. You're the first person I've heard deny that Calvin is a murderer. Even Calvinist Pope John MacArthur admitted he was a murderer (and tried to justify it!).
James White was a big reason why I went KJV only.
I had to do a double take on this...mind sharing why that is?
If I told you the paint was wet I'm sure you would touch it
For best study it's recommended to use multiple translations when you study.
Use esv nasb or LSB alongside a Greek nt
Anyone notice he said KJV we have was based off translation of TR? That's a big deal. References 1 John 5:7
He compared a translation Latin Vulgate over the Greek original. This is unfair.
He should compare Greek to Greek before and after Erasmus then his case is valid.
WHO? Not Dr. White. Not sure what you are talking about. Jerome translated the Greek into Latin (the Vulgate). What Dr. White was alluding to was the Vulgate was the "official" scripture of western (Rome) Christianity while Greek scripture was still predominant in the eastern churches BUT was being translated, at least in part, into other languages. Dr. White's argument is that Jerome's work was challenged and Erasmus' work was challenged by those clinging to TRADITION.
James White is very likely incorrect in his assumption that Erasmus translated to Greek from a Latin copy, the last 6 verses of Revelation. It appears he is accepting the accusation from someone opposed to Erasmus translation, and ignoring a wide variety of scholars confirming that Erasmus was indeed using a Greek copy. The Latin copies translate Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life (Latin = tree of life), and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Only Greek copies use "book of life" whereas the Latin ones say "tree of life". James White claims: “Erasmus used only one manuscript for Revelation”, but Erasmus said in his annotation on Revelation 1:6 “sic enim est in graecis exemplaribus...” Translated as “It is in the Greek copies (plural)...”
Personally, I like the ESV best, but I also appreciate all other good translations (e.g. NASB/LSB, LEB, CSB, NIV, NET). But recently I also have appreciated the NLT! Please hear me out:
1. Reasons I like the NLT:
a. Clarity and naturalness. Clarity refers to whether a text is comprehensible or understandable. For example, the sentence "I am one who is called John" is clear. However, this isn't how most people speak. Most people would simply say "My name is John". That's more natural. In fact, that's both clear and natural. And the NLT is both clear and natural. The NLT speaks to us in contemporary English. It's just like talking with a friend, not like talking with Yoda (e.g. ESV). I think this is the NLT's greatest strength.
b. Audience appropriateness. The NLT is appropriate for multiple different audiences. It's appropriate for many children. It's appropriate for people whose first language isn't English but who are learning English. It's appropriate for the biblically illiterate inasmuch as it's becoming increasingly common in our culture that many people have little if any familiarity with the Bible and its contents (e.g. they wouldn't necessarily understand "churchy" words like "hallowed" or "propitiation" let alone "Biblish"). And the NLT is even appropriate for Christians in general who wish to have a smooth read-through of the entire Bible.
2. Some (mostly minor) gripes I have with the NLT, which again I generally like:
a. Accuracy. On the one hand, the NLT is often (surprisingly) accurate in capturing nuances in the biblical Hebrew and Greek that some formal equivalence translations don't capture and perhaps can't capture due to their formal equivalence translation philosophy. For example, compare some of the historical narrative passages in the OT in a formal equivalent translation with the NLT. The NLT can often bring out a fuller true meaning that is in the text better than a formal equivalence translation.
On the other hand, there are times when the NLT can be overly interpretive. It takes debatable exegetical interpretations which might go different ways and makes a concrete interpretation for the reader. Hence the reader doesn't have to decide what a verse or passage means since the NLT has decided for them. Moreover, the NLT sometimes even adds in more than what the text says. For instance, the Greek scholar Bill Mounce points out the NLT's translation of Acts 27:17: "the sandbars of Syrtis off the African coast". The phrase "off the African coast" is not in the Greek. It's been added by the NLT translators for clarification. However, it'd arguably be better to put "off the African coast" in the footnotes if it needs to be clarified or simply leave it out entirely and either research for oneself where Syrtis is, or let pastors, study Bibles, and/or commentaries explain. Given such issues, if we read the NLT alone (without reference to the biblical languages), it can be hard to know if one is reading the original Hebrew or Greek text or if one is reading text that's been added in by the translators.
b. Historical distance. Ideally there should be historical distance in terms of the time and culture of the biblical text (i.e. so modern audiences can enter into the ancient world of the biblical text), but there should not be historical distance in terms of the language (i.e. the language should sound to us as it did to the original audience). At times the NLT does not have as much historical distance in terms of the time and culture of the biblical text as it should. It makes the ancient world seem a bit too much like our day and age.
c. Register. Register refers to literary style. A higher register refers to a more formal literary style, whereas a lower register refers to a more informal literary style. Consider the NT. Most of the NT is in koine ("common") Greek, even though literary Greek existed at the time and was used by the best writers across the Roman empire. However, for various reason(s), the NT authors wrote in common every day Greek. C.S. Lewis may have put it best: "The New Testament in the original Greek is not a work of literary art: it is not written in a solemn, ecclesiastical language, it is written in the sort of Greek which was spoken over the eastern Mediterranean after Greek had become an international language and therefore lost its real beauty and subtlety. In it we see Greek used by people who have no real feeling for Greek words because Greek words are not the words they spoke when they were children. It is a sort of 'basic' Greek; a language without roots in the soil, a utilitarian, commercial and administrative language."
The main exceptions to this are Hebrews and the prologue in Luke 1:1-4 which are written in a higher register than the rest of the NT. Likewise, there are other parts of the Bible that are set in a more poetic and arguably higher register (e.g. Psalms, Job, Ecclesiastes).
I think an English translation should reflect the literary style of the original text. If the original text is in a higher register, then the translation should be in a similarly higher register as well. But the NLT tends to flatten out the literary style of the entire Bible such that the Bible as a whole sounds more or less the same across the board; that is, the NLT sounds like ordinary, conversational, colloquial English. Of course, the NLT's translation philosophy aims to sound ordinary or colloquial, so one can't fault them for this since they're faithful to their translation philosophy, but one does wish they had allowed for exceptions to the rule with regard to literary style.
the NLT is the best , easiest, and most relaxing to read. You don't have to twist yourself into knots trying to understand what is being said. they just use, normal, comon, current English. I still laugh when ppl say things like "the NASB is the most accurate and stuff" but bibles like it still say things like "but how can this be for I have not known a man..." rather than saying "but how is this possible, becuase I have never had sex ?" It just tickles me how even sop called "modern" translations cling to phrases and such that would make someone 20 years old today go- "Huh? What do you mean she never knew any men? She has never seen a man before? How can you go your life without ever knowing anyone male?" It's just funny to me.
@@jakeroon Well, if you read side by side with other literal translations, you will see that the translator (only one!!!) messed up a whole lot of places.
@@tabazlover Thats a gross misrepresentation. The NLT has a very lengthy forward describing their tranlsation process, the lLARGE TEAM invloved in it and so on. Maybe read it some time? You're equating "not traslated with the way I like it for my doctrine" with a "mistake" .
@@jakeroon My apologies about one translator (it's the Message)...however, I stand firm on the countless bad translations.
@@tabazlover i agree: The KING JAMES being the top offender.
I once thought White was an honorable teacher. Now that I know his history against the true Bible & the problems with his stand I know better than to listen to him on other things.
Very true, I much agree. Then again I have yet to know a calvanist that is KJV only. I don't knock calvanists but when it comes to the Word they read out of it's my sign. I've read & studied out of many, last was the NIV, let me just say years of study notes waisted as I now know they are tainted. This is just my experience & finding, many will disagree but that just don't matter. The truth matters to me, that's all
@user-kj5rz7je4j Amen. Prayer & an unimaginable thirst for truth led me to knowing God preserved his word in the KJB.
Interestingly, the TR is very close in most places to the majority text (what most of the extant NT manuscripts say). Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, where they differ from the TR, are often with the minority readings.
The problem with Vaticanus and Sinaiticus is that they differ so much more from one another. If they were to stand on their own, no one would accept. So some scholars mashed those together and presented as the most reliable one. Do you see the big problem here?
The critical text of 1881 - toaday is an ecumenical text approved by the catholic church and has only given us doubt.
The King James Bible is the perfect word of God.
No perfect word of God uses the word “gentiles”.(a loose transliteration of the Latin word, gentilis). They all capitalize it too… Which adds to the confusion..
Another problem is the King James translates the Greek word ‘Helen’ as ‘gentiles’ in some places… It should have been consistently translated ‘Greeks’ because that’s what it means.
@@veritas2145 zero confusion - anyone who isn’t a Jew is a gentile. People of a nation that aren’t Israelites. Correctly translated as gentiles.
@@veritas2145 No problem. Hellene is the correct spelling of what you’re referring to and it’s always correctly translated as Gentiles in context. They are native Greek speaking people who are not Israelites (Gentiles.)
God Bless you.
1 Thess 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
The KJV has got subtle revelations that no other version I've read has got. The KJV offers a lot of reading between the lines to the reader.
reading between the lines has caused a LOT of problems!
Gnosticism
dude please do not read between the lines and instead stay true to what the authors were intending with context. ur going to get some funny conclusions if u do that
Context context context!!!!! Reading between the lines causes confusion. For example, dispensationalism……..inserting gaps to make Daniel’s 70 weeks fit……arguing “lost ideas” found in the 1800s that the early church did not believe…..using Jesuit priests ideas of a future antichrist that will persecute Jews in Israel in the “last days” to sway people to not see the heresy in the papal system……look at what popped up in the 1800s and ever since….dispensationalism, Mormonism, Christian Science, Zionism and the political nation of Israel pushed to form…..context is important.
King James was carrying on the "New" tradition of King Henry the viii as a seperate Church from Rome. England wanted complete autonomy from Rome this included them not using a Papal sanctioned translation. Thus the King James version was instituted as way to defect from completely from the Papacy.
Sorry, not even close. The English translations (and other language translations) were to get God's word into the hands, minds, and hearts of the people. All the English works prior to the Douay-Rhiems (English Vulgate) were considered heresy because Rome wanted the clergy/magistrate to "interpret" God's Word. The work of Valla (who compared Jerome's notes on the Vulgate versus what the Vulgate became a thousand years later) probably prodded Erasmus to come up with a modern, accurate Latin Bible (remember-Erasmus was a faithful Roman priest/scholar) and also an accurate Greek translation. Erasmus' Greek translation is what spurred Tyndale's translation, Coverdale, and the group that translated the Geneva Bible into being. The King James Version was spurred because of derogatory comments about the British crown in the margin notes of the exiled Geneva Bible authors and had nothing to do with the Roman church. It wouldn't be until the Council of Trent and the Roman counter-reformation that there would be a battle over God's word due to Rome's inclusion of the Deuterocanonical or Apocraphal Books.
@peterschreiner9245
Soooo basically, King James wanted to establish complete separation from the Roman Catholic Church by not using their English translation, so he had scholars using Latin translations to be converted to English. Afterward, his stamp was put on it with the appendage of his name.
James didn't appreciate the Geneva Bible's Political teachings in their sub notes and so, as a direct result, had the 1611 translation.
We don't have better manuscripts. We already translated what was handed down through the church. More is not better.
How do you know the manuscripts that were found that are much earlier and closer to the time of Jesus that were found in the 20th century are not better? There are papyrus dating from 125 AD to 300 AD which are earlier for the most part than manuscripts used for the King James Version. And these manuscripts were also handed down by the Church back then.
Personally, I prefer three translations for my study: King James, NASB, and YLT. Each has its strengths. None are perfect. For those who think the KJV is perfect, please explain why the Greek word 'aion' is translated to 'world' instead of 'age', when in Greek it clearly means 'age'?This is no small error, as it has misled many to misunderstand and misinterpret important passages like Matthew 24.
The majority of best study resources (concordances, Webster's 1828 Dictionary, etc.) are refer to the KJV, so it's most useful for that kind of study. The YLT is the most literal, so it's most useful for that, etc. I would say that the KJV is the most consistent in its translation of the Greek, which aids in using searchable online dictionaries.
We are blessed in this generation to have good Bible resources, which are free to use. We should spend more time using them, and learn to use proper methods of exegesis.
I defend the newer versions but several things bother me. 1. why so many versions 2. why do these bibles not list the text not containing the verses omitted? 3. why do both Catholics and Jews endorse the KJV Bible. 4. why are there specific group Bibles. 5. why continual revisions to remove more and where's the reason? 6. why are archaic words still used in the new translations such as sheol replacing hell. I can see apologetics, Hebrew/Greek, pastor's versions, and archeological versions of it, but it sounds like Bible companies are looking to profit off this. the real reason -money and sells.
Here’s the thing. It’s the only bible. Nobody who only reads a kjv bothers those who don’t. The ones who mess with all these other so called bibles are typically weak and powerless. They have No Holy Ghost. They stay in bondage all their lives, and if they aren’t their kids are. What people fail to realize is the Bible that worked 200 years ago, and 80, and 50 years ago still works. Why was this not an issue? 40, 50, 60 years ago? People who read these other so-called versions honestly, they’re calling out a liar. Because my God said he preserves his word. So he didn’t preserve his word until these new demonic versions came out with in the last 50 years ? They are saying that everyone’s been deceived up until now, and kjv the Bible didn’t work for them. They don’t realize how foolishly sound . The devil has them so caught up with the so-called I can’t understand the thous and thuses-that they don’t even know the scripture that says angels hearken unto the voice of God’s word. Which means when we start quoting scriptures. The Scriptures that are actually God’s word , angels move on our behalf. They are not moving on behalf of all of this foolishness that’s out now. They only understand one thing and that’s God’s pure word. The word that worked 300 years ago. Which again explains why they are weak, and powerless. The Bible says thy word have I hidden in my heart , that I might not sin against thee. If someone were to come up to me right now and so called scripture and it’s not from the King James Version- my spirit will not receive it. I already know it’s not a king James version because it does not compute when I hear it. It will not register or stick with me. Only God’s word sticks with me and is familiar to me. Also, the same people had no problem when Jay Z used the same language on his clothes. They had no problem learning Shakespeare. Same exact language. But they did it to get a diploma. Lastly, every time a demon is cast out of someone I noticed that they use thou and thus a lot. I don’t hear them saying anything out of these new versions. I wonder why. Sure is funny that this was never an issue until it became nearer to Jesus return. The confusion only started no more than 50 years ago. It’s all confusion. Now all of a sudden it’s a problem. They can go on and argue this all day long. I’ve been saved since March 2000. Every scripture I memorized with no problem was with the king James version. And I don’t have the best memory. But I remember those scriptures quickly because they were already hidden in my heart. I’ve had churches tried to pull me from the king James Bible. I stood flat-footed. The pastor fell off the wagon. This was in 2021- And everyone associated with him did also. Not me. I’ll stand on Gods holy word. I didn’t bow, even though they had a whole class coming against me because I refuse to touch anything other than a king, James Bible. Why would you have a class for one person who stood flat-footed? Because the devil knew. Also, those new king James version I think they stopped, but they used to have a witchcraft symbols on there. It amazes me how whole verses are removed like fasting. The devil doesn’t want anyone doing that. I have heard people who mess with them call Jesus Lucifer and Lucifer Jesus. I have heard more than once someone called Lucifer, the bright and morning star. That is straight heresy, and a damnable lie. But it I know where it’s coming from. It came from what they were reading -I’m done!
Or course! Why else would you make a modern readable version, when there are already 500 modern readable versions? To get a profit!!!
I don't like newer versions, because of the manuscripts they use. I have a hatred for dynamic-equivalence translations, such as NIV & NLT. It's not a translation, it's an interpretation. They don't add a word here and there, like the KJV does (but the KJV has those words in italics for pointing them out as added). The dynamic-equivalence translations add entire sentences.
The question was never answered, because any Greek scholar would know there is no such thing as most reliable. All translations have the bias of the translators. Learn Greek and have this discussions at a higher level.
The King James is not perfect but is a Word for Word rather than thought for thought translation: 'Every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God' Textus Receipts is reliable. Little is much if God is in it.
🎉
Sorry, the NASB (and its off-chute, the Legacy Std. Bible) and the ESV are ALSO Word for Word. Remember: The KJV had 2 printings in 1611 alone and had edits up to 1769 Blayney. As Dr. White pointed out THERE ARE 2 BLAYNEY'S, an Oxford and a Cambridge and they are NOT jot and tittle same. The TR was an amalgamation of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza with a compilation in 1633 by the Elzevir brothers which became the FIRST TR. BUT Scrivener, in 1894 was that last "update" of the TR. I suspect that God is VERY MUCH in the "new" translations, if the translators are faithful.
THIS!!!
I really dislike when a dynamic "translation" is made and the word "Bible" is stamped on the cover. It's not... It is an interpretation of the Bible.
The ESV, and NASB, are also word for word as well as the NKJV.
Fortunately there isn't any major mistranslations that can cause doctrinal problems. In the KJV, or NASB
interesting that the question posed in this video's title was not answered.
The Latin Vulgate and Douay Rheims is a good Bible.
@@christsavesreadromans1096 Only if you follow Roman heresy.
@@davemitchell116 It’s those two Bibles which didn’t have books removed from them, unlike Protestant Bibles.
Why would you use a Bible with 7 books removed?
@@christsavesreadromans1096 If you are referring to the Apocrypha, those are Jewish writings that the Jews themselves NEVER considered to be canon. If the Jews don't accept them, why should Christians? I'll answer that. They shouldn't! They're only observed by the Roman heretics who need it to advance their false doctrine of purgatory. Nothing was removed, but in this case, something was added that shouldn't be there. This is the very reason why the two "bibles" you mention should be rejected.
Never is in any of these kind of videos. Who knows why?
This is easy. There is only one Bible Translation that Every Christian should be reading, studying. The Interlinear Bible. This is by far the most accurate word for word translation of the Bible.
I like the ESV quite a bit. I don’t really care all that much because I recently got so many bible commentaries that the translation isn’t that important anymore, because each word in its greek form is inspected
So what is the answer? What is the most accurate English version?
he is a esv guy. I still read KJV
I would recommend the NASB (or updated LSB) or the ESV. However the Word of God retains the Gospel message nicely in the King James and New King James. What is nice about a good modern eclectic translation is it will include scripture with explanation when there are textual variants such as John 7:53-8:8 or the long ending of Mark. My fear is a Bible that is afraid to point these out and it is one of the points KJV Onlyists have agains the NKJV (which will point out these variants).
There is only one translation that accurately translates the holy scriptures as originally intended!
KJV is fine if you are willing to use study tools for properly understanding the archaic language. "By and by" for example. I'd recommend Mark Ward for this. As for other English versions: the ESV, NASB, and NKJV are also great Bibles. I'd say that you should try to own all four of these at some point.
@@nigelmcculloch3746do you mean the original languages?
the dumbing down of english language matches the dumbind down of bible versions. paraphrases should be completely rejected such as "the message" and "the passion"
Wretched did a video a while back where they advised avoiding paraphrases.
2 things: 1) Thank God for Erasmus who got it done, and 2) what Erasmus did or struggled with in the making, obviously was God's help in preserving HIS Word, Amen
Reason 2) Other Versions are more confusing by taking out Thee, Thy, You, etc thus ignoring the original languages and the plural and singular forms.
The other translations take out the Thou, Thee, Ye, You and replace everything with you. It is important as in the Greek, Chaldean, Hebrew etc, there were plural forms of these words. So the King James translators put this into the translations. If you were teaching a class and said "you need to get the worksheet done." Are you speaking to one student, or all students? It could be one that you earlier told to get the worksheet done, or the whole group. We would need context. The ESV adds footnotes to supplement these things, the NIV takes the plural and singular out completely, the NASB tried to make it in 77 as if the Thee and Thou were reverent talking to God. Thee, Thou, Thy, Thine in the King James indicate Singular, Ye, You, Your indicate plural in the King James. That is the reason these are there.
John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Jesus is talking to Nicodemus and he says, marvel not that I say unto thee (singular talking to Nicoldemus), ye (plural) must be born again. So he states that everyone must be born again and Nicodemus shouldn't marvel at it.
In Joshua 1
King James Version
1 Now after the death of Moses the servant of the Lord it came to pass, that the Lord spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying,
2 Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel.
3 Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses.
God addresses Joshua (thou) and all this people. He is supposed to lead them. v 2
Every place the sole of your foot v3. This means that any Israelites' foot will mark the land given to Israel, Not just Joshua's foot.
5 There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.
Verse 5 starts a group of many promises with T words. Joshua as the leader will not have anyone stand before him as a leader like Moses.
In the King James Translation, the translators were men of prayer that spoke many languages (some well over FIFTEEN) and spent hours a day in prayer. So, they were humble men of God that would not promote their work for profit, no doubt as they knew that God's word warned of such things.
So if your versions says you. Is it talking to one person
Hereuntofore
KJV is the superior English Bible and everyone knows it
They were also honest men and did not promote their translation as the best and only God-authorized English translation as KJV-only assert. They said it was not.
@@joycegreer9391 but it's still the best.
@@Tom-yo7zf You are arguing with the KJV translators. They would tell you you're wrong.
The NIV,NASB, ESV, NKJV are not accurate at all because they remove God’s Name Jehovah some 6,800 times. The KJV has it only 4 times. So can’t be called accurate translations.
I grew up on the KJV my favorite is NKJ all the other translations seem to be less "authoritative" I guess is the word I'm looking for, I mean no disrespect at all. It's really just preference. Now when I study I read the KJV, NKJ, CSB, ESV and NIV to get a good perspective on what I am reading.
And you’re probably as crazy as a sprayed roach.
The Latin Vulgate and Douay Rheims is a good Bible.
I agree, I like the New King James overall for flow and language, and accuracy. The old King James had the most beautiful language but is difficult reading.
@@christophertaylor9100 they made 30,000 changes in the NKJV .
@@christophertaylor9100 Doc White is lying about the NKJV they did not use the Textus Receptus solely to translate from.
He is a slippery fellow.
And the Lord said, "For 2000 years i'm going to give you a lot of malarky and false doctrine... but in the LAST DAYS... I'll send someone to clear it all up!
Nope.
I think God is strong enough to get us the message and meaning of him word. and preserve/protect it.
All through the process the Enemy has worked diligently to dilute, pollute, disrupt and corrupt the Bible... Put your faith is God, who is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Let him guide your heart.
There's much more to this than what Dr. White stated. I have researched this since the early 1980's. (I read and still have Dr. White's book refuting the KJV only brethren.) I have a doc file with some of my findings that show the errors in the so called "best manuscripts". I always smile when a study Bible foot note reads "the best manuscripts read". One good thing about the NKJV besides that it uses the TR, is that it shows the variant texts with the "NU". If anyone would like my notes, I will send them free for your information. I have concluded after my research since the early 1980's that the TR is the superior text. I was open to it going the other way, but there is no way that these modern texts are "the best manuscripts". I also see a great benefit in the KJV. It is so evident that the translators were very diligent and dedicated men of God. There are many books I could recommend on this subject too, just ask.
Of course the TR is the best manuscript. You can't improve on perfect. Your comment is the best one on here.
Hello, I would be very interested in reading your research on this if you're willing to share it?
And I'd also really appreciate some book recommendations on this too! I came to faith about 6 years ago reading the KJV but have had a lot in the Christian community tell me its a "bad translation" and have been recommending to me some very questionable versions.
I would like a copy of your document.
What is TR?
I hear the point he is making, but there is no answer to the question asked in the title of the video. This is Clickbait
White reminds me of Ahithophel, who David eventually discovered was his enemy disguised as his close friend.
Perfect illustration - James White is a Jesuit in disguise.
I consider myself a seeker of God's Truth, whatever form that may take, so I will go with whichever translation is the most accurate, regardless of tradition. If a contemporary translation is backed by and drawn from older texts from sources closer to the actual events than a traditional translation, then I will be far more willing to trust the accuracy of the contemporary translation. I won't go so far as to put down anyone who prefers the traditional translations or dismiss their opinions, even to the point of referring to their preferred translation during Bible studies that they lead, but I also won't be shy about my preferred translation and why I prefer that one.
At 3:00 how do we know that what James White is saying is true? This is the first I've heard of Erasmus taking stuff from Latin. I thought the TR was the majority text.
If thats true, God didnt preserve his word like he promised. For 200+ years the KJV was the only modern version available in the english world. If the KJV isnt God's word then God was lying when he said he would preserve his word. James White is a devil
Hi Rebecca, in the 1500s when Erasmus penned the first version of what would later be called after his death the "Textus Receptus", there was no huge collection of "Majority Texts manuscripts, which are also called the Byzantine family because most are found in that are of the world. The 5800+ collection of NT manuscripts we have today started a few centuries later. They Majority Text manuscripts are predominately dated from 9th century forward; nothing really ancient, most after 1000 AD. The older stuff was on plant material called papyrus from desert regions like Egypt and Palestine, and simple don't survive unless in low humidity. These are 2nd century AD to 4th called Alexandrian because of Alexandria, Egypt being where many were found. There are others that fall in other families nearly as old like the Western Text family or another is the Caesarian Text. These three are really old in comparison to the Majority of all manuscripts found which are not so old, most of which are 11th to 15th century AD called the Majority Text as I have stated. So firstly, it is reassuring and amazing that there are so few SIGNIFICANT differences between them all, but only occasional significant differences, but why would we prefer what the Catholic Desiderius Erasmus chose from late manuscripts rather than early... much earlier manuscripts?
@@jesusstudentbrett why? Because they weren’t accepted by the church due to a large amount of errors that’s why. Why would any rational person accept errors in the Bible text? Older does not mean better. If they were preserved it’s likely because they didn’t wear out do to NOT BEING USED. Get it?????
@@jesusstudentbrett I’ve studied this extensively so your answer is very deceptive and misleading. You need to ask God to reveal the Truth on this matter. James White is a liar and proven so. He knows better but can’t recant due to everything he’s done in life would go up in smoke if he admitted he was wrong.
He is a very well-educated scholar. He has thoroughly studied and researched. You can research yourself too.
All English translations have pros and cons. Thus the need to learn Hebrew and Greek. I find most "KJV only crew" have never learnt either!
At least the NKJV has excellent footnotes so you can get all 3 textual traditions. I have gone (over years of study) from KJV only to the point I almost never use KJV at all.
I love the footnotes, I just don’t use the kjv at all because I can’t understand it only nerds read old English
Highly recommend reading the book DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE written by Pastor D.A. Waite. It goes into detail about how we got the King James bible and shows how a lot of newer translations have a lot of discrepancies or changes in the bible. If anyone speaks English then they should stick to the King James Bible
@@matthewkrupa5919 I was trained in and I taught in the Independent Fundamental Baptist Church so I've read most of the KJV defenses and at one point even taught them. 30 years of study has taken me out of the echo chamber and shown me how silly KJV only teaching is when you learn the facts. Also those so-called discrepancies that books like that point out are generally differences from one translation and the KJV translation. We don't determine the correctness of one translation by comparing it to another translation but by looking at the Hebrew and Greek source text. The KJV was a masterpiece and will always have a place, but it is now fairly outdated not only by the language but by the massive amount of manuscripts we have found since it was printed. While no translation is perfect (as even the KJV translator note in their preface) we have a few today that are not only in modern English but also more accurate to the originals. The TR Greek text is based on half a dozen manuscripts from the 12th century onward while today we have over 5800 mss going back as far as the second century. Add to that 25000 mss of other ancient translations to also compare that were not available to the 1611 translators and I promise you if you could bring them back today they would update the KJV themselves.
We must of course take care to critique any new translation carefully and there are a few really bad ones that are thankfully not very popular (and one that is) but we must also realize that 400 year old English is not the same English people speak today and we should not be adding any barriers to understanding God's Word to new generations. We also need to realize even if the language had not changed at all our textual foundations for translation are exponentially superior today than in 1611 and that fact alone would demand an updated from the KJV.
If you wish to use the KJV there is nothing wrong with that but I prefer to study multiple translations for the text and have copious translators notes available.
@@matthewkrupa5919 read the Geneva Bible my friend, the puritans were really upset with the king as making it the standard
Also has a witchcraft symbol on the cover
The translations were mostly done by the Textus Receptus written and translated by Erasmus. The Textus Receptus was revised in mid 1800s and changed the meanings of his original work. The manuscripts he used were no longer available 3 hundred years later at this time. New versions like NIV used the revised version so that's why I like the original KJV more accurate using the original version. Some other versions of the original still exist like the Wycliffe and Geneva Bibles.
Unless you have a greek bible you're all reading a diff translation than the original
The Latin Vulgate and Douay Rheims is a good Bible.
James White himself said that's BS. He has a lecture on it on G3.
Yes, but be sure it is the Scrivener text.
@@christsavesreadromans1096You are a bot!
Not at all.@@leechjim8023
i looked at the last 6 verses of revelation as mentioned by dr. white. reading the kjv, nkjv, esv, csb, net and even the web and there is essentially no difference between the kjv from the readings of these versions. nkjv (tr) csb, esv (critical), net, and the web (majority). where is the difference which would weaken the reliability of the kjv, as far as rev. 22: 16-21 is concerned?
Yeah, this is a Dr White/Reformed Baptist & his opinion.
@hectorbuenaluz9210 I think he should have said that the Kjv says "book of life" instead of "tree of life" on v.19 of Revelation as majority of versions reads. Instead he, like the rest, they built a case by implying that the rest of last verses are corrupted but ignore similar problems found in other versions. e.g 1 Cor.13:3 some translations use "burned" others use "boast". You see that it takes a word to change the entire context of a text. But we leave in a world were once a person Has a title of bible scholar or Dr. behind him, he becomes encyclopaedia
@@Kgosi503 Well said.
Pretty much all translations have issues when compared to the Hebrew!
I'm a KJV person but refer other versions too, have these guys studied all 5700 manuscripts together, God uses any version for His glory, our faithfulness is most important to God .
Actually they have studied all 5700 manuscripts....there are hundreds of scholars working on this stuff night and day and they also have the scholarship of the last 2000 years to add to their knowledge. They even use computers now.
The Torah in the original Hebrew is the best.
He didn't answer the question to why God would do that. I guess he indirectly answered that God didn't do that, but man did. Kind of.
Why would God do what?
The Latin Vulgate and Douay Rheims is a good Bible.
He didn’t have to. It is shown once again mankind has added and taken away from the Word.
He did not disclose all the facts about the manuscripts nor the full history. Do your own research, everyone!
People should use the oldest version that they can read and understand. Whenever someone writes a new version the insert their own beliefs.
The Latin Vulgate and Douay Rheims is a good Bible.
@@christsavesreadromans1096For Catholics mayby
@@NotCalvinist777 The Latin Vulgate is from ~404AD, it came way before the others, it’s the word of God.
@@christsavesreadromans1096 Ironically Valla, who preceded Erasmus compared Jerome's notes on his Vulgate translation and found "drift" from the 404 AD version a thousand years later. This spurred Erasmus to ACTUALLY come up with a more accurate Latin translation (Erasmus had Valla's notes published-something that would have been a heresy, punishable by death in the Roman church) and Erasmus wanted to do an accurate updated Latin translation.
@@peterschreiner9245 Ok? What’s your point, there’s still no justifiable reason to remove the 7 books.
When it comes to historic documents older is going to be more accurate and reliable.
No translation is perfect. Being KJV Only is cultist.
We have a KJV only church in our area , and on their website it say Jesus is the only way through the KJV
I would say the Catholic Edition of the 1966 REVISED STANDARD. ✝ It is accepted by Catholics, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, and many Protestants. It is commonly known as the most ecumenical BIBLE. ✝
Which is the most reliable- KJV for sure.
It’s good… I use it… But Its no better than the NASB
He argues KJV is bad because of Revelation, but what about the woman caught in adultery, most new translations are trying to have it removed altogether because it wasn't in the original text supposedly. Even though it's in the majority text. Or Acts 8:37 where Philip tells the Ethiopian euniq that if he believes then he may be baptized and the Eunic proclaims that he believes. The early church fathers quoted this verse, including the ones that new Paul and Peter personally.
I really enjoy the King James Bible, try praying to our Lord Jesus Christ for wisdom & understanding in reading his Word instead of turning to translations that either remove whole verses, important words or change the entire meaning of the verse all together.
The Latin Vulgate and Douay Rheims is a good Bible.
The only litmus test is: Has any fundamental salvation text been reversed?
Is it cosmetic change only?
When a new translation omits scripture of power I for one still use KJV as my go to Bible.
Mt. 17:21
21Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting
Because they don't use textus receptus text. There are other Bible translation as well that don't omit verses like MEV, NKJV. You can you use that too. Cheers
Why isn't Matthew 17:21 in the "new" translations? Because the translators determined it got into the KJV/TR because it was determined by the translators as being "recopied" from Mark 9:29, a parallel verse of the same Bible incident. What I want to know is why "Lucifer" is used in Isaiah 14:12 in the Vulgate and KJV/TR and is used in 2 Peter 1:19 in the Vulgate and when it came to mean the "angelic name" of Satan when Jerome was using the Latin term for something bright and shining, like the burning of phosphorus which is "lucifer" in Latin. And it can and should be debated that Isaiah was only referring to the king of Babylon in his passage, NOT Satan. Yet the KJV/TR DIDN'T FOLLOW SUIT in 2 Peter, a verse that obviously is about Christ.
@@peterschreiner9245 And you believe them blindly? Matthew 17:21 is not only in over 99% of the Greek manuscripts of Matthew; it was in the manuscripts used by the early church writer Origen (early 200s-254). you can consult Origen’s Commentary on Matthew, Book 13, chapter 7, to see this. It is also in the Vulgate, which was translated by Jerome in 383. (Jerome stated in his Preface to the Vulgate Gospels that he had consulted ancient Greek manuscripts in the preparation of the Gospels’ text.)
Codex W, found in Egypt, also includes the verse. The Latin manuscripts used by Ambrose of Milan in the 300s also included this verse, and so do several Old Latin manuscripts. Thus the support for this verse does not only come from the vast majority of Greek manuscripts; it comes from a patristic quotation earlier than the earliest manuscript of this part of the Gospel of Matthew, and it comes from witnesses in at least four different parts of the Roman Empire. So, without a shadow of doubt, the evidence heavily supports the inclusion of this verse.
Plain Modern English Matthew 17:20-21
He said to them, “Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you. But this kind never comes out except by prayer and fasting"
@@real3wcitizen which Bible translation is that and where can I find it??
God is genius, not just 'a' but 'thee' genius of genius. Meaning, he's most likely too smart to allow for anything other than his pure words to make the first print of the most influential, impactful language in history at just the right time for everything to be printed. It's beyond simple when you look at the countless anomalous patterns that arise within the version we hold today. Undeniable yet still refuted. So sad.
Dr. James White is actually pretty smart and explains it well.
Here’s one for some of you… Some people can’t read. I know. Weird, right? And, they can’t understand complicated theological concepts. Yet God has given them faith to believe. At the end of the day, God can use any of the translations he wants to bring someone to Him.
And let’s not even get into what happens when you try to translate the King James Version into other languages… Oh, my. How are those people ever gonna know about God..?
With all that said the KJV is the most reliable
The Latin Vulgate and Douay Rheims is a good Bible.
Which is why they include 1 John 5:7. This verse didn't even make it into Erasmus' first two editions because it was ONLY FOUND IN THE LATIN VULGATE. A suspicious manuscript was given to Erasmus before his 3rd edition WITH THE ONLY GREEK MANUSCRIPT TO HAVE 1 JOHN 5:7 IN IT. Sorry, the KJV is a great Word for Word translation, but so is the NASB and ESV. Any translation worth its salt will explain why the long ending of Marks Gospel, John 7:53-8:8, and the like are problematic. WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED if Erasmus had the fortitude to examine Codex Vaticanus in Rome and had compared it to his handful of 1000 AD to 1300 AD manuscripts to one written before 375 AD.
Why do you have to pick one version?
You don't. I like to read the same passage in a few translations. I think you get a better understanding that way.
@@joycegreer9391 agreed!
It's not for us to pick a version for our preference. Which Bible has God finished? Which Bible is the truth? That is what we should be asking and I've settled it in my heart. King James Bible.
Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?
Ecclesiastes 8:4 KJV
@@KJBTRUTH exactly!!!!!
You don’t have to. But then when you are crazier than a sprayed roach, at least you’ll know why.
If your Bible says, "You shall not kill" instead of "You shall not murder" then I would question it.
KJV 📖 all the way ! 🎉
If you enjoy verses that have been added 1000 years later the KJV is perfect.
Revelation in KJV is a wreck
The KJV is the word of God! James White is a Bible corrector who if questioned directly would deny we have the word of God in anything other than “the originals” which do not exist. Some people are so smart they are fools. I like what Peter Ruckman teaches about the KJV! He has the guts and common sense that saved people have, when it comes to the true word of God. The devil wants people to doubt that they have a Bible without errors. I know I have the right Bible!
Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psalms 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
@@vanreichelderfer8053 if that helps you sleep at night. But it’s irrefutable that there is errors in KJV even to this day, are you an IFB? God preserved his word by allowing or causing other better versions to come out after. Also remember KJV wasn’t the first Bible by a thousand years. It was just the best the translator could get his hands on at the time. Also remember your current kjv isn’t the original. Don’t make the KJV God it’s a translation of the word of God and there is better versions now and possibly better versions before it.
@@DaneSmartHomeLending So according to you there is no Bible that is without errors. So how do you know where the errors are? Is John 3:16 wrong? Do you see where this leads? If you believe there’s no Bible that is perfect how do you sleep at night? My faith is an Almighty God who is able to preserve his word forever. Forever oh Lord the word is settled in heaven. And he has reserved it for us in the KJV Bible. English is the most spoken language in all the world! It’s almost enough to make a fool think that God knew what he was doing when he preserved his word in English!
"Dr. James White Reveals Which Bible Translation Is MOST Reliable" Did we watch the same clip... where exactly did James say which Bible translation was the most "reliable?"
Any translation that is drawn from the eclectic text, which is basically drawing from multiple sources.
@@royalty4958 Like the "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures" by the Jehovah Witnesses... gotcha. Thanks.
@@londonderrry Huh? He literally explains what the eclectic texts are. Now to quote you "Did we watch the same clip"
@@royalty4958 What? I literally just thanked you in my last comment. Good day.
@@londonderrry Yeah but your assessment of what the eclectic texts are is inaccurate
Reason 3) If Reason 1 and 2 didn't convince you I doubt this will.
The KJV leads toward individual soul liberty, it leads away from false doctrines such as: Ruckmanism, Calvinism, Unitarianism, and more.
I put Ruckmanism as some supposed KJV defenders fall into the name calling camp and have no desire to be humble, but want to be right.
Well, I want to be right, because I want to be righteous. I don't mean to claim any false humility, but hope my presentation here is not offensive because of me as a person. If it offends, please look and I in no means want to be a name-caller. If you are offended because you have been fooled by another translation, consider that it may be pride and not wanting to admit you made a mistake. I am thankful for learning about my mistakes and praise the Lord for leading me to his Bible (yes the KJV).
I put Calvinism as this rise in what people think is the doctrine of Election has confused many. It shows up greatly in the modern versions. The KJV defines election as a vocational calling. For example Israel is God's Elect. They were chosen to give the oracles of God, be a holy nation before him, and bring the messiah. But, not all Israel are saved. Election isn't a doctrine where some are saved and some are not. This is a false doctrine and a heresy that isn't in the King James Bible.
Unitarianism- Those that believe Jesus wasn't God. Some of these men worked with James Strong. James Strong was a writer on the ASV and Strong's Concordance in the late 1800s. Well, if the falling away is happening and all the modern translations use things from the "new and improved" fragments like the dead sea scrolls etc. Could Satan be stealing words from the Bible?
Could Satan come to steal the word from the path? Most versions with several thousand (like 50 thousand +) ignored that take out the deity of Christ or the holiness and righteousness of God.
KJV 2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
Other versions purport that the above verse takes away from the deity of Christ. However, the fact that Jesus is deity is clear in the KJV and the other versions take away in this verse from the righteousness of God.
1 John 5:7-9
King James Version
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
Maybe the modern versions want to take way from the MOST high and get the focus elsewhere. The KJV points to God, which magnifies the name of his Son. But, what is more important than the name of Jesus? God's word.
Psalm 138:2
King James Version
2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
People want to say the KJV and all the other versions are God's word. That can't be true. God cannot lie.
Titus 1:2
King James Version
2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
If God can lie or replace Lucifer with a name of Jesus, can we trust him about eternal life? no
I know many born again believers that use other versions, but over time come to realize that the King James Bible is the pure word of God as it doesn't have mistakes such as calling Lucifer a name of Jesus.
If you say something is the word of God, it can't have mistakes. If we can only rely on "God-Breathed" manuscripts, then we can either trust only the spoken word of God leading to all sorts of false doctrines in Charismaticism, Calvinism/Catholic Determinism and prophetic utterances. Or can we trust that all scripture is given by INSPIRATION of God (a noun) rather than being God-Breathed an adjective.
Job 32:8 KJV
“But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.”
The King James Bible has a built in dictionary for words. It is the word of God.
Is your God able to preserve his word in English? Did he prepare and know what would be the pre-dominant language in the end times?
Matthew 24:35
King James Version
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Or does your God let you keep guessing at fragments of dead sea scrolls hoping to get a better version from Strong's concordance working with people that didn't believe Jesus was God?
I hope you find this challenging and will look at your interpretation of the bible and consider switching to the English Translation of the Bible, the KJV.
We magnify the Word of God above the name of Jesus as God said to do. We defend his word. Those that say the KJV is ok, but others are better, need to be sure there are no mistakes in theirs or they would be in danger of degrading the word of God. Praise Jesus, the day star. Praise Jesus, the bright and morning star. Who is your Jesus?
Do you have the right Jesus?
Wait a second, "We magnify the word of God ABOVE the name of Jesus, as God said to do"?
I would advise you read John 1 again Bruv.
In the beginning was the word (Jesus), and the word was with God, and the word WAS GOD.
So basicly your saying that Jesus (who is God made flesh) is less than God?
Please tell me that was not what you intended Bruv.
Calvinism is far from false.
Very confusing writing here. What do you mean "path"? You used it in your other post, too, and I thought it was a typo. Please proofread your comments before posting.
I don't understand why a written document would be elevated above our Lord and Savior, the second Person of the trinity?
Who were unbelievers? Wescot and Hort were Protestants.
@@joycegreer9391 It is a man made doctrine. The reformers are of the church of Sardis. They have a name, but they never came to the perfect work of Christ. My definition of Elect is far different from that of a Calvinist. Here is a question for you with your definition of Elect. How do you know that you are not deceived and won't persevere to the end and deny Christ on your deathbed? You may after all not be in the Elect and deceived into thinking you are. Are you trusting that you are in the Elect or are you trusting Christ? You might be deceived and not in the Elect. You see, I am trusting Christ alone, "He chose us?" or "He chose us in him"? There is a difference. He didn't chose any to be damned or saved. He chose Christ as the Elect of God (Isaiah 42 first mention) to do a work to bring salvation to any and all that believe. Calvinism is a doctrine of devils.
@@donaldwortham2409 Yes, I agree, there is no security in Calvinism. How do you know your were chosen and in the Elect? You might be deceived and deny him on your deathbed. If you are a Calvinist, you are trusting being chosen (which isn't in the Bible that God chose some for salvation and some for damnation) for salvation. Romans 11 condemns the doctrine itself. The Jews thought they were "chosen" but due to unbelief ended up in hell. When he grafts back in the natural branch the false branch of Calvinism (not saying all Calvinists are unsaved, but the majority are not trusting Christ, but that they are "chosen") will readily accept the Antichrist having trusted being Chosen, rather than trusting the work of Christ.
I am a believer but lets face it. No Bible could stand up in court. WHY?
No Bible gets our creator's name correct. If you can not get His name correct how can you say the rest is accurate?
Ouch to the KJV onlyism folks. The truth that liberates can be painful to process. Gb.
ill take that challenge
Sad that you find enjoyment only because it most likely attempted to corroberate YOUR opinion.
Liberated to read a watered down, redacted, and inferior Bible version?
@@Tom-yo7zf Read the originals or find someone who does:)
@@grimcapo4390 I find enjoyment when the truth that can set someone free is proclaimed. Sad if you didn't.
All that's fine I'm just grateful to see anybody in the word of God ! I have several versions but prefer the King James. 👍🏻
They found the newer manuscripts in someone's trash lol
Bro forrreaallll they didnt talk about that part though 😂😂😂
That's a myth
Well that’s a lie
@@thechercheur3998well. If it is a lie, then the lie was was told by Count Tisshendorf, the man who discovered the Codex Sinaiticus at the St Catherine's monestry at the foot of Mount Sinai.
@@damongreville2197 The Librarian brought the Codex out for him upon request.
Upon a later visit he found a few discarded old copied leaves in a pile to be burned, NOT the codex, itself.
I don't know if it's the most accurate, but the complete Jewish Bible is very good.
Lol
Amen
Yeah I thought the Geneva Bible had problems and the KJV sort of corrected those?
8 years and only 1 day comments old.the main question is why 66 books for the Protestant church and not 73 or 79 or 86 who decided that is God word what criteria.
@@jeanmichel9207 thats a good question. I actually have a good book about church history that talks ahout the process of canonization and gives more recommendations for students who want more details. Theres certainly a lot of information out there for those looking to find it.
@@joshuamclean4588 thank you for trying to help me .but I am not going to read books about Christianity i prefer debate videos because I don't like monologue
@@jeanmichel9207 what are some people you can watch, and how do you validate the accuracy of what the person debating is saying? Watching ither people is good. The issue with only watching debates is someone can be wrong yet present themsekves better than the other an still “win” the debate. So you have to undersrand it yourself first and discern what the people are saying.
@@joshuamclean4588 you're right about this but the debate give you a fast answer from academic peoples.also I could check the references mentioned .
The Name of Yahuah is absent from the majority of translations, and they admit doing so in their prefaces.
Have you tested the BYNV?
Most English translations follow the Jewish tradition of replacing YHWH with adonai (LORD). When you see LORD in the OT, think YHWH. It adds a lot to your reading.
White is a Calvinist - so I don't trust anything he says. He doesn't believe salvation is offered to all. He doesn't believe Jesus died for everyone - only a "select" few (which includes him, of course). The more White rails against the KJV, the more I trust it as God's preserved Word in English. BTW, the apostle Paul destroys Calvinism with what he was inspired to write in 1 Timothy 4:10 " For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." God offers salvation to all, but saves only those that believe in Jesus. It's simple: God has "predestined" or "elected" to save anyone who will trust in Jesus for salvation. James White is a heretic.
Have to agree. These modern Bibles are inferior and the fact that the Calvinists like them so much is a huge warning sign.
@@Tom-yo7zf Absolutely! 👍
And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48)
There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. (Rom 3:11)
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. (John 3:8)
I expect a full report by Monday (lol jk). I'd be careful throwing "heretic" around because someone doesn't follow Jacobus Arminius. (Proverbs 6:19)
@@BeauReese Hi Beau. King David turned to adultery and murder. If he had died in that condition would he have gone to heaven?
@@BeauReese Not everyone is isn’t a Calvinist follows Arminius…. It’s so exhausting seeing Calvinists just categorize everyone else according to Arminius…
Vaticanus has initial drop caps in it. Please explain to me how something that didn't exist until the middle ages got into an "ancient manuscript".
Sinaiticus is on display at the British museum. It is white and pliable like a modern book and you can literally flip pages in it. Please explain how a document that is allegedly nearly 2,000 years old is white and pliable?
KJV!!!!!!!!!!!!
But he didn't say what was the most reliable, and they never do