Thank you pastor Scott - after getting saved in 73 initially started with KJV - but a young pastor encouraged the NASB - read for 30 years! 20 years ago my son gave me a pocket palm and the only free translation was a KJV- the rest is history - as I read and compared I became convinced ! The KJB is my only Bible 😊❤🇳🇿
What is interesting about the NASB is that it was idited and retranslated over and over many times and the last time was in 2020. I have a NASB from 1972 and it is closer in sounding like the KJV than the 2020 retranslation. Actually the KJV we have now has been edited about 17 times, although these were slight editing. I was saved in 1968 and all of the churches used the KJV through many years. I cut my teeth on the noble KJV. I memorized many scriptures from this version and still do.
From my studies, I have found there are 4 revisions and some consider the NKJV to be the fifth. After the original 1611 King James Bible, four major revisions were already made, each done to reflect current English usage: 1629 - First Bible printed by Cambridge University Press 1638 - Printed by Thomas Buck and Roger Daniel 1762 - Printed by Dr. Thomas Paris, Trinity College, Cambridge University 1769 - Printed by Dr. Benjamin Blayney, Oxford University Until now, the standard King James Version available has been the revision of 1769. The New King James Version was and is still advertised, not as a new translation, but as the fifth major revision of the KJV Bible in 1982.
The only problem I see is that that some of those translations have all the Words of God and some don’t. Those who don’t are more like storybook bibles than actual translations because, in a storybook bible, all the information is not given. I discuss this fully in this playlist if you’re interested: What is the Difference in Bible Translations? ruclips.net/p/PL-dMPDGX0OTGut0jB-MEDj-Qf-bupIG6X
Hi, I am struggling with which is best for me to read. All you have listed are the exact ones I have been looking into. Which is most accurate from the original text from Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek, yet easier to read?
@@Myan937of KJV is a hard read, which I think it is, the NKJV is easier to understand and sticks close to the KJV. I have ESV also which isn't bad, CSB is easy to read too, the NASB is too but supposedly a lot of stuff has been taken out. NKJV if you want to stay as close to KJV with an easier reading.
As someone who has read the NRSV through once and the NKJV twice, I can say that for daily devotions (Morning and Evening Prayer) I usually use the KJV and I use the ESV when I am presenting the bible study for our group at work where we have a weekly bible study, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your detailed explanation of some of the issues with modern translations of the text. God Bless you!
Love the NASB, it's a great translation like the KJV is a great translation... I suggest reading from multiple translations to get the most out of it, you will grow more spiritually from Reading multiple translations than just sticking with one
Crickets! I see a lot of similarities between the NASB and KJV crowds, I think they appeal to different inclinations, though I'm not sure how to articulate it.
@nobodyspecial1852 That was a good way to speak the truth. I just want the most accurate version to grasp true wisdom and know the true works that should be held to the end. I ask God to bless me with a life were I may learn the biblical language because that will be the closest to understanding gods mind.
@@greglovelace246 KJV will be the most accurate, but the issue is that is written in a way that words meant one thing in 1600's and it means differently to you to in 2000's. I primarily use the KJV, but will use the NSAB if the language is hard to understand. Sometimes the KJV will give more clarity on something than the NSAB will.
KJV NKJV ESV NIV And the NASB… I read and love all of them because in whatever degree you wish to choose, they each contain the Word in some amount. I hold the KJV and NASB up as my roots. The ESV and NKJV as my reinforcement of respective interpretation. And the NIV as my commentary. I’m flourishing in understanding and love for the Word. I say do what brings you closer to God and spend less time worried about this & that. Pick a translation and dedicate yourself. And realize all the time you spend pointing out supposed inaccuracies… you could have studied an entire doctrine or two. God Bless to all in our Lord Christ.
I would encourage you to read Arthur Farstad's "In the Great Tradition" first on this topic. Chuck Smith's "Why I Choose the KJV" is another great one. I also have created an entire playlist on this subject if you would like to check it out as well. In the video comparison on the CSB, I mention several other books for research: studio.ruclips.net/user/playlistPL-dMPDGX0OTGut0jB-MEDj-Qf-bupIG6X/videos
This is one of the many reasons why Christians cannot quote Scriptures. In the last few years alone, we have had NASB replacing ESV to some extent and then LSB replacing NASB. which version is one ought to memorize? Also, i cannot help but notice but these translations are favorites among Calvinists. Is it really truth that's a driving factor for a new translation or ulterior motives? The former seems to be diluted with each new translation that is published and marketed. New translations do not carry the credibility that KJV does.
I think you are right about the credibility of the KJV and that fact infuriates those who are constantly changing, not just the English of the Bible, but the Hebrew and Greek underlying it as well.
Another great video. Your delivery on this subject is very graceful. There are several who do content like this on RUclips but their delivery is off putting. Thank you for your hard work. It allows us to be able to point to it for reference. God bless sir.
The basis of KJV Bible is the Textus Receptus of Desederius Erasmus. And Erasmus based his Greek translation from 7 manuscripts only. Whereas many modern english translations today like NKJV, NASB, CBS, ESV, MEV, LSB, NET, NIV etc…are based their translations from almost 26,000 manuscripts. KJV included many scriptures which are not in the original, they are marginal notes wrote by many who copied the scriptures to clarify certain things in those verses. Therefore modern english Bible translations did not actually remove many scriptures. It’s the KJV bible that added many words which are not in the original 26,000 manuscripts. Therefore Modern English Bible Translations are not satanic, but reliable, because the basis are oldiest more reliable manuscripts.
Actually, the NKJV uses the same manuscripts as the KJV. Erasmus is not the basis of the 1611 and that first compilation is not the basis of any translation. The later compilations of the TR are the basis. and the other modern translations are using a modern text that has removed and cast doubt on texts that have clearly via actual texts in our heads today been in the text for several centuries and I would argue have been there from the beginning.
I do believe that God would not allow people to use the KJV for so long with it being unreliable, and the amount of time it was used encourages me that it is a superb translation. That being said, I also like the NASB 1995 or LSB for modern reading.
I find the KJV to most accurate (especially if you are familiar with English in 1611) and the NKJV to be the most instantly understandable. Both are using the traditional Text passed down for centuries. I discuss this more here: ruclips.net/video/3N3Y22QdvLQ/видео.html
I know this discussion about the best Bible will never end. Hundreds of videos. I feel if you enjoy reading a Bible and feel the Holy Ghost is guiding you then that’s the best for you. I felt that after many years of changing I came across the NASB 1995 after hearing John MacArthur and others. I do use NJKB and check out others. I stay away from paraphrase, but agin ask for wisdom from God like I did He will show you.
The NASB revolutionized my view of God. I grew up with the KJV and when I started with the NASB, I saw God in a totally different light and one that made God more approachable. I know the late Dr. Charles Stanley used both. Example the word mercy vs lovingkindness. Mercy denotes someone withholding punishment while lovingkindness promotes a God who is a special kindness for humans. Quite a different picture. The KJV has two words in Ps. 36. Mercy at the beginning of list of God's attributes and lovingkindness at the end. The truth is that it is the same hebrew word which further amplifies God's character. Same in Ps. 107 the hebrew is translated mercy, goodness and lovingkindness in the KJV. It is all the same word hesed. This makes so much sense since the whole chapter is about God's lovingkindness.
I know Bible teachers that I trust who use the NASB, but I cannot consider it as good translation. These are the main concerns that I have with the NASB: the constant changes between editions and the deletion of verses. Their use of the Critical Text undermines the authority of the Bible because it is not solid. If one needs help with the archaic words of the KJV, I suggest using the NKJV. I discussed that here: ruclips.net/video/3N3Y22QdvLQ/видео.html
When I was radically saved and transformed, a huge weight I hadn't realized I had been carrying my whole life was removed. By the time I scraped myself off the floor from crying and apologizing for all of the rotten things I'd done, I was a completely new person. All I knew for sure was Satan was real and rampaging across the world trying to destroy everything God created, that God was REAL and it was the God of the bible and that the bible was the truth, that heaven and hell were real and that Jesus Christ was the truth and I'd better find out what he'd done and fast. I knew I needed a bible immediately and I PRAYED to God to show me which one. I'd been fooled for the first 45 years of my life and I'd always mocked Christians and their "hundred" versions so I prayed for God to lead me to the right one. I was given 4 bibles. I'd read the first paragraph and toss, I knew that I knew that I knew they weren't right UNTIL I was given a KJV. I knew immediately it was God's word and have no need whatsoever to look at anything else, why would I? God led me and what men think has no bearing whatsoever. You can accuse me of being in a cult or whatever you want----I'm answering to God almighty and if you're still confused about versions, I'd encourage you to ask and pray. God bless!!! (In the 1800's it seems Satan has been saying "Yea, hath God said?" and men are joining him.
Wasnt the Apocrypha in the 1611 KJV? I would say removing complete books is more than a minor change. No hate, just a baby Christian navigating through a sea of translations.
What is the meaning behind critical text and traditional text ? Sry i don't know if you explained it in this video but when i was watching this video i couldn't focus on what you were saying that happens to me a lot
Here is one of my first videos on this topic: Why Are They Changing the Bible? (Textus Receptus vs The Critical Text) ruclips.net/video/mTZvP_9VBaA/видео.html
Yes, it is. There are several things on which Dr. MacArthur and I would agree, but his choice of translation is not one of them. If you noticed, I mentioned he is now promoting his new LSB which is based off the NASB95 that he has used for years. He is now having to promote the LSB because his NASB95 has been updated in 2020 and he felt the need to change it rather than move forward with the translation update. I feel this proves the points I made in the video about these constant drastic changes we have seen within the NASB.
Well, there really isn't an English translation of it that I am aware of, so it is doing little good for anyone in that state. It was Arthur Farstead, the General Editor of the NKJV, who was the main person that produced it. It is referenced in the footnotes of the NKJV. After his death, there has been little interest in producing a translation from it. I understand that it is very close the Textus Receptus.
@@PastorScottIngram I believe the WEB translation which is only available online uses this text. I believe maybe they just came out with a print version. It is on bible gateway if you ever feel like looking into it! Its also public domain since that was the goal of this version aswell, they wanted the Bible to be easy to use and access for everyone.
Thanks for watching. This video explains my journey: ruclips.net/video/DPEfBat8txI/видео.html These videos are other comparisons that I have put together: studio.ruclips.net/user/playlistPL-dMPDGX0OTGut0jB-MEDj-Qf-bupIG6X/videos I hope that helps.
The NASB uses the critical text and not the traditional text. The modern critical text removes the equivalent of 1 and 2 Peter from the words of the New Testament from the traditional text used for centuries. I, personally, only trust traditional text translations. Today, the most popular of those are the KJV and the NKJV. I discussed this here: Why Use the New King James Version? ruclips.net/video/3N3Y22QdvLQ/видео.html
Thank you I might compare the KJV and nabre and when I see differences in the nabre Bible from the KJV I will correct the nabre and put the KJV text because I kinda like the nabre Bible text the way it says stuff
Thank you pastor Scott. I have just recently become aware of the KJV only movement, and have viewed several videos both for and against. I was a NASB reader, believing that it was the best version to read. However you and others have convinced me that this is not the case. It seems to me that a lot of people are making a lot of money putting out revisions of the Bible based on three questionable texts. I have now switched over to KJV but it is more difficult reading than the NASB. Thank you for your video. God bless.
Yup!! I used to think the NIV was okay.. though I only used it on Sunday/Wed.. its not until I put my faith alone in Christ and started to read the Bible... I started to invesitgate... also the "Copyright" thing on the modern bibles should have been a red flag. God bless you!! Also watch out for counterfiet KJV's.
Just pray about it. Let God give you the answer and share the news. There are many people that do not want to hear about the differences. Remember to share the news with the right spirit as to not become “to good” for others to listen to the evidence. God Bless.
I’m glad it was a blessing and helpful. I have a whole playlist on this issue that you may find helpful. You can find it here: ruclips.net/p/PL-dMPDGX0OTGut0jB-MEDj-Qf-bupIG6X
Yes!! I seen enough, I am sticking with KJV..A lot of the words in the KJV are easily defined in the text or in the context or futher reading.. quite interesting... its like a scvanger hunt or a project. Learn new words scuh as he-goat, she-goat.. and stuff.. if we can learn new words for school or work, we can surely take the time to learn new words for the Bible@@PastorScottIngram
The biggest difference is roughly 400 years of development in the English language. There are words that exist now in English that better explain the Hebrew and Greek words.
Ok let's ask a question that is very important. If you shall confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus vs if you shall confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord. which is correct?
A better question would be What is the difference in the NASB and the NASB. I used the 1977 NASB mostly for 20 years and had memorized many verses & entire chapters word for word. One day my bible was stolen & my pastor gave me a new 1995 NASV. When reading Psalm 22, which I had memorized, I noticed they had changed about two-thirds of the 31 verses. Why had they made so many changes in less than 20 years? The 1611 version of the KJB has been virtually unchanged for over 400 years. When I began researching the subject I couldn't believe all of the errors in the newer PER-versions and for the last 15 years have stuck with the true word and WORDS of God in the AUTHORIZED Version. Since then I have been a member of the King James Bible Baptist Church in NY.. We distribute bibles and hundreds of gospel tracts in many languages every Sunday at 51st Street & Broadway in Manhattan.
That is so true! Why such change in such a short time? I am glad to hear that you became aware of this and that you are attending a faithful church! Thanks for sharing!
There are things that we can agree to disagree about in the bible. One must ask him or her self is this something so prevalent in that church that I disagree with that I cannot fellowship with them any longer? It is against salvation and how i see others salvation? How will my family be affected by it? Pray and seek God's guidance and I am sure it will become clear.
In reference to timestamp 19:00, the holy bible Knox version contains all the versus that were removed in other versions. So, if you want a more reader friendly version, the Knox version is a great one to get because it was written in the 20th century. I would still recommend buying the KJV study bible second edition. I have the KJV, 2020 NASB, and Knox version. What he mentions is true and surprising about NASB.
A retro axiom observed that translations are like women: they are either faithful of beautiful. The SASB is faithful. It lacks any hint of the Bard. The NKJ is both beautiful and faithful,
Interesting thought. My main concern is that not all translations are translating all the original words. Thankfully that isn’t a problem with the KJV and NKJV.
I just found this out... the ending of Mark is removed and also is the story about the aduletress woman.. its not actually removed in the new bibles.. but they put the divider with the brackets of: these are not found in the ealiest manuscripts.. umm
There are no English translations which are totally accurate. It is just not possible since the original languages were so different than modern English. If you want the original Word, you have to go back to the original Greek and Hebrew. In the meantime, when I read the Bible I use a parallel version so I have several translations open at the same time so I can check back and forth between them.
That is good, but do you consider the differences in the Critical Text and the Traditional text when studying? I discussed those differences here: ruclips.net/video/mTZvP_9VBaA/видео.html
I recently started reading the NASB, and it’s great. I was KJV-only for many years, and then I actually did honest study of KJV-onlyism and realized it’s a foolish and uneducated position to take. There are many great translations; KJV; NASB, ESV, even the NLT is very good. Makes many passages so much easier to get UNDERSTANDING. Words change meaning over time, sentence structure changes, etc. A lot of ppl who are KJV only don’t even understand their KJV. “Study” to show thyself approved for example, study back then meant to be diligent in effort, not study how we use it today. God bless you all!
I am not KJV only in the sense that it is implied by many who have characterized that ideal by pointing out people who believe God re-inspired the Bible in English in 1611. I am against the removal of the equivalent of 1 and 2 Peter from the Greek underlying text. I have playlist on this whole topic on RUclips, but this video may help summarize a lot of it: Is It Okay to Read A Bible OTHER Than the KJV? ruclips.net/video/DPEfBat8txI/видео.html
@@PastorScottIngram It’s not a “removal” if it was never in the original manuscripts. And that’s the point KJV-onlyists don’t seem to grasp. They make the KJV the standard instead of what the apostle Paul or John actually wrote. KJV-onlyists don’t seem to understand how scribes added to manuscripts when copying, due to not knowing if a marginal note is just the note of a previous scribe, or if it was in the original. They saw a marginal note, and the scribe, if he was reverent and conservative, erred on the side of adding it in lest he leave something out that could have been in the original text. Dr James White’s book The King James Only Controversy, and his various videos on the subject of textual criticism, textual transmission, etc are an invaluable source of information that really shed light on this issue.
@Matthew-307 James White provides his view of it. I provide mine here. I encourage you to look and seriously consider both and the ramifications of believing either and then let the Holy Spirit guide you.
@@PastorScottIngram Thank you. I have studied it for about a decade now. And I can definitely look at the fruit of the KJV onlyism and see the clear anger, hatred, mocking, and condescending attitude of the majority of KJVonlyists. You are obviously an exception to that rule btw. I mainly read the KJV, and the NKJV, but I do also enjoy the insight of the NASB’s literalness in many places. Amos 9:6 for example is far more clear and true to Hebrew Cosmology in the NASB than the KJV. One of my favorite examples.
@Matthew-307 I am using the NKJV in my preaching now and still use the KJV as well. I am against the deletion because His Word shows us that it was “preserved to every generation” and that eliminates a critical text that makes void so much of the traditional text. I am against those who are the angry KJV onlyist who have false doctrine. I discussed that here: ruclips.net/video/pIPy6hlYImQ/видео.htmlsi=qyD9IRHug4Vk8HIb
Well how about the a little addendum that the King James seems to add in Matthew 5:22-24 where it adds the phrase "without a cause." That seems to justify being angry with your brother if you have a good reason does it not? Fact of the matter is given what Christ did for us on the cross none of us have a reason. People talk about the verses that they think are being removed and they say we shouldn't remove things from God's word but in that same passage in Revelations it says we shouldn't add to it either. I hear no one who advocates the KJV talking about adding verses. I'm not trying to be rude and I don't want anybody to be rude to me but this is how I see it.
Do you realize that if we are never allowed to be angry, and anger is a sin, then Jesus Christ is a sinner just like the rest of us? The Bible clearly states that He got angry at the money changers who were making it difficult for the poor to come to God and ran them out of the temple with whip. That which you think is an addendum, is actually very important in our understanding of how to deal with anger and the fact that Christ is our example and perfect sacrifice for our sins. By the way, there are many who are claiming that the Bible added verses over the centuries. This is why the new translations simply cut the equivalent of 1 and 2 Peter from the New Testament. Only the KJV and NKJV, of the well known versions, retain the traditional text. I encourage you to study deeper on this topic. I have many videos and playlists on it here on the channel.
I truly don’t understand why people find it so necessary to deviate from the KJV. It’s so bothersome. In our town there are only two churches that read from kjv. One landmarkism and one with “close communion.” Makes finding an appropriate church difficult. Because briders/landmarkism come with their fair share of pride and abuse.
Because it uses the very, very late manuscripts, most translations use far older manuscripts that are far, far closer to the original events than what the KJV used. The KJV is still very accurate for such a strange thing, and I love it.
The KJV and the NKJV use the correct text to translate the bible into English. The KJV is painstakingly exact from a 1611 viewpoint and the NKJV seeks to be more instantly understandable. Perhaps that truth would help widen your search for a church?
Mercy vs lovingkindness. same hebrew word. One denotes one type of God and the other denotes another type of God. We must remember that the Bible in England was meant for the common people. I find that the NASB is good for a common person.
Every translation uses different words when moving into English because sometimes the original word has a different meaning that must be ascertained by the translator.
Serious question, What Bible is the best to teach English to non-English speakers? I get complaints when I try to teach English using the KJV. Is the NASB better than the NKJV? What Bible is like 2nd best to the KJV if you had to choose?
The NKJV has all the verses the KJV has but isn’t as extremely exact as the KJV. It sacrifices extreme exactness for instant understandability. I have a video on here comparing those two and will have a video premiering soon called “Can I read a Bible other then the KJV?” that will discuss this deeper. I hope you will be looking out for it.
Also consider the MEV(Modern English Version), a more recent KJV update. As well as these KJV update variants:KJV2000, KJV21, KJVER(Easy Reader), and Simplified KJV.
@@John3.36 Well the MEV is scaled at an 11th-12th grade reading level, there apparently isn’t a reading level as of yet been applied to the KJVER, or the Simplified KJV? In the TR/Majority Text family there is also the WEB(World English Bible- literal/formal equivalence), and the MLV(Modern Literal Version- literal/formal equivalence). I haven’t seen very many reviews on either? From what I have read online they seem better than the Alexandrian options? Here’s some tips, or guidance that I believe will help you, and others. Growing up I had some learning challenges, and a speech impediment. The KJV was the dominant Bible, when I was about 12 I was introduced to the NIV, then the NASB. They seemed easier to read, but I could never memorize them? My best friend’s mom was an English/music teacher, and started working with me vocally. My pastor had given me the KJV on cassette tapes, and had me listening at night while sleeping. Progressing to listening while I was actually reading out loud. My friend’s mom knew about my pastor giving me the cassette tape. She told me not to be concerned about the thee’s, and thou’s etc, because the Elizabethan English is the highest form of English(she said contemporary English was heavily degraded, and that was 44 years ago). So by listening, and forcing myself to read/speak it out loud helped me tremendously, and corrected my speech. All the while having me do vocal exercises with rhymes, and music, even putting scripture to music. This actually worked, curing my speech, and helping me to put scripture to memory. But it only works with the KJV, the others do not(I tried)! Though I continued to use the NIV(78&84), and NASB(77&95) for more than 30 years along with the KJV. The missing verses, passages, phrases, brackets, notes etc always bothered me, and never set well in my spirit? The Berean in me kicked in, with much study, and research seeking out the matter! I have come to a TR/Majority Text/Byzantine type text only, and a KJV preferred/best position! I have no problem with Grammatical updates that help people read, and learn God’s word. Having had my difficulties growing up, so I empathize with people who might struggle. I am confident that if you incorporate the tools that were taught to me, you will see great results!
I struggled with this. I grew up hardcore independent fundamental Baptist; If you owned anything other than KJV, then you "needed to get right with God". I walked away from church for over a decade, and only began attending again about a year and a half ago. The pastor preaches from NASB and occasionally KJV. I was encouraged to make the switch, and it sent me on an expedition. I decided to go to the beginning of the English Bible and move forward. I purchased reprints of the Tyndale, Matthew's, geneva, 1611 KJV, and I also picked up an LSB. Long story short, I decided to stick with "the one that brung me". However, in my opinion KJV onlyism is a foolish hill (for me) to die on, and I wouldn't let that detract from an otherwise wonderful group of believers. The 1611 KJV has been revised twice, something I NEVER heard about until I began this search. So for people to state "Praise God, I'm proud to be preaching out of the Authorized King James bible!" Well, ya really aren't. You're preaching out of the 1789 revision, and ole' James was long dead when that occurred. Now remember, I still own and exclusively use KJV, I'm simply stating facts. I don't believe that all translations following the KJV are bad, but I do believe one needs to prayerfully search and compare it to......the KJV. By the way, I'm just one county over from you, near the tourist trap.
You will have to come and visit us sometime! By the way, I am not KJV only. I do trust in the Traditional Text over the Critical Text though which all the modern versions use except the KJV and NKJV. I use the NKJV these days in the pulpit, but I do believe and teach that the KJV is the most exact of the two to the original languages, yet not as instantly understandable because of the archaisms that aren't easy to find definitions for even today.
I respectfully disagree. I'll continue use modern translations and reference the KJV when I deem necessary. God bless you and your ministry Brother Ingram. 🙏
Thanks for watching. I understand if you didn’t agree with my opinions but I hope you learned something more from the facts presented. It have enjoyed discussing this with you.
I would encourage you to look deeper into the subject. Modern translations are full of errors,deletions,etc. They attack the deity of Christ and have been muddled with by Satan. God preserved his word and it's in the KJV. It's easily proven with just little research.
@@markrobertsministries thank you for caring enough to notify me. I have done some research and I'm convinced that it's better to use a Bible that's based off of ALL manuscript evidence, rather than essentially only 4 manuscripts. Though he had 10 available, he relied upon 4 of them much more than the others, including the fact that he only referenced the oldest of those in 22 places. I recommend you look into the differences between Erasmus's 2nd and 3rd editions of his Greek New Testament. Luther's German translation was based on the 2nd edition and the KJV based on the 3rd. There's an important difference between them. The author mentioned to me that no English translation was based on the 1st or 2nd editions of Erasmus's work, but he neglected to mention Luther's translation and that seems biased to me. Regardless of their differences, no major doctrine is changed by them and to claim that the differences between the two traditions amounts to 1st and 2nd Timothy is disingenuous at best. The vast majority of those differences are the same kinds as those between the different versions of the KJV editions: missing punctuation, misspelled words, missing words, mixed word orders, etc. Yes, there are some major differences, such as the inclusion or exclusion of whole verses, however these are always provided in footnotes or bracketed, so they're present regardless and at worst one could say they're not treated as authentic, but they're available for the reader, in conjunction with the Holy Spirit, to decide and inform themselves. I recommend everyone spend some time studying textual criticism and the transmission of the Bible to inform themselves on these subjects and in coordination with the Holy Spirit, come to their own conclusions regarding which translation(s) to use. I'm sure the author would heartily agree with this. I would never tell anyone not to use the KJV, I would just recommend they use multiple versions to get a good sense of what's being communicated. Thanks again for your kind regards, may God bless you and those you love richly in Christ Jesus!
@@a.k.7840 I would not use or read any of the corrupt versions but I wouldn't break fellowship with you over it. It's much more than manuscript evidence that convinced me the kjv was the preserved word in English.
@@markrobertsministries nor would I, but of course, whether they're corrupt is a matter of opinion regarding the facts. For example the Johannine comma wasn't found by Erasmus in any of the manuscripts he had, per his own testimony. That's why his first two editions of the Greek New Testament the it isn't present. It wasn't until a manuscript from England was "miraculously found" by a scribe and presented to Erasmus who was under pressure from the church to include it since it was already in many of the Latin translations. Let us also not forget that no major doctrine is changed by the differences between the two major traditions which agree with one another the overwhelming majority of the time. Lastly, to disregard older manuscripts in favor of newer ones runs counter to the science of textual criticism. I'm convinced that the closer we get to the autographs in age, the more agreement we'll find between the two major manuscript traditions. A breakthrough in manuscript evidence not of the Alexandrian tradition seems just over the horizon, what with all the archaeological finds these days. God bless you always.
Ok great but what frustrates me is WHY won't someone produce the AV into modern English, just as it is BUT in modern English. I have the AV but obviously I don't speak Elizabethan English so I don't understand half the time. If only there is a translation that is based on the same sources as the AV that would make my day ! . That is my present endeavour, honestly it's just one big money racket !
I have found the NKJV to be suitable as a modern equivalent. It does use the same sources no matter what many say, I discussed that here: Why Use the New King James Version? ruclips.net/video/3N3Y22QdvLQ/видео.html
I will start with your presupposition, that there must be a standard: no, it is not reasonable to assume that the English language should have a standard translation for books that were not written in English. The majority of scholars do a firm that the nasb is more accurate than the king james, considering the plethora of poor translation choices in the kjv, and considering all of the failures of the English translators, only some of which have been corrected in these last few hundred years. One obvious problem being the over-reliance on the masoretic text, not allowing the now proven to be older Septuagint to correct the masoretic, such as the ages of men in Kings and chronicles, at least two of which are inaccurately represented thanks to smudges in the masoretic texts. Regardless, no, it is not reasonable to suggest their odds to be a standard version of the Bible in english, considering that our standard is in Greek, Aramaic and Latin. We have the software and technology to where we know for a fact what the original words of the Bible are, and we know how to translate each word. It's no longer out of our reach. So no, I disagree with even your presupposition that we need an English standard, why would we when we have the ability to translate the originals, and we have the ability to compare the very slightly different translations?
When one translation is using a different base in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, then they are not presenting the same standard. The Critical Text which underlies the NASB 2020 and is frequently referenced in the NASB 95, is not the traditional text passed down from generation to generation that the KJV and NKJV uses. While many receive the KJV in English as the standard, I see it as the most exact translation of the standard which is the traditional text. I also see the NKJV as a more instantly understandable translation of that traditional text. I discussed that here: Why Use the New King James Version? ruclips.net/video/3N3Y22QdvLQ/видео.html
The KJV is most accurate to the Byzantine Masoretic manuscripts while the NASV is most accurate to the Alexandrian texts in losing uh missing verses. James White seems to be biased as he was pretty much raised in the modern oat camp.
Of course the Word of God is being attacked. . . . But I see the KJVO crowd attacking other translations maybe even more than the KJV is attacked. I am an NKJV fan.
The KJV is absolutely beautiful..not hard at all..when I come across an archaic word that i don't understand a simple quick search on the internet gives you the answer.
@@spartacusx8153 I’m not against the KJV. I’ve read it through several times. I’m a huge fan of looking words up. But there were words I was misunderstanding that I didn’t know to look up because they meant something different all those years ago. Again, I’m not against the KJV, but I am against being a hindrance to someone who wants to read a modern translation.
@customstoryteller In my journey in discovering and comparing the KJV based on the Greek Textus Receptus vs the modern versions based on the Egyptian Alexandrian texts..there are critical and troublesome differences..the greatest are the numerous omissions or translations the deny and diminish the deity of Jesus Christ in the modern Bibles..to a novice believer the modern translations are extremely dangerous. There are many videos which compare and contrast..
Wrong. The 1611 contained the Apocrypha. Much more was removed then what was contained in 1 and 2 Peter. If you’re gonna go out on a limb and talk in absolutes, get your facts right.
The 1611 did contain the apocrypha but the apocrypha is not sacred scripture. Removing it is no different than removing study notes. Removing the equivalent of 1 and 2 Peter from the sacred scripture is much different.
@@PastorScottIngram Roger that. I just wanted to clarify as most AV users are not even familiar with their own Bibles history, much less the changes that have occurred since its original printing. Such as for example the Translator’s preface to the readers that appears to be missing from most AV formats today, which certainly would create doubt to the arguments presented to its authenticity as the one and only inspired Word of God. Just my humble opinion.
"Spurgeon’s most famous break from the KJV happened in July 1885, when he preached a sermon titled “'And We Are' - A Jewel from the Revised Version.” The great preacher trusted the judgments of textual critics and based his sermon on a phrase not found in the KJV. He began by saying, "A genuine fragment of inspired Scripture has been dropped by our older translators, and it is far too precious to be lost. Did not our Lord say, 'Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost?' The half lost portion of our text is restored to us in the Revised Version. … They ought never to have dropped out. In the judgment of the most learned, and those best to be relied on, these are veritable words of inspiration." -- "Was Spurgeon King James Only?" Elijah Hixson
What verse is he speaking of in that quote? My concern is not with small issues of translation but with the elimination of the equivalent of 1 and 2 Peter from the New Testament text via acceptance of the Critical Text's constantly changing text.
@@PastorScottIngram 1 Jn 3:1 "DEAR friends, the most of my text will be found in our Old Version; but for once I shall ask you to look elsewhere for a part of it. "A genuine fragment of inspired Scripture has been dropped by our older translators, and it is too precious to be lost. Did not our Lord say, “Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost”? The half lost portion of our text is restored to us in the Revised Version. Never did a translation of the New Testament fail more completely than this Revised Version has done as a book for general reading: but as an assistant to the student it deserves honourable mention, despite its faults. It exhibits here and there special beauties, and has, no doubt, in certain places brought into notice words of sacred Scripture which had fallen out: we have a notable instance in my present text. Turn to the First Epistle of John, the third chapter, at the first verse:- “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God” "So far we keep to our Authorized Version. Now read the Revised Version, and note the words added- “Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God: and such we are.” "The word “such” is not in the original. We therefore leave it out, and then we get the words AND WE ARE. There are only two words in the Greek - “and we are.” That the addition is correct I have not the slightest doubt. Those authorities upon which we depend- those manuscripts which are best worthy of notice- have these words; and they are to be found in the Vulgate, the Alexandrian, and several other versions. They ought never to have dropped out. In the judgment of the most learned, and those best to be relied on, these are veritable words of inspiration. So far as doctrine is concerned, it does not matter much whether they are or are not in the original text, because we get the same words farther on. “Beloved, now are we children of God, and it is not yet made manifest what we shall be. We know that, if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him; for we shall see him even as he is.”
One difference between the KJV and most modern versions concerns the very basics of our salvation. Sadly to say many preachers and Bible teachers don't know our doctrine of salvation, therefore they don't miss it when it is gone. The difference is whether we are justified by our own faith in Christ (which can ebb and flow) or are we justified by the gift of the Faith of Christ. Once again it's very sad most preachers have no clue, or if they do, they prefer to use the former as a milestone around their congregations' neck.
I spoke On the faith of or in Christ in a verse in Galatians and the answer, at least in that verse, isn’t as clear as one would think. Is "Faith OF Christ" or "Faith IN Christ" the Correct Translation in Galatians? ruclips.net/video/pKL-yZy72ZM/видео.html
Your videos are to long…..why? Because what you have been saying can be all said in that there is no translation other than KJB… done…. 500 years is nothing in time compared to 2,100 years. What we must do then. We must fully rely on The Holy Spirit, not those who camp out in Bible translation tribes. We live in the days of God ministry on the earth in The Holy Spirit, Jesus is not here as He was before, The Holy Spirit is. Everything in the Bible is truthfully stated, yet not everything in the Bible is true today.
Actually, that isn’t exactly what I’m saying at all. I explained it in this video: Is It Okay to Read A Bible OTHER Than the KJV? ruclips.net/video/DPEfBat8txI/видео.html
7 books have been removed from the original Bible the Canon of Scripture, therefore they are both corrupt, If they have differences, it does not matter because they have been altered by man..@@PastorScottIngram
There are a labyrinth of religions, churches, and Bibles in the world. Some have fallen away as mythology. The truth is that there is a God on earth and has been here for many millions of years. The jealous God, the Lord of hosts, is behind most if not all of these Bibles and religions, with the KJV 1769 being the last translation and final word of the Lord of hosts. The Bible was not written for all mankind, the Bible was written for one man and One Spirit. You see, the Jealous God was trying to claim to be above the God of the earth, who was known as the Ancient of days. Ancient of days because his Spirit was the first Spirit made for creation and therefore the oldest and most powerful. After the Jealous God finalized his plans, he placed two curses at the end of the New Testament, not to change what was said. What the Jealous God was doing was presenting an argument to the God of the earth, which goes like this: I have presented you with my plans against you, and you could not prevent me, so how can you be above me? The Jealous God and his son Jesus did kill the Ancient of days Spirit, and he lost his Soul, but he got his Soul back with a new Spirit and this Spirit was called the infant of days. The Lord of host married this new Spirit in Isaiah 54 and his son also married this Spirit in Rev. 19. They thought by changing the Male Spirit of the Ancient of days into a female Spirit that through marriage they could claim to be above this new Spirit. They were wrong.
@@PastorScottIngram Could be a little more specific on what you disagree with. I know we are miles apart, and I don't expect you to change your position.
The King James Only Controversy by Dr James White really opened my eyes to the error of KJV-onlyism. It’s an ignorant and naive position to take. There are renderings in the NASB that are far more accurate to the greek than the KJV.
The problem you will find if you study over it diligently is “Which Greek?” That is my main concern. I discuss it further here: “Is It Okay to Read A Bible OTHER Than the KJV?” ruclips.net/video/DPEfBat8txI/видео.html
@@PastorScottIngram Yes I’m familiar with the differences between the manuscript traditions. I’ve studied the process of textual transmission and the process of preservation, etc. I used to rail against the Critical Text before I had a real understanding of what it actually is.
Good presentation. From what I have found in studying other translations such as the esv, nlt, nasb, specifically study bibles, what I see is the notes may be well structured but the more versions you study the more versions you need and the more questions you have the more confused you become. There is one Lord, one Faith, and One baptism. The apostles baptized in that name Jesus Christ. I have studied textual critics for hundreds if not thousands of hours and studied the history of the supposed oldest and best manuscripts. The holy bible in English calls the serpent the devil check this out. Vaticanus means divining serpent. Codex vaticanus is locked in the personal library of the pope in the Vatican city which the popes area winds and curves like a serpent. The serpent was more subtil the real bible says. I will not and i refuse to base my life on a foundation of bible translations that come from a manuscript that literally means divining serpent. Its absolutely insane. This is literally like asking satan to be our guide instead of Jesus Christ being our guide. Codex Sinaiticus is a forgery that has never actually proven its authenticity. It codex sanaiticus has never been chemically tested to prove its actual age. The pseudo science of paleography which is basically looking at something and saying how old it is was invented by the catholics who by looking at vodex sinainaticus and saying this looks older than anything we got nevermind that there are portions of codex sanaiticus that are white as snow that are now called Frederico Augustanus which is what Tischendorf cut out of sinainaticus on his first trip to the fake mount sanai at catherines monastary (it definitely is not the monastary of God Almighty). It should be interesting that what tischendorf called codex sanaiticus upon his return to the fake mount sanai ended up having an aged yellowish look asif someone stained it from white to yellow. But because some catholic pseudo science says its older look its older (this is fake) then we should believe it? Seriously? There is a reason why none of and i repeat none of your modern text critics will test these manuscripts such as vaticanus (divining serpent) and sanaiticus (fake forgery) is because they could not handle nor face the fact that they have believed a lie and all that they have taught and known is a diluted version of the truth (yea hath God said?) There is also huge money in the bible making business. My final thought is this: if you move away from the kjv then you have to accept all other 200 plus translations into English as your standard which means no standard if you trust in only the kjv you have only one standard. All other translations besides the kjv are.based on faulty forged manuscripts and/or have notes referring to those faulty fake manuscripts. One more thing: why would you trust someone who is a textual critic of Gods word as if the word of man is better than the Word of the Lovely Lord Jesus Christ
The "god" of all these modern translations can't remember who he let into the promised land, but he's somehow going to get you to heaven? 🤔 Hebrews 3:16 For who provoked Him when they had heard? Indeed, did not all those who came out of Egypt led by Moses? [NASB1995] Hebrews 3:16 For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses? [ESV] Hebrews 3:16 For which ones heard and rebelled? Was it not all who came out of Egypt under Moses’ leadership? [NET] Hebrews 3:16 For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt, led by Moses? [NKJV] Compare those "solid" modern translations to the truth of the ONLY pure word of God for English speaking people. Hebrews 3:16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. [AKJV] God bless!! 🙂
In my opinion, the KJV is clearly superior here. However, the others use rhetorical devices. NASB more clearly gets the point across, though to the modern ear, and I would be interested in understanding if rhetorical devices were used in Koine Greek (the original language of the New Testament) for this verse.
Kjv isn't like that,I hold it higher because of common sense, it has a strongs concordance and the mistakes are so easy to learn do to so much information over kjv,so well known
I used to have bunch of books like behind you,got tired of packing them around, I found a tool,Rick Mayers has a free PC esword download, you can download load everything on your sword free,and get the manuscripts too,and get strongs numbers already added to your kjv and wave your mouse over number and get the words,if you like to study,it will be a good tool for you
It's simple; If your bible has changed Proverbs 18:1 to read that you should not get alone with God and fast and pray then it is a PERversion from the pits of hell.
KJV: Through desire a man, having separated himself, seeketh and intermeddleth with all wisdom. NKJV: 1 A man who isolates himself seeks his own desire; He rages against all wise judgment. Do you understand what “intermeddleth” means? Here is the definition of the original Hebrew word translated: g̱âla‘; a primitive root; to be obstinate: - (inter-)meddle (with). AV (3) - meddle 2, intermeddle 1; to expose, lay bare(Hithpael)to disclose oneself, break outto break out (in contention) I don’t think your reference is the best argument for your position.
Thank you pastor Scott - after getting saved in 73 initially started with KJV - but a young pastor encouraged the NASB - read for 30 years! 20 years ago my son gave me a pocket palm and the only free translation was a KJV- the rest is history - as I read and compared I became convinced ! The KJB is my only Bible 😊❤🇳🇿
Nothing wrong with that! Thanks for sharing!
What is interesting about the NASB is that it was idited and retranslated over and over many times and the last time was in 2020. I have a NASB from 1972 and it is closer in sounding like the KJV than the 2020 retranslation. Actually the KJV we have now has been edited about 17 times, although these were slight editing. I was saved in 1968 and all of the churches used the KJV through many years. I cut my teeth on the noble KJV. I memorized many scriptures from this version and still do.
From my studies, I have found there are 4 revisions and some consider the NKJV to be the fifth.
After the original 1611 King James Bible, four major revisions were already made, each done to reflect current English usage:
1629 - First Bible printed by Cambridge University Press
1638 - Printed by Thomas Buck and Roger Daniel
1762 - Printed by Dr. Thomas Paris, Trinity College, Cambridge University
1769 - Printed by Dr. Benjamin Blayney, Oxford University
Until now, the standard King James Version available has been the revision of 1769. The New King James Version was and is still advertised, not as a new translation, but as the fifth major revision of the KJV Bible in 1982.
I have the KJB, NKJB, NASB, and ESV. I'm confident they are each the Word of God. Thank you heavenly Father ❤🙏
The only problem I see is that that some of those translations have all the Words of God and some don’t. Those who don’t are more like storybook bibles than actual translations because, in a storybook bible, all the information is not given. I discuss this fully in this playlist if you’re interested:
What is the Difference in Bible Translations?
ruclips.net/p/PL-dMPDGX0OTGut0jB-MEDj-Qf-bupIG6X
Hi, I am struggling with which is best for me to read. All you have listed are the exact ones I have been looking into. Which is most accurate from the original text from Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek, yet easier to read?
@@Myan937of KJV is a hard read, which I think it is, the NKJV is easier to understand and sticks close to the KJV. I have ESV also which isn't bad, CSB is easy to read too, the NASB is too but supposedly a lot of stuff has been taken out. NKJV if you want to stay as close to KJV with an easier reading.
As someone who has read the NRSV through once and the NKJV twice, I can say that for daily devotions (Morning and Evening Prayer) I usually use the KJV and I use the ESV when I am presenting the bible study for our group at work where we have a weekly bible study, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your detailed explanation of some of the issues with modern translations of the text. God Bless you!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I am glad you are studying these things out .
Thank you Pastor for the breakdown. Absolutely great information
Thanks! I’m glad it was a blessing!
Love the NASB, it's a great translation like the KJV is a great translation... I suggest reading from multiple translations to get the most out of it, you will grow more spiritually from Reading multiple translations than just sticking with one
Crickets! I see a lot of similarities between the NASB and KJV crowds, I think they appeal to different inclinations, though I'm not sure how to articulate it.
@nobodyspecial1852 That was a good way to speak the truth. I just want the most accurate version to grasp true wisdom and know the true works that should be held to the end. I ask God to bless me with a life were I may learn the biblical language because that will be the closest to understanding gods mind.
@@greglovelace246 KJV will be the most accurate, but the issue is that is written in a way that words meant one thing in 1600's and it means differently to you to in 2000's. I primarily use the KJV, but will use the NSAB if the language is hard to understand. Sometimes the KJV will give more clarity on something than the NSAB will.
KJV
NKJV
ESV
NIV
And the NASB… I read and love all of them because in whatever degree you wish to choose, they each contain the Word in some amount. I hold the KJV and NASB up as my roots. The ESV and NKJV as my reinforcement of respective interpretation. And the NIV as my commentary.
I’m flourishing in understanding and love for the Word.
I say do what brings you closer to God and spend less time worried about this & that. Pick a translation and dedicate yourself. And realize all the time you spend pointing out supposed inaccuracies… you could have studied an entire doctrine or two.
God Bless to all in our Lord Christ.
I have actually read thru 7 of the modern English translations.
Do you have recommendations for further research and commentaries?
I would encourage you to read Arthur Farstad's "In the Great Tradition" first on this topic. Chuck Smith's "Why I Choose the KJV" is another great one.
I also have created an entire playlist on this subject if you would like to check it out as well. In the video comparison on the CSB, I mention several other books for research: studio.ruclips.net/user/playlistPL-dMPDGX0OTGut0jB-MEDj-Qf-bupIG6X/videos
This is one of the many reasons why Christians cannot quote Scriptures. In the last few years alone, we have had NASB replacing ESV to some extent and then LSB replacing NASB. which version is one ought to memorize? Also, i cannot help but notice but these translations are favorites among Calvinists. Is it really truth that's a driving factor for a new translation or ulterior motives? The former seems to be diluted with each new translation that is published and marketed. New translations do not carry the credibility that KJV does.
I think you are right about the credibility of the KJV and that fact infuriates those who are constantly changing, not just the English of the Bible, but the Hebrew and Greek underlying it as well.
Thank you for clearing up this issue for me! My KJV is perfect.
@Nick-wn1xwwhat’s your point?
I’m glad it was a blessing and helped you trust more fully the Bible in your hands!
Another great video. Your delivery on this subject is very graceful. There are several who do content like this on RUclips but their delivery is off putting. Thank you for your hard work. It allows us to be able to point to it for reference. God bless sir.
Thanks! I’m glad it was a blessing!
The basis of KJV Bible is the Textus Receptus of Desederius Erasmus. And Erasmus based his Greek translation from 7 manuscripts only. Whereas many modern english translations today like NKJV, NASB, CBS, ESV, MEV, LSB, NET, NIV etc…are based their translations from almost 26,000 manuscripts. KJV included many scriptures which are not in the original, they are marginal notes wrote by many who copied the scriptures to clarify certain things in those verses. Therefore modern english Bible translations did not actually remove many scriptures. It’s the KJV bible that added many words which are not in the original 26,000 manuscripts. Therefore Modern English Bible Translations are not satanic, but reliable, because the basis are oldiest more reliable manuscripts.
Actually,
the NKJV uses the same manuscripts as the KJV.
Erasmus is not the basis of the 1611 and that first compilation is not the basis of any translation. The later compilations of the TR are the basis.
and the other modern translations are using a modern text that has removed and cast doubt on texts that have clearly via actual texts in our heads today been in the text for several centuries and I would argue have been there from the beginning.
I do believe that God would not allow people to use the KJV for so long with it being unreliable, and the amount of time it was used encourages me that it is a superb translation. That being said, I also like the NASB 1995 or LSB for modern reading.
Thankyou for your wonderfully educational videos.
Thank you for the encouragement!
What do you prefer is accurate I want to ?buy it
I find the KJV to most accurate (especially if you are familiar with English in 1611) and the NKJV to be the most instantly understandable. Both are using the traditional Text passed down for centuries. I discuss this more here: ruclips.net/video/3N3Y22QdvLQ/видео.html
I know this discussion about the best Bible will never end. Hundreds of videos. I feel if you enjoy reading a Bible and feel the Holy Ghost is guiding you then that’s the best for you. I felt that after many years of changing I came across the NASB 1995 after hearing John MacArthur and others. I do use NJKB and check out others. I stay away from paraphrase, but agin ask for wisdom from God like I did He will show you.
thanks for sharing your thoughts. I discuss more on these issues here: ruclips.net/p/PL-dMPDGX0OTGut0jB-MEDj-Qf-bupIG6X
The NASB revolutionized my view of God. I grew up with the KJV and when I started with the NASB, I saw God in a totally different light and one that made God more approachable. I know the late Dr. Charles Stanley used both. Example the word mercy vs lovingkindness. Mercy denotes someone withholding punishment while lovingkindness promotes a God who is a special kindness for humans. Quite a different picture. The KJV has two words in Ps. 36. Mercy at the beginning of list of God's attributes and lovingkindness at the end. The truth is that it is the same hebrew word which further amplifies God's character. Same in Ps. 107 the hebrew is translated mercy, goodness and lovingkindness in the KJV. It is all the same word hesed. This makes so much sense since the whole chapter is about God's lovingkindness.
I know Bible teachers that I trust who use the NASB, but I cannot consider it as good translation. These are the main concerns that I have with the NASB: the constant changes between editions and the deletion of verses. Their use of the Critical Text undermines the authority of the Bible because it is not solid. If one needs help with the archaic words of the KJV, I suggest using the NKJV. I discussed that here: ruclips.net/video/3N3Y22QdvLQ/видео.html
I think you’re wise to read more than one translation.
When I was radically saved and transformed, a huge weight I hadn't realized I had been carrying my whole life was removed. By the time I scraped myself off the floor from crying and apologizing for all of the rotten things I'd done, I was a completely new person. All I knew for sure was Satan was real and rampaging across the world trying to destroy everything God created, that God was REAL and it was the God of the bible and that the bible was the truth, that heaven and hell were real and that Jesus Christ was the truth and I'd better find out what he'd done and fast. I knew I needed a bible immediately and I PRAYED to God to show me which one. I'd been fooled for the first 45 years of my life and I'd always mocked Christians and their "hundred" versions so I prayed for God to lead me to the right one. I was given 4 bibles. I'd read the first paragraph and toss, I knew that I knew that I knew they weren't right UNTIL I was given a KJV. I knew immediately it was God's word and have no need whatsoever to look at anything else, why would I? God led me and what men think has no bearing whatsoever. You can accuse me of being in a cult or whatever you want----I'm answering to God almighty and if you're still confused about versions, I'd encourage you to ask and pray. God bless!!! (In the 1800's it seems Satan has been saying "Yea, hath God said?" and men are joining him.
Praise the Lord for your testimony
For a clearer reading of the scriptures I read from the NKJV.
I think that is great. The NKJV uses the same traditional text as the KJV.
Wasnt the Apocrypha in the 1611 KJV? I would say removing complete books is more than a minor change. No hate, just a baby Christian navigating through a sea of translations.
The King James translators never considered the apocrypha the Word of God.
I addressed the issue of the apocrypha here:
Why is the Apocrypha NOT in the Bible?
ruclips.net/video/M6MVjzn0lFM/видео.html
What is the meaning behind critical text and traditional text ? Sry i don't know if you explained it in this video but when i was watching this video i couldn't focus on what you were saying that happens to me a lot
Here is one of my first videos on this topic:
Why Are They Changing the Bible? (Textus Receptus vs The Critical Text)
ruclips.net/video/mTZvP_9VBaA/видео.html
Hey Pastor, isn't that a set of John MacArthur's Commentaries on your bookshelves which is based off of the NASB? Just asking
Yes, it is. There are several things on which Dr. MacArthur and I would agree, but his choice of translation is not one of them. If you noticed, I mentioned he is now promoting his new LSB which is based off the NASB95 that he has used for years. He is now having to promote the LSB because his NASB95 has been updated in 2020 and he felt the need to change it rather than move forward with the translation update. I feel this proves the points I made in the video about these constant drastic changes we have seen within the NASB.
Your work is needed and very soon many will flock to your vids!!! Glory To Christ 🛐❤️🔥Thank you big brother
I am glad the Lord is using this to help people trust His Word.
Pastor what is your take on the Majority text?
Well, there really isn't an English translation of it that I am aware of, so it is doing little good for anyone in that state. It was Arthur Farstead, the General Editor of the NKJV, who was the main person that produced it. It is referenced in the footnotes of the NKJV. After his death, there has been little interest in producing a translation from it. I understand that it is very close the Textus Receptus.
@@PastorScottIngram I believe the WEB translation which is only available online uses this text.
I believe maybe they just came out with a print version. It is on bible gateway if you ever feel like looking into it! Its also public domain since that was the goal of this version aswell, they wanted the Bible to be easy to use and access for everyone.
First time viewer. Just curious your background in the original text. God Bless!
Thanks for watching.
This video explains my journey: ruclips.net/video/DPEfBat8txI/видео.html
These videos are other comparisons that I have put together: studio.ruclips.net/user/playlistPL-dMPDGX0OTGut0jB-MEDj-Qf-bupIG6X/videos
I hope that helps.
@@PastorScottIngram thanks so much! I’m on a journey myself to find the accurate scriptures and be as articulate as you are! Thanks for the reply!
Can I still trust the nabre Bible for the most part?
The NASB uses the critical text and not the traditional text. The modern critical text removes the equivalent of 1 and 2 Peter from the words of the New Testament from the traditional text used for centuries. I, personally, only trust traditional text translations. Today, the most popular of those are the KJV and the NKJV. I discussed this here:
Why Use the New King James Version?
ruclips.net/video/3N3Y22QdvLQ/видео.html
Thank you I might compare the KJV and nabre and when I see differences in the nabre Bible from the KJV I will correct the nabre and put the KJV text because I kinda like the nabre Bible text the way it says stuff
Btw What do you mean by the new critical text removes the equivalent of 1rst and second Peter
Thank you pastor Scott. I have just recently become aware of the KJV only movement, and have viewed several videos both for and against. I was a NASB reader, believing that it was the best version to read. However you and others have convinced me that this is not the case. It seems to me that a lot of people are making a lot of money putting out revisions of the Bible based on three questionable texts. I have now switched over to KJV but it is more difficult reading than the NASB. Thank you for your video. God bless.
Yup!! I used to think the NIV was okay.. though I only used it on Sunday/Wed.. its not until I put my faith alone in Christ and started to read the Bible... I started to invesitgate... also the "Copyright" thing on the modern bibles should have been a red flag. God bless you!! Also watch out for counterfiet KJV's.
Just pray about it. Let God give you the answer and share the news. There are many people that do not want to hear about the differences. Remember to share the news with the right spirit as to not become “to good” for others to listen to the evidence. God Bless.
I’m glad it was a blessing and helpful. I have a whole playlist on this issue that you may find helpful. You can find it here: ruclips.net/p/PL-dMPDGX0OTGut0jB-MEDj-Qf-bupIG6X
Yes!! I seen enough, I am sticking with KJV..A lot of the words in the KJV are easily defined in the text or in the context or futher reading.. quite interesting... its like a scvanger hunt or a project. Learn new words scuh as he-goat, she-goat.. and stuff.. if we can learn new words for school or work, we can surely take the time to learn new words for the Bible@@PastorScottIngram
Welcome to the cult!😂😂😂
Can you review the LSV translation???
Maybe one day
The biggest difference is roughly 400 years of development in the English language. There are words that exist now in English that better explain the Hebrew and Greek words.
Actually the NASB has removed many of those Hebrew and Greek word’s from the text today and I would consider that a bigger difference.
Thank you, it was a blessing.
I'm glad is was a help to you!
@@PastorScottIngram interesting
Ok let's ask a question that is very important. If you shall confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus vs if you shall confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord. which is correct?
I think both of those are saying the same thing
A better question would be What is the difference in the NASB and the NASB. I used the 1977 NASB mostly for 20 years and had memorized many verses & entire chapters word for word. One day my bible was stolen & my pastor gave me a new 1995 NASV. When reading Psalm 22, which I had memorized, I noticed they had changed about two-thirds of the 31 verses. Why had they made so many changes in less than 20 years? The 1611 version of the KJB has been virtually unchanged for over 400 years. When I began researching the subject I couldn't believe all of the errors in the newer PER-versions and for the last 15 years have stuck with the true word and WORDS of God in the AUTHORIZED Version. Since then I have been a member of the King James Bible Baptist Church in NY..
We distribute bibles and hundreds of gospel tracts in many languages every Sunday at 51st Street & Broadway in Manhattan.
That is so true! Why such change in such a short time? I am glad to hear that you became aware of this and that you are attending a faithful church! Thanks for sharing!
In your opinion. Should one leave a church Over landmarkism doctrine?
There are things that we can agree to disagree about in the bible. One must ask him or her self is this something so prevalent in that church that I disagree with that I cannot fellowship with them any longer? It is against salvation and how i see others salvation? How will my family be affected by it? Pray and seek God's guidance and I am sure it will become clear.
In reference to timestamp 19:00, the holy bible Knox version contains all the versus that were removed in other versions. So, if you want a more reader friendly version, the Knox version is a great one to get because it was written in the 20th century. I would still recommend buying the KJV study bible second edition.
I have the KJV, 2020 NASB, and Knox version. What he mentions is true and surprising about NASB.
I have never heard of the Knox version. I will have to check that out
A retro axiom observed that translations are like women: they are either faithful of beautiful.
The SASB is faithful. It lacks any hint of the Bard.
The NKJ is both beautiful and faithful,
Interesting thought. My main concern is that not all translations are translating all the original words. Thankfully that isn’t a problem with the KJV and NKJV.
I just found this out... the ending of Mark is removed and also is the story about the aduletress woman.. its not actually removed in the new bibles.. but they put the divider with the brackets of: these are not found in the ealiest manuscripts.. umm
Yes, many don't know these things.
@@PastorScottIngram Yeah! God bless :)
There are no English translations which are totally accurate. It is just not possible since the original languages were so different than modern English. If you want the original Word, you have to go back to the original Greek and Hebrew. In the meantime, when I read the Bible I use a parallel version so I have several translations open at the same time so I can check back and forth between them.
That is good, but do you consider the differences in the Critical Text and the Traditional text when studying? I discussed those differences here: ruclips.net/video/mTZvP_9VBaA/видео.html
I recently started reading the NASB, and it’s great. I was KJV-only for many years, and then I actually did honest study of KJV-onlyism and realized it’s a foolish and uneducated position to take. There are many great translations; KJV; NASB, ESV, even the NLT is very good. Makes many passages so much easier to get UNDERSTANDING. Words change meaning over time, sentence structure changes, etc. A lot of ppl who are KJV only don’t even understand their KJV. “Study” to show thyself approved for example, study back then meant to be diligent in effort, not study how we use it today.
God bless you all!
I am not KJV only in the sense that it is implied by many who have characterized that ideal by pointing out people who believe God re-inspired the Bible in English in 1611. I am against the removal of the equivalent of 1 and 2 Peter from the Greek underlying text. I have playlist on this whole topic on RUclips, but this video may help summarize a lot of it:
Is It Okay to Read A Bible OTHER Than the KJV?
ruclips.net/video/DPEfBat8txI/видео.html
@@PastorScottIngram It’s not a “removal” if it was never in the original manuscripts. And that’s the point KJV-onlyists don’t seem to grasp. They make the KJV the standard instead of what the apostle Paul or John actually wrote. KJV-onlyists don’t seem to understand how scribes added to manuscripts when copying, due to not knowing if a marginal note is just the note of a previous scribe, or if it was in the original. They saw a marginal note, and the scribe, if he was reverent and conservative, erred on the side of adding it in lest he leave something out that could have been in the original text. Dr James White’s book The King James Only Controversy, and his various videos on the subject of textual criticism, textual transmission, etc are an invaluable source of information that really shed light on this issue.
@Matthew-307 James White provides his view of it. I provide mine here. I encourage you to look and seriously consider both and the ramifications of believing either and then let the Holy Spirit guide you.
@@PastorScottIngram Thank you. I have studied it for about a decade now. And I can definitely look at the fruit of the KJV onlyism and see the clear anger, hatred, mocking, and condescending attitude of the majority of KJVonlyists. You are obviously an exception to that rule btw. I mainly read the KJV, and the NKJV, but I do also enjoy the insight of the NASB’s literalness in many places. Amos 9:6 for example is far more clear and true to Hebrew Cosmology in the NASB than the KJV. One of my favorite examples.
@Matthew-307 I am using the NKJV in my preaching now and still use the KJV as well. I am against the deletion because His Word shows us that it was “preserved to every generation” and that eliminates a critical text that makes void so much of the traditional text.
I am against those who are the angry KJV onlyist who have false doctrine. I discussed that here: ruclips.net/video/pIPy6hlYImQ/видео.htmlsi=qyD9IRHug4Vk8HIb
Well how about the a little addendum that the King James seems to add in Matthew 5:22-24 where it adds the phrase "without a cause." That seems to justify being angry with your brother if you have a good reason does it not? Fact of the matter is given what Christ did for us on the cross none of us have a reason. People talk about the verses that they think are being removed and they say we shouldn't remove things from God's word but in that same passage in Revelations it says we shouldn't add to it either. I hear no one who advocates the KJV talking about adding verses. I'm not trying to be rude and I don't want anybody to be rude to me but this is how I see it.
Do you realize that if we are never allowed to be angry, and anger is a sin, then Jesus Christ is a sinner just like the rest of us? The Bible clearly states that He got angry at the money changers who were making it difficult for the poor to come to God and ran them out of the temple with whip. That which you think is an addendum, is actually very important in our understanding of how to deal with anger and the fact that Christ is our example and perfect sacrifice for our sins.
By the way, there are many who are claiming that the Bible added verses over the centuries. This is why the new translations simply cut the equivalent of 1 and 2 Peter from the New Testament. Only the KJV and NKJV, of the well known versions, retain the traditional text. I encourage you to study deeper on this topic. I have many videos and playlists on it here on the channel.
I see no good reason whatsoever to NOT be using the King James Bible.
There is nothing wrong with using the KJV exclusively if that’s how you feel led to do.
@@PastorScottIngramTruth doesn't bend to feelings.
Doesn't matter how I feel. Faith responds to what is right.
No offense to you. I do believe the KJV is the most exact English translation of the traditional text.
@@PastorScottIngramBased on my original comment, I don't see why you think I would be offended at that.
I truly don’t understand why people find it so necessary to deviate from the KJV. It’s so bothersome. In our town there are only two churches that read from kjv. One landmarkism and one with “close communion.” Makes finding an appropriate church difficult. Because briders/landmarkism come with their fair share of pride and abuse.
Because it uses the very, very late manuscripts, most translations use far older manuscripts that are far, far closer to the original events than what the KJV used. The KJV is still very accurate for such a strange thing, and I love it.
The KJV and the NKJV use the correct text to translate the bible into English. The KJV is painstakingly exact from a 1611 viewpoint and the NKJV seeks to be more instantly understandable. Perhaps that truth would help widen your search for a church?
@@PastorScottIngram The NKJV is satanic trash. Stick with the truth in the King James Bible. God bless!! 🙂
Mercy vs lovingkindness. same hebrew word. One denotes one type of God and the other denotes another type of God. We must remember that the Bible in England was meant for the common people. I find that the NASB is good for a common person.
The KJV will use different words for the same Hebrew word especially hesed. It makes more sense to use the same English word in all situations.
Every translation uses different words when moving into English because sometimes the original word has a different meaning that must be ascertained by the translator.
Serious question, What Bible is the best to teach English to non-English speakers? I get complaints when I try to teach English using the KJV. Is the NASB better than the NKJV? What Bible is like 2nd best to the KJV if you had to choose?
The NKJV has all the verses the KJV has but isn’t as extremely exact as the KJV. It sacrifices extreme exactness for instant understandability. I have a video on here comparing those two and will have a video premiering soon called “Can I read a Bible other then the KJV?” that will discuss this deeper. I hope you will be looking out for it.
Also consider the MEV(Modern English Version), a more recent KJV update. As well as these KJV update variants:KJV2000, KJV21, KJVER(Easy Reader), and Simplified KJV.
@@claytonsmith6148 Thank you, that is helpful. Do you know of any closer to the NIV's reading level of 7th grade, but with a TR basis?
@@John3.36 Well the MEV is scaled at an 11th-12th grade reading level, there apparently isn’t a reading level as of yet been applied to the KJVER, or the Simplified KJV? In the TR/Majority Text family there is also the WEB(World English Bible- literal/formal equivalence), and the MLV(Modern Literal Version- literal/formal equivalence). I haven’t seen very many reviews on either? From what I have read online they seem better than the Alexandrian options? Here’s some tips, or guidance that I believe will help you, and others. Growing up I had some learning challenges, and a speech impediment. The KJV was the dominant Bible, when I was about 12 I was introduced to the NIV, then the NASB. They seemed easier to read, but I could never memorize them? My best friend’s mom was an English/music teacher, and started working with me vocally. My pastor had given me the KJV on cassette tapes, and had me listening at night while sleeping. Progressing to listening while I was actually reading out loud. My friend’s mom knew about my pastor giving me the cassette tape. She told me not to be concerned about the thee’s, and thou’s etc, because the Elizabethan English is the highest form of English(she said contemporary English was heavily degraded, and that was 44 years ago). So by listening, and forcing myself to read/speak it out loud helped me tremendously, and corrected my speech. All the while having me do vocal exercises with rhymes, and music, even putting scripture to music. This actually worked, curing my speech, and helping me to put scripture to memory. But it only works with the KJV, the others do not(I tried)! Though I continued to use the NIV(78&84), and NASB(77&95) for more than 30 years along with the KJV. The missing verses, passages, phrases, brackets, notes etc always bothered me, and never set well in my spirit? The Berean in me kicked in, with much study, and research seeking out the matter! I have come to a TR/Majority Text/Byzantine type text only, and a KJV preferred/best position! I have no problem with Grammatical updates that help people read, and learn God’s word. Having had my difficulties growing up, so I empathize with people who might struggle. I am confident that if you incorporate the tools that were taught to me, you will see great results!
I struggled with this. I grew up hardcore independent fundamental Baptist; If you owned anything other than KJV, then you "needed to get right with God".
I walked away from church for over a decade, and only began attending again about a year and a half ago. The pastor preaches from NASB and occasionally KJV. I was encouraged to make the switch, and it sent me on an expedition.
I decided to go to the beginning of the English Bible and move forward. I purchased reprints of the Tyndale, Matthew's, geneva, 1611 KJV, and I also picked up an LSB.
Long story short, I decided to stick with "the one that brung me". However, in my opinion KJV onlyism is a foolish hill (for me) to die on, and I wouldn't let that detract from an otherwise wonderful group of believers. The 1611 KJV has been revised twice, something I NEVER heard about until I began this search.
So for people to state "Praise God, I'm proud to be preaching out of the Authorized King James bible!"
Well, ya really aren't. You're preaching out of the 1789 revision, and ole' James was long dead when that occurred.
Now remember, I still own and exclusively use KJV, I'm simply stating facts.
I don't believe that all translations following the KJV are bad, but I do believe one needs to prayerfully search and compare it to......the KJV.
By the way, I'm just one county over from you, near the tourist trap.
The Face of Rebellion hmmmm.....
@@marcc325 ?
@@TheFaceofRebellion Just wondering on your choice of username?
@@marcc325 Political stance, not religious.
You will have to come and visit us sometime!
By the way, I am not KJV only. I do trust in the Traditional Text over the Critical Text though which all the modern versions use except the KJV and NKJV. I use the NKJV these days in the pulpit, but I do believe and teach that the KJV is the most exact of the two to the original languages, yet not as instantly understandable because of the archaisms that aren't easy to find definitions for even today.
I respectfully disagree. I'll continue use modern translations and reference the KJV when I deem necessary. God bless you and your ministry Brother Ingram. 🙏
Thanks for watching. I understand if you didn’t agree with my opinions but I hope you learned something more from the facts presented. It have enjoyed discussing this with you.
I would encourage you to look deeper into the subject. Modern translations are full of errors,deletions,etc. They attack the deity of Christ and have been muddled with by Satan. God preserved his word and it's in the KJV. It's easily proven with just little research.
@@markrobertsministries thank you for caring enough to notify me. I have done some research and I'm convinced that it's better to use a Bible that's based off of ALL manuscript evidence, rather than essentially only 4 manuscripts. Though he had 10 available, he relied upon 4 of them much more than the others, including the fact that he only referenced the oldest of those in 22 places. I recommend you look into the differences between Erasmus's 2nd and 3rd editions of his Greek New Testament. Luther's German translation was based on the 2nd edition and the KJV based on the 3rd. There's an important difference between them. The author mentioned to me that no English translation was based on the 1st or 2nd editions of Erasmus's work, but he neglected to mention Luther's translation and that seems biased to me.
Regardless of their differences, no major doctrine is changed by them and to claim that the differences between the two traditions amounts to 1st and 2nd Timothy is disingenuous at best. The vast majority of those differences are the same kinds as those between the different versions of the KJV editions: missing punctuation, misspelled words, missing words, mixed word orders, etc. Yes, there are some major differences, such as the inclusion or exclusion of whole verses, however these are always provided in footnotes or bracketed, so they're present regardless and at worst one could say they're not treated as authentic, but they're available for the reader, in conjunction with the Holy Spirit, to decide and inform themselves.
I recommend everyone spend some time studying textual criticism and the transmission of the Bible to inform themselves on these subjects and in coordination with the Holy Spirit, come to their own conclusions regarding which translation(s) to use. I'm sure the author would heartily agree with this.
I would never tell anyone not to use the KJV, I would just recommend they use multiple versions to get a good sense of what's being communicated.
Thanks again for your kind regards, may God bless you and those you love richly in Christ Jesus!
@@a.k.7840 I would not use or read any of the corrupt versions but I wouldn't break fellowship with you over it. It's much more than manuscript evidence that convinced me the kjv was the preserved word in English.
@@markrobertsministries nor would I, but of course, whether they're corrupt is a matter of opinion regarding the facts.
For example the Johannine comma wasn't found by Erasmus in any of the manuscripts he had, per his own testimony. That's why his first two editions of the Greek New Testament the it isn't present. It wasn't until a manuscript from England was "miraculously found" by a scribe and presented to Erasmus who was under pressure from the church to include it since it was already in many of the Latin translations. Let us also not forget that no major doctrine is changed by the differences between the two major traditions which agree with one another the overwhelming majority of the time. Lastly, to disregard older manuscripts in favor of newer ones runs counter to the science of textual criticism.
I'm convinced that the closer we get to the autographs in age, the more agreement we'll find between the two major manuscript traditions. A breakthrough in manuscript evidence not of the Alexandrian tradition seems just over the horizon, what with all the archaeological finds these days.
God bless you always.
Ok great but what frustrates me is WHY won't someone produce the AV into modern English, just as it is BUT in modern English. I have the AV but obviously I don't speak Elizabethan English so I don't understand half the time.
If only there is a translation that is based on the same sources as the AV that would make my day ! . That is my present endeavour, honestly it's just one big money racket !
I have found the NKJV to be suitable as a modern equivalent. It does use the same sources no matter what many say, I discussed that here:
Why Use the New King James Version?
ruclips.net/video/3N3Y22QdvLQ/видео.html
Doesn't it concern you that the catholics had thier hands in kjv translation. I would consider them a pagan religion
The Catholics had no participation in the making of the KJV. I don’t know where you heard that, but it is definitely not true.
NASB Takes the Deity out of Jesus in 1st Timothy 3:16 and John 3:16. Like most other translations from the critical text
The NASB is certainly using the critical text even though it added the verses in during the 95 edition, it removed them in this latest edition.
I will start with your presupposition, that there must be a standard: no, it is not reasonable to assume that the English language should have a standard translation for books that were not written in English.
The majority of scholars do a firm that the nasb is more accurate than the king james, considering the plethora of poor translation choices in the kjv, and considering all of the failures of the English translators, only some of which have been corrected in these last few hundred years. One obvious problem being the over-reliance on the masoretic text, not allowing the now proven to be older Septuagint to correct the masoretic, such as the ages of men in Kings and chronicles, at least two of which are inaccurately represented thanks to smudges in the masoretic texts.
Regardless, no, it is not reasonable to suggest their odds to be a standard version of the Bible in english, considering that our standard is in Greek, Aramaic and Latin. We have the software and technology to where we know for a fact what the original words of the Bible are, and we know how to translate each word. It's no longer out of our reach.
So no, I disagree with even your presupposition that we need an English standard, why would we when we have the ability to translate the originals, and we have the ability to compare the very slightly different translations?
When one translation is using a different base in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, then they are not presenting the same standard. The Critical Text which underlies the NASB 2020 and is frequently referenced in the NASB 95, is not the traditional text passed down from generation to generation that the KJV and NKJV uses. While many receive the KJV in English as the standard, I see it as the most exact translation of the standard which is the traditional text. I also see the NKJV as a more instantly understandable translation of that traditional text. I discussed that here:
Why Use the New King James Version?
ruclips.net/video/3N3Y22QdvLQ/видео.html
The KJV is most accurate to the Byzantine Masoretic manuscripts while the NASV is most accurate to the Alexandrian texts in losing uh missing verses. James White seems to be biased as he was pretty much raised in the modern oat camp.
It would seem that is the case.
Thank you. Pastor scott.
Thanks for watching! I am glad it was a blessing.
In my experience Satan always attacks what is a threat to him. There’s a reason why so many people attack the KJV.
That is a true statement
Of course the Word of God is being attacked. . . . But I see the KJVO crowd attacking other translations maybe even more than the KJV is attacked. I am an NKJV fan.
The KJV is absolutely beautiful..not hard at all..when I come across an archaic word that i don't understand a simple quick search on the internet gives you the answer.
@@spartacusx8153 I’m not against the KJV. I’ve read it through several times. I’m a huge fan of looking words up. But there were words I was misunderstanding that I didn’t know to look up because they meant something different all those years ago. Again, I’m not against the KJV, but I am against being a hindrance to someone who wants to read a modern translation.
@customstoryteller In my journey in discovering and comparing the KJV based on the Greek Textus Receptus vs the modern versions based on the Egyptian Alexandrian texts..there are critical and troublesome differences..the greatest are the numerous omissions or translations the deny and diminish the deity of Jesus Christ in the modern Bibles..to a novice believer the modern translations are extremely dangerous. There are many videos which compare and contrast..
Wrong. The 1611 contained the Apocrypha. Much more was removed then what was contained in 1 and 2 Peter. If you’re gonna go out on a limb and talk in absolutes, get your facts right.
The 1611 did contain the apocrypha but the apocrypha is not sacred scripture. Removing it is no different than removing study notes. Removing the equivalent of 1 and 2 Peter from the sacred scripture is much different.
@@PastorScottIngram Roger that. I just wanted to clarify as most AV users are not even familiar with their own Bibles history, much less the changes that have occurred since its original printing. Such as for example the Translator’s preface to the readers that appears to be missing from most AV formats today, which certainly would create doubt to the arguments presented to its authenticity as the one and only inspired Word of God. Just my humble opinion.
"Spurgeon’s most famous break from the KJV happened in July 1885, when he preached a sermon titled “'And We Are' - A Jewel from the Revised Version.” The great preacher trusted the judgments of textual critics and based his sermon on a phrase not found in the KJV. He began by saying,
"A genuine fragment of inspired Scripture has been dropped by our older translators, and it is far too precious to be lost. Did not our Lord say, 'Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost?' The half lost portion of our text is restored to us in the Revised Version. … They ought never to have dropped out. In the judgment of the most learned, and those best to be relied on, these are veritable words of inspiration." -- "Was Spurgeon King James Only?" Elijah Hixson
What verse is he speaking of in that quote?
My concern is not with small issues of translation but with the elimination of the equivalent of 1 and 2 Peter from the New Testament text via acceptance of the Critical Text's constantly changing text.
@@PastorScottIngram 1 Jn 3:1 "DEAR friends, the most of my text will be found in our Old Version; but for once I shall ask you to look elsewhere for a part of it.
"A genuine fragment of inspired Scripture has been dropped by our older translators, and it is too precious to be lost. Did not our Lord say, “Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost”? The half lost portion of our text is restored to us in the Revised Version. Never did a translation of the New Testament fail more completely than this Revised Version has done as a book for general reading: but as an assistant to the student it deserves honourable mention, despite its faults. It exhibits here and there special beauties, and has, no doubt, in certain places brought into notice words of sacred Scripture which had fallen out: we have a notable instance in my present text. Turn to the First Epistle of John, the third chapter, at the first verse:-
“Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God”
"So far we keep to our Authorized Version. Now read the Revised Version, and note the words added-
“Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God: and such we are.”
"The word “such” is not in the original. We therefore leave it out, and then we get the words AND WE ARE. There are only two words in the Greek - “and we are.” That the addition is correct I have not the slightest doubt. Those authorities upon which we depend- those manuscripts which are best worthy of notice- have these words; and they are to be found in the Vulgate, the Alexandrian, and several other versions. They ought never to have dropped out. In the judgment of the most learned, and those best to be relied on, these are veritable words of inspiration. So far as doctrine is concerned, it does not matter much whether they are or are not in the original text, because we get the same words farther on. “Beloved, now are we children of God, and it is not yet made manifest what we shall be. We know that, if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him; for we shall see him even as he is.”
One difference between the KJV and most modern versions concerns the very basics of our salvation. Sadly to say many preachers and Bible teachers don't know our doctrine of salvation, therefore they don't miss it when it is gone.
The difference is whether we are justified by our own faith in Christ (which can ebb and flow) or are we justified by the gift of the Faith of Christ.
Once again it's very sad most preachers have no clue, or if they do, they prefer to use the former as a milestone around their congregations' neck.
I spoke On the faith of or in Christ in a verse in Galatians and the answer, at least in that verse, isn’t as clear as one would think.
Is "Faith OF Christ" or "Faith IN Christ" the Correct Translation in Galatians?
ruclips.net/video/pKL-yZy72ZM/видео.html
Your videos are to long…..why? Because what you have been saying can be all said in that there is no translation other than KJB… done…. 500 years is nothing in time compared to 2,100 years. What we must do then. We must fully rely on The Holy Spirit, not those who camp out in Bible translation tribes. We live in the days of God ministry on the earth in The Holy Spirit, Jesus is not here as He was before, The Holy Spirit is. Everything in the Bible is truthfully stated, yet not everything in the Bible is true today.
Actually, that isn’t exactly what I’m saying at all. I explained it in this video:
Is It Okay to Read A Bible OTHER Than the KJV?
ruclips.net/video/DPEfBat8txI/видео.html
If they both contain 66 books then there is no difference
Did you watch the video? What is contained in those 66 books have differences and that is simply the facts.
7 books have been removed from the original Bible the Canon of Scripture, therefore they are both corrupt, If they have differences, it does not matter because they have been altered by man..@@PastorScottIngram
The difference is that one is bad and the other is worse.
I think the KJV is not bad in the least.
I'm a nkjv
Nothing wrong with that. It used the same base text as the KJV
There are a labyrinth of religions, churches, and Bibles in the world. Some have fallen away as mythology. The truth is that there is a God on earth and has been here for many millions of years. The jealous God, the Lord of hosts, is behind most if not all of these Bibles and religions, with the KJV 1769 being the last translation and final word of the Lord of hosts. The Bible was not written for all mankind, the Bible was written for one man and One Spirit.
You see, the Jealous God was trying to claim to be above the God of the earth, who was known as the Ancient of days. Ancient of days because his Spirit was the first Spirit made for creation and therefore the oldest and most powerful. After the Jealous God finalized his plans, he placed two curses at the end of the New Testament, not to change what was said. What the Jealous God was doing was presenting an argument to the God of the earth, which goes like this: I have presented you with my plans against you, and you could not prevent me, so how can you be above me?
The Jealous God and his son Jesus did kill the Ancient of days Spirit, and he lost his Soul, but he got his Soul back with a new Spirit and this Spirit was called the infant of days. The Lord of host married this new Spirit in Isaiah 54 and his son also married this Spirit in Rev. 19. They thought by changing the Male Spirit of the Ancient of days into a female Spirit that through marriage they could claim to be above this new Spirit. They were wrong.
I do not agree with your interpretation of the scriptures. Where did you hear this teaching?
@@PastorScottIngram Could be a little more specific on what you disagree with. I know we are miles apart, and I don't expect you to change your position.
The King James Only Controversy by Dr James White really opened my eyes to the error of KJV-onlyism. It’s an ignorant and naive position to take. There are renderings in the NASB that are far more accurate to the greek than the KJV.
The problem you will find if you study over it diligently is “Which Greek?” That is my main concern. I discuss it further here:
“Is It Okay to Read A Bible OTHER Than the KJV?”
ruclips.net/video/DPEfBat8txI/видео.html
@@PastorScottIngram Yes I’m familiar with the differences between the manuscript traditions. I’ve studied the process of textual transmission and the process of preservation, etc. I used to rail against the Critical Text before I had a real understanding of what it actually is.
Good presentation. From what I have found in studying other translations such as the esv, nlt, nasb, specifically study bibles, what I see is the notes may be well structured but the more versions you study the more versions you need and the more questions you have the more confused you become. There is one Lord, one Faith, and One baptism. The apostles baptized in that name Jesus Christ. I have studied textual critics for hundreds if not thousands of hours and studied the history of the supposed oldest and best manuscripts. The holy bible in English calls the serpent the devil check this out. Vaticanus means divining serpent. Codex vaticanus is locked in the personal library of the pope in the Vatican city which the popes area winds and curves like a serpent. The serpent was more subtil the real bible says. I will not and i refuse to base my life on a foundation of bible translations that come from a manuscript that literally means divining serpent. Its absolutely insane. This is literally like asking satan to be our guide instead of Jesus Christ being our guide. Codex Sinaiticus is a forgery that has never actually proven its authenticity. It codex sanaiticus has never been chemically tested to prove its actual age. The pseudo science of paleography which is basically looking at something and saying how old it is was invented by the catholics who by looking at vodex sinainaticus and saying this looks older than anything we got nevermind that there are portions of codex sanaiticus that are white as snow that are now called Frederico Augustanus which is what Tischendorf cut out of sinainaticus on his first trip to the fake mount sanai at catherines monastary (it definitely is not the monastary of God Almighty). It should be interesting that what tischendorf called codex sanaiticus upon his return to the fake mount sanai ended up having an aged yellowish look asif someone stained it from white to yellow. But because some catholic pseudo science says its older look its older (this is fake) then we should believe it? Seriously? There is a reason why none of and i repeat none of your modern text critics will test these manuscripts such as vaticanus (divining serpent) and sanaiticus (fake forgery) is because they could not handle nor face the fact that they have believed a lie and all that they have taught and known is a diluted version of the truth (yea hath God said?) There is also huge money in the bible making business. My final thought is this: if you move away from the kjv then you have to accept all other 200 plus translations into English as your standard which means no standard if you trust in only the kjv you have only one standard. All other translations besides the kjv are.based on faulty forged manuscripts and/or have notes referring to those faulty fake manuscripts. One more thing: why would you trust someone who is a textual critic of Gods word as if the word of man is better than the Word of the Lovely Lord Jesus Christ
Thanks for watching!
The "god" of all these modern translations can't remember who he let into the promised land, but he's somehow going to get you to heaven? 🤔
Hebrews 3:16 For who provoked Him when they had heard? Indeed, did not all those who came out of Egypt led by Moses? [NASB1995]
Hebrews 3:16 For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses? [ESV]
Hebrews 3:16 For which ones heard and rebelled? Was it not all who came out of Egypt under Moses’ leadership? [NET]
Hebrews 3:16 For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt, led by Moses? [NKJV]
Compare those "solid" modern translations to the truth of the ONLY pure word of God for English speaking people.
Hebrews 3:16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. [AKJV]
God bless!! 🙂
I will have to do a study on Hebrews 3:16 sometime.
In my opinion, the KJV is clearly superior here. However, the others use rhetorical devices. NASB more clearly gets the point across, though to the modern ear, and I would be interested in understanding if rhetorical devices were used in Koine Greek (the original language of the New Testament) for this verse.
Kjv isn't like that,I hold it higher because of common sense, it has a strongs concordance and the mistakes are so easy to learn do to so much information over kjv,so well known
I am unsure of the point you’re trying to make?
@@PastorScottIngram you can go back to the Hebrew and Greek and look
I used to have bunch of books like behind you,got tired of packing them around, I found a tool,Rick Mayers has a free PC esword download, you can download load everything on your sword free,and get the manuscripts too,and get strongs numbers already added to your kjv and wave your mouse over number and get the words,if you like to study,it will be a good tool for you
It's simple; If your bible has changed Proverbs 18:1 to read that you should not get alone with God and fast and pray then it is a PERversion from the pits of hell.
KJV: Through desire a man, having separated himself, seeketh
and intermeddleth with all wisdom.
NKJV: 1 A man who isolates himself seeks his own desire;
He rages against all wise judgment.
Do you understand what “intermeddleth” means?
Here is the definition of the original Hebrew word translated:
g̱âla‘; a primitive root; to be obstinate: - (inter-)meddle (with).
AV (3) - meddle 2, intermeddle 1;
to expose, lay bare(Hithpael)to disclose oneself, break outto break out (in contention)
I don’t think your reference is the best argument for your position.
Answer: NONE
both promote Idolatry.
@Nick-wn1xw What i mean is chrstianity is 100% Idolatry, there is no "right" christian book.
I would disagree.
@@PastorScottIngram I'm sure you do but I can back that up scripturally.
@@noahadim Would you do that?
How do you idolize the word of the living God? I think this is a video to help people figure out the best translation of the words of our God !