When I first came into church I was told that each and every time you open your Bible it’s another revolution to his word. You can reread something and think “wow I didn’t see this before” I have done it a few times.
so happy to see Brother Bernard mention the MEV favorably. I wish it was more widely known. I trust the KJV when there is a difference, but I do enjoy the MEV.
I want to add this also....in the NIV they make out Jesus to be a liar. In John 7:8 they remove the word "Yet" then 2 verses later Jesus goes up. Hmmmm why would they remove it
That is an issue related to underlying source material. Depending upon the set of original documents being used, the KJV "leaves things out". The Syriac text has nearly 40% more material in the original language than what is commonly called "the majority text". The NIV etc. use "the critical text". While I prefer KJV and other majority text translations, there is still a place for the others in certain situations.
Im new to collecting bibles. Ive had n grew up with kjv, but i been exploring modern english translations to get more context n insights that i didnt catch in kvj. I just bought the NIT today(the day I posted this comment) n bought a NLT couple weeks ago. The NLT helped a lot in understanding things I couldnt understand in the KJV. For eg, in leviticus when it talks about a man or a woman with a “running issue”. I could not for my sake understand that. Turned to my NLT n it means Discharge diseases where u just release fluids n whatnot involuntarily. But idk, Imma pick up the NKJV when it restocks. Lol.
Lately I've been using the ESV as my primary translation, but the first alternate translation I check is usually the NET, more for the translator's notes than the text itself. (This only works with the "full notes" edition, or online).
Superb episode, digestible and spot on! I think “in” KJV because I grew up with it but I have also found that the dynamic equivalence translations, particularly NIV and NLT, to be super helpful in bringing new light to passages that had become almost ornamental Christianese in the KJV, and reading it in these other translations actually helped free the KJV in my mind when returning to it. I really like the NASB for its precision, but I 100% agree on your characterization of it as “wooden” because of that precision - it’s clear that we are reading in fact a translation from another language which of course does not have the same structure and flow as English. 😅
Another dynamic equivalent translation that I have used for years and love is the God's Word translation. You can find it in Bible Gateway if you'd like to test it out.
An example... The dynamic equivalence of the God's Word translation (GW) has an amazing look at this problematic verse... 1 Corinthians 15:29 KJV 29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? GW 29 However, people are baptized because the dead ⌞will come back to life⌟. What will they do? If the dead can’t come back to life, why do people get baptized as if they can ⌞come back to life⌟? The GW translation words this difficult verse better and shows that Paul wasn't speaking about baptizing living people for those who have passed but how baptism's purpose relates to death, burial, and resurrection, putting it correctly in line with passages like Romans 6:3-5, 8 3 Don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 When we were baptized into his death, we were placed into the tomb with him. As Christ was brought back from death to life by the glorious power of the Father, so we, too, should live a new kind of life. 5 If we’ve become united with him in a death like his, certainly we will also be united with him when we come back to life as he did. ... 8 If we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. GW
I grew up memorizing KJV. I also read other material in middle English such as Shakespeare and Howard Pyle. For those reasons, I am very comfortable with the language and style. But I am teaching a home Bible study to some folks right now who have little Biblical background and knowledge. For that, I am using the NLT.
Excuse me, but the KJV wasn't written in "Middle English". It was written in "Modern English" (not to be confused with "contemporary English"; which is what we speak.)
I don’t know why I got very excited when he said the CSB is a great literal Bible. I love that translation. I am also very surprised at how literal, yet simple it is to read. Anyone else using the CSB that would like to chime in?
Superb!! Considering the diachronic aspect of language, I totally agree to take recourse to other translations. But, yes, of course, I would use KJV and the ones prior to 1611 as the main texts. Thank you, Pastor 🙏🙏
No the other translations change and contradict the king JAMES. There can be only one truth. If bible's contradicts each other then there is 1 that is truth. Why king JAMES? 1. It took.7 years to make. 7 means complete and perfect in the Bible. 2. The papacy tried to kill king James because of the Bible. 3. The people asked the king, because the papacy church Bible was full of errors. 4. Jesus said freely give as freely received. The king JAMES BIBLE is the only Bible in the world that doesn't have a copyright. And so much more. Please watch my videos on BIBLE'S.
@@davidinchcliff4560 the NET bible has no copyright and can be printed and freely given. There's others as well. It's simply a translation. What translation should people who don't speak English read? You're putting a translation on a pedestal saying this.
Rev. Bernard, I really appreciate these videos they are extremely helpful and Godly! Can you please make a video about what is Russia’s purpose in the end Time? I would really appreciate it. God Bless You!
I was just thinking about this today on my way to. Work and was like Bro. Bernard should talk about this topic. Good timing. 😃👍🏻 Then I just now stumbled on this video.
For me, I believe that using english translation of the bible is still good, Apostle Paul's journey gives us the best example of it. He journeyed through out the Asian countries insuch he uses many various languages to communicate with them, that'swhy he has that gift of tongues which is prerequisite to be successful in his ministry. So in my stand wether Hebrew, Aramaic or English translation can still be use to easily understand the bible according to our language we use.
I have been using the Amplified Bible it seems to be close to the KJV. Gives a more understanding of what is going on in the text. Has anyone else used this Bible?
The 2011 revision fixed a lot of what i considered to be weaknesses to the NIV, but it also made some odd translation choices with other areas of its revision. To give an example of both sides, the 1984 NIV had an issue with inconsistency of word use. For example, the Greek word sarx, meaning “flesh,” occurs eighteen times in the Book of Galatians. The NIV 1984 translated it eight different ways, as “man,” “body,” “human effort,” “illness,” “ordinary way,” “sinful nature,” “outward impression,” and “flesh.” The 2011 revision changed all these instances to "flesh" which cleared this issue up. Mark 1:41 in the 2011 NIV is an example of a revision i dont agree with, the Greek word is "splagchnizomai" (Strong's NT:4697) which is often translated as "moved with compassion" or "pity", the 2011 NIV changes this to "indignation" which is no where close to the meaning. Overall though, i would say the 2011 revision to the NIV improved the translation
Now I'm not the expert that Dr Bernard is but I will tell you a story. A young man who grew up in the church backslid. Finally, he came back and needed praying through again. The grandmas and the aunties in the church were praying around him after church. I was standing a little further back but also praying toward him. A man sitting on the pew said to me, "Those women should not be praying with a man like that." I did not think of it until later but I always wish now that I had asked him why he wasn't praying with him then. Should we have let him walk out the door without praying through? To go along with that, a minister/pastor visited from another church. He told how his wife had started and was heading the church's prayer night for everyone. Someone in his congregation made the same rebuke...i.e. that a man should be the one to lead something like that. The minister/pastor agreed but said that when he had consulted the Lord on the matter, the Lord told him, "I did call on several different men to start this but they would not answer the call so then I called your wife." That makes me think if there are women pastors, they're standing in for the, "Oops...not me group."
Great explanation ! For myself I found that something is lost when the original Greek was translated to English. For instance, in the original Greek, our English word " tongues" is singular not plural and means " another language" and " a language". Another example is the English word " recieve". In the original Greek it means " to take hold of". I am not proficient at all in the original Greek but I didn't need to be to look up key words having to do with salvation in the Strongs Exhaustive Concordence Of The New Testament and The Hebrew/ Greek/ English Interlinear. As always even with those aids no correct translation can truly understand without the indwelling Holy Spirit teaching us and guiding us in understanding what we are reading I'm the context that it is written. Let The Word itself be the basis of your understanding not what your denomination or pastor says because that is what everyone will be judged by Jesus.
I use the NASB primarily. I like the ESV a lot also. I think I will use the NIV more for scripture comparison from now on. I think the NIV has gotten a bad rap.
I heard that some of the other new translations wordings are different and may change the whole meaning of the text. Could Bishop Bernard please address that for me.
Dr. Bernard addressed this question in an earlier episode titled "What Bible Translation Should Apostolics Read?" ruclips.net/video/PLA1dCWqCsU/видео.html (Podcast Production Team)
Completely off topic question: I know that Pastor Bernard was a PK in Korea, and my question is how "good" is his Korean? Is he fluent, or is he "close your eyes" good? Just curious!!
yeah but what about the catholic translation which has the apocryphal books as part of doctrine, we'll likely this conversation doesn't emphasize on all translations
All of the old English translations say Holy Ghost, many of the NT translations have corrected that with Holy Spirit which the Hebrew and Greek says Holy Breath..
I’m not saying I know near as much as bro Bernard but NIV takes a lot of verses and scripture out of the Bible I would never want to use that translation
It is the source material that accounts for the difference. KJV and NKJV use what is commonly called "the majority text" and NIV uses "the critical text". This is another layer that Dr. Bernard is very much aware of, but chose not to dive into with this particular presentation.
@@arthurvanderhoff2413 Actually, KJV and NKJV used the Textus Receptus, not the Majority Text. There are some who try to say thats what it is, but they are both translated from Erasmus' Textus Receptus compiled in the mid 1500's
@@jonathanw7520 Well to be more precise the TR is a more refined version of the Majority Text/Byzantine family, in this text family there is less than 2% variations that are primarily spelling of names of people, and places. Which happens as people have migrated, so not an issue at all! So to say TR/Majority Text/Byzantine type text family is perfectly fine.
I personally don’t read anything but the KJV it’s the only one I can get revelation from but I have other brothers in the Apostolic faith that uses other translations it does bring some confusion in a church setting if the pastor is reading the NIV some are using the KJV or NASB etc I’ve learned over the years the Bible will interpret the Bible and if you have the Holy Ghost if you run into a difficult scripture ask your teacher The Holy Ghost I do use a older strongs concordance seems as time passes men come up with different interpretations and are they full of the Holy Ghost or just in it for the money? Ever read the Message Bible ? That is a weird interpretation
The underlying Greek in the NIV is called the Critical Text which is compromised of Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus mostly and they disagree within the Gospels alone over 3,000+ times and Codex Sinaiticus was made by a Greek heretic in 1844 and Codex Vaticanus was made by the Vatican in Rome in the 1400’s. So why would God promise us in His word that he will preserve His word unto all generations but then hide his Word from us for 1400-1800 years? The Hebrew Masoretic Text is traced throughout millennias and the Textus Receptus which is the Greek text underlying the King James is traced to the 1st century and upward, fitting exactly what the Bible claims about itself saying that God preserved His Word. But nobody wants to talk about those facts.
@@marcusgrant731 Would be very interested in seeing a source for the claim that the Textus Receptus is traced to the 1st Century and upward. How about the known added verses like 1 John 5:7, which is in no Greek manuscript prior to the 1500's and was knowingly added into the 3rd or 4th revision of the Textus Receptus?
@@jonathanw7520 In regards to the previous question “Eyewitnesses to Jesus” which are liberal scholars found a fragment called the “Magdalene Papyrus” which dates to the 60’s AD or even earlier which is TR. All of the early versions Coptic, Peshitta, Old Latin, Georgian, etc. are all TR based. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that 1 John 5:7 has always been in the Bible. One example, the internal evidence of the Greek in 1 John 5 demands that verse 7 has to be there. In verse 8 the 3 nouns are masculine and in verse 7 the 3 nouns are neuter. Basic Greek grammar demands that the 3 neuters have to be there to compliment to 3 masculine nouns. The external witnesses throughout history overwhelmingly support the Johannine comma in the TR. It was removed and added back into the TR by Erasmus not added in for no reason.
@@marcusgrant731 In addition to what you mentioned, the scripture quotes of the early Church leaders also support the TR/Majoriy Text/Byzantine type text family, you can actually reconstruct the Bible from their quotes, and it would match the KJB. Since the other commenter mentioned 1 John 5:7-8, it is specifically quoted by Poly Carp(Apostle John’s disciple), and Cyprian 209-248(martyred).
MY BROTHER, MY ELDER, Mr. Bernard : Can we PLEASE talk about MATH 16:28! I have been told there is no rapture and Jesus has already returned based on this one scripture. I’ve even been told this is the one verse that has people very stumped including pastors. Can we please dive into this to get clarity because it has really made me feel “let down” in some way but never faithless. Could you please help me Brother ??
I'm not sure what the answer is so I hope Brother Bernard responds but here is something that might help a little: "Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.” (2 Timothy 2:18) That tells me that the same thing was happening back in Paul and Timothy's time too. Pray and if Brother Bernard doesn't answer you, maybe God Himself will show you. I've had Him do that for me on occasion too. Bless you!!!
Im not Bro Bernard, but let me give you what i know. Several commentaries (such as the NIV Application Commentary on Matthew, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, and the Bible Exposition Commentary) point to the next chapter and the "Mount of Transfiguration" as the fulfillment to this statement, yet i would disagree as it almost makes His statement pointless if its fulfilled within such a short time frame. The other possibilities are: It speaks of Pentecost and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, thats certainly fulfills Mark's rendering of this passage in Mark 9:1. Or it could refer to John and the vision He had on the isle of Patmos, known in the Bible as the book of Revelation where he certainly saw the Son of Man coming in his kingdom, though it was a future event. It could even refer to Jesus resurrection and ascension into heaven. The argument that Jesus had already come is laughable, firstly, people are still able to be filled with the Spirit of God, thus the church is still here on Earth. Secondly, we are definitely NOT experiencing the wrath of God as seen in several Chapters of the book of Revelation. So there is nothing to fear from that point. There are plenty of explanations which flow with scripture without having to resort to one that tries to jump the gun on Christ's return.
@@jonathanw7520 based. Some interpretations do give misconceptions on key doctrinal points about the second coming of Christ, but r all easily debunked by the book of revelations and the prophecy not happening yet.
It relates to the Transfiguration , in which several disciples got an advanced preview of the Lord’s coming in glory. This however will not take place until the Second Coming when Christ physically returns to earth, every eye sees Him, He defeats His enemies, rescues the remnant of Israel, and establishes His Millennial Kingdom on earth.
Biggest issue with the Amplified is that a word in context has meaning, and the range of meaning for a particular word cannot be in every sentence. In other words and, as an example, pistis can be translated 'faith', 'trust', 'system of doctrine' and 'faithfulness'. It doesn't mean all of that at the same time every time it appears in the New Testament.
Hello, from what I heard, this is another translation becoming popular within apostolic circles. I’m actually personally surprised that that CSB made the formal cut and not the dynamic. I mean, it’s pretty formal, but reads very dynamic. Case and point, amplified is good.
Okay after read follow it and get save some where seek truth not useless information. If you want the truth God will freely give. Look at Cornelius in the kjv Bible he prayed and God answered
If you love the KJV, but want a translation that has more modern wording, but still has some of the KJV language, then I highly recommend the RSV (Revised Standard Version) and the NASB 1977 edition, which both have the thee's, thou and thine, but only in reference to God, as a way to elevate Him, which I love!
Well modern translations do remove the “blood” in several places, and is really worse than what most people know! Long story short, the 3-main text used in most modern bibles have serious problems. After much research I have discovered that they are actually fraudulent! If you are studious, and would like more information I would be happy to help. I can also show how the text base for the KJB is solid, and can be traced back to the first century.
Should a woman wear leggings under a skirt? If not how do they stay warm? For instance me and my wife would like to go hunting together but it’s freezing for her to just wear a skirt. Do you have any suggestions?
God invented clothes (Genesis 3) and defined modesty in multiple passages, some of which help us by saying what is immodest and ungodly. Wearing a skirt long enough and full enough to cover legs according to the Bible definition should also cover any underwear used and needed to stay warm. This isn't true of the mini-skirts and knee grasers that are far too common among fully initiated holiness folks (as opposed to new converts who should be given all the time they need to be taught by God through His Word and Holy Ghost) over the last couple of decades. When Jesus (our Supreme Example) shows up in Revelation 1, his "garment" is "down to the foot". That is a Biblical standard and not one subject to whims of any fallible human being, in or out of a role of church leadership.
Dr Bernard , do you realize that the modern versions take the BLOOD out of many of the verses . Prov. 30 : 5 says that Every word of God is pure . The AV KJV of 1769 is what we use today and is written in 6 th grade english . Bro. Bernard i can't believe that you think the New KJV is as good as the old . Yes the Tyndale Bible is the best translation , but that bible as well as the Geneva is not readily in print today . Dr. Bernard you oversee 42,000 churches , how can you recommend these corrupt Catholic inspired versions to your churches . Also in Spanish we recommend the Reina Valera - Gomez . Let me give you I Cor. 1 - 10 , Now i beseech you, brethern by the name of our LORD JESUS CHRIST , that you ALL speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you ...
Nasb is the earlier manuscripts late 3rd and 4th century manuscripts .. the Kjv is from 11 th and 12th century manuscripts.. some verses were not in the earlier manuscripts such as 1 john 5:7 that found their way into kjv Bible because of late manuscripts .. and so Erasmus put some of those mistakes in his 3rd addition that tysdale used , that Luther did not ,he used eraasmus 2nd addition which don’t have 1 john 5:7 .. so I strongly recommend Nasb 95 addition . It tells you which verses were added . It also tells you how mark 16 ends at verse 8. The rest of mark is known as the long ending . that the translator’s warned was not a part of original manuscripts .. I’m glad to hear dr Bernard isnt a king James only person .. a good word for word translation is best for doctrine. The Nasb 95 is word for word and most accurate translation today…
Your information is not correct, I will explain! I used the NIV(78&84), and NASB(77&95) for more than 30 yrs, along with the KJB. The missing verses, words, phrases, passages, brackets, notes etc have never set well with me in my spirit. So the Berean in me kicked in, and began to search out the matter. I discovered that the modern Church has been deceived, and lied to. Most modern bibles use as their underlying text the Alexandrian type: 3 main copies (.06%) Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus. In the 4th century when the Alexandrinus text began to be circulated, Jerome got ahold of a copy comparing it to those that were from Antioch(in the first 4 centuries Antioch was the only authorized place to obtain Biblical manuscripts). He found that the book of Revelation 50 yrs from when John penned it was corrupt in the Alexandrinus, and the rest of the NT by the end of the 2nd to the begining of the 3rd centuries were corrupted. So Jewish scribble protocols were invoked, all known copies were destroyed(burned). But the Alexandrian's(who were gnostic, cultist, and heretics)were so rebelious, unrepentant, and hard hearted, that they managed to bury a single copy, which is what we have today. The Vaticanus supposedly discovered in the 1400's with no prior history? When Erasmus was compiling the Greek NT, the Catholic Church gave to him to use. After examining it , he found it to be fraudulent. All the Reformers, and reformed era scholars knew this, and rejected it as well. Hense why it was not utilized in translating any of the prior English translations, to include the KJB. Als Erasmus had multiple dozens of Greek manuscripts that he obtained that were traced to Antioch(was the only authorized source for Biblical manuscripts in the first 4 centuries). The Sinaiticus supposedly discovered by Constantine Tishcendorf(who was a known money hungry liar)in the mid-1800's, but was actually created by Constantine Simonides in the early mid-1800's. The Information on this is easy to find, additional information on this can found at Chick Publications by David Daniels. He has a video series on this, and related subjects where he systematically shows Simonides created Sinaiticus. David Daniels also has evidence through independent chemical testing, showing the ink is 19th century, both the written, and art. So we have these fraudulent so-called manuscripts, making bibles from them? It seems that the devil has been busy, working overtime deceiving people! To show that the TR/Majority Text/Byzantine type text is the only true Biblical text, all we have to do is to compare with other sources that line up, and match. The scriptural quotes by the early Church leaders match the TR/Majority Text/Byzantine type text, and the KJB, In fact you could reconstruct the Bible just from their quotes, and it matches the KJB. The we have other ancient text from the mid-2nd century AD, like the Syriac, or ancient Bibles like the Greek Orthodox Bible mid-2nd century AD, and the Old Latin 90-130 AD. The Old Latin started by the Apostle John, with his disciples Poly Carp, and Papias. Then completed by Poly Carp, Papias, and there disciples Justin Martyr, and, Ignatius. These all match together with the TR/Majority Text/Byzantine type text, and the KJB. There are no missing verses etc, to include 1 John 5:7-8(besides being in these early text, they are directly quoted by Poly Carp(John's disciple, and Cyprian 200-248 AD-martyred, and Mark 16:9-20 as being authentic, and original! My position is TR/Majority Text/Byzantine type text only, and KJB preferred/best. I do utililize other Bibles from these text: pre-KJV Reformed era Bibles, NKJV, MEV(Modern English Version) MLV(Modern Literal Version), WEB(World English Bible), and there are other KJV variants KJV2000, KJV21, KJVER, Simplified KJV etc. I absolutely reject anything Alexandrian based. There's more I'll post later, showing KJB being inspired, and mathematically perfect.
The 47 KJB translators were chosen because of their skill set, education, and training was on a far superior level that wasn’t seen before or since. Their education started around 4-5 years of age, and were fluent in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin by 6-7 years of age, as well as other languages. As adults they studied 12-16 hours a day, in comparison modern scholars average 8 years of higher education, and might know one ancient language somewhat? The 47 would make modern scholars look like children, infants even. As they were charged with putting together an accurate English translation, and be as precise as possible. With prior English translations like the Geneva, Tyndale, and others it was the 7th in the refinement, as the others were stepping stones to get to the KJB. As the Hebrew OT, and Greek NT languages are mathematical in nature, they are written in such a manner that makes it impossible for any person on this planet to have written any part of scripture apart from God. This means that the men God chose to write, were essentially secretaries taking dictation.To show that God’s inspiration carried over into the KJB, first is the bringing together the 47 scholars who translated themselves is definitely no accident! Then you have the mathematical perfection that is unique to the KJB! Though there is multiple sites on the mathematics in scripture, I will attach link to a short video showing how.
Spanish has grammar more similar to Greek in construction. English is a mash-up of German, French, Latin and Greek roots. It is a composite language. Therefore, the RVR is superior in terms of capturing more of the original language grammar.
@@stevensanabria1326 One simply needs to know Spanish and English and compare with Greek study tools. Using a Strong's concordance, and several Greek lexicons like Kittel's TDNT 10 Vol, Thayer's Greek lexicon, and Louw and Nida Greek lexicon, and some Bible dictionaries one can easily see the translation issues within the KJV. Granted, many of these are due to the language not being updated into modern English so in essence one is actually reading a foreign language that they think they know (pretty dangerous considering its the Word of God). This is why i use modern English translations such as the ESV and NASB as they tend to make better translation choices according to Hebrew and Greek, also, they prove the Apostolic doctrine more clearly.
Oh man, you brought ptsd with that hahaha almost all hispanic/latino churches use Reina Valera 1960. Sociedad Biblicas is also a good translation. La Biblia de las Americas tends to be a very practical and easy translation used. All Spanish translation, another widely used one is the La Biblia el Arco Iris, i think its a mc arthur study bible.
I read your book, "God's Infallible Word" years ago after my Bachelor's, and it guided me to make great choices with translations to use, but to always refer to Greek or Hebrew when hunting original meaning. But for Everyman who is reading his phone, not a Bible, it's time to let the KJV rest. You made a great point that KJV is a 5th revision, which doesn't lend it any more authority than any good modern translation. Instead of remaining a body who doesn't read any translation, this should be a call and challenge to dig into a more readable Bible, and climb out of our bliss of comfortable ignorance.
1 John 5:7 is always a problem for the KJV-Only Apostolics as it proves trinitarian interpolation not tracing back to the majority of root texts. NIV corrects this. The passage is very detrimental to oneness christology and should never have been added to the KJV. For me, I prefer the Alfred Marshall KJV/NIV Greek/English Interlinear New Testament because you can really access the text more fully and more accurately. Marshall relies on Nestle.
This is false as to as to 1 John 5:7-8 not being original! The Alexandrian text base used for the NIV, and others like NASB, and ESV, has serious problems, even worse than that. Having used both the NIV(78&84), and NASB(77&95) for more than 30 years, along with the KJB. After much research, I have discovered the Alexandrian text to be fraudulent. If you are a Berean, and studious I will show you how. There are plenty of documents that verify 1 John 5:7-8, and the many others that are missing in Alexandrian based bibles.
This my 2nd reply, someone doesn't like, or want to know the truth? I can show that 1 John 5:7-8 are original, and authentic along with other passages Alexandrian Bibles are missing, or with brackets.
Is the UPCI moving away from the the KJV as their approved and used bible? Sounds like the superintendent has. A little Leaven leavens the bread. Gal 5:9
In the UPC I articles of faith position papers for 1953, 2014, 2019 it states as follows we continue to except the king James version of the Bible is the most accurate translation of the Scriptures to be used in our churches and among our people. It talks about upon examining the revised standard version of the Bible we find that many passages concerning the fundamentals of our Christian faith and doctrine have been changed and are very misleading, namely, the virgin of Christ, remission of sins as taught in the New Testament the deity of Christ and other truths. Whereas a majority of the committee of translators themselves, according to their associations, connections and records are shown to be modernist and liberal scholars who do not believe or embrace the revealed truths of God‘s holy Word, including the plan of salvation. Look it up and see for yourself!
God purified His Word 7x and the KJV was the last of the 7 thus the KJV is the ONLY true word of God. All other translations afterwards have been proven to be corrupt.
Wrong again. The KJV uses the Masoretic text in the OT. The Septuagint is much more accurate, not only more ancient it also does not have the date changing in it that took place when the Jews altered times to hide he accuracy of Daniel and his messianic time line. You need to go back and realize why scholars like DR, John MacArthur translated the ESV using the Septuagint and not the Masoretic text.
Septuagint is a forgery, created by Origen in the 3rd century. There are multiple organizations that have studied this, and have the data showing it is fraudulent. Two off the top of my head are Chick Publications- with David Daniels, and KJB Research Counsel. Based on Jewish historical records there was an original Septuagint produced around 250 BC, and it was destroyed by fire a 100 year later. There is more on this, but I will post later.
The Septuagint is a 3rd century fraud produced by Origen of Alexandria. My 2nd post, someone doesn't like, or want to know the truth! I had provided more detail in the first one. If you are a Berean, and a seeker of truth I will expound.
You don't understand how perfect the timing of this release was! It's almost as if God saw my situation directly and said "ok here you go"
Exactly!
My personal testimony
Right after I received the Holy Ghost, I understood the KJV where as before I didn’t
AMEN
When I first came into church I was told that each and every time you open your Bible it’s another revolution to his word. You can reread something and think “wow I didn’t see this before” I have done it a few times.
Same testimony!
spot on
Aaaaamen brother Justin.
The UPC manual used to have a law that forbid any other version of the Bible in the Church except The Authorized Version.
It"s been actualized.
So thankful for these quick-access resources. God bless y’all!
King James Version is the one I turned to FOR DOCTRINE.
The new versions water down key doctrinal scriptures.
That’s exactly how I feel too.
Thank you, Dr. Pastor Bernard!
Thank you for that enlightenment!
The Lord truly has His hands on you.
GOD Bless Mr. Benard❤
We greatly appreciate getting answers from questions the rest of us have..
so happy to see Brother Bernard mention the MEV favorably. I wish it was more widely known. I trust the KJV when there is a difference, but I do enjoy the MEV.
Thank you Pastor Bernard for sharing us your wisdom, to God all the glory in the name of Jesus Christ!
Really great discussion on an increasingly important but often unconsidered question.
Thank you Brother Bishop !!!
This is excellent. Thank you.
This is excellent teaching.
NIV and NLT among others leave out whole verses. David Daniels book "What's missing"
Most are versions not translations, or transliteration. Most are under copy rite so are required to change certain amount of the text.
I want to add this also....in the NIV they make out Jesus to be a liar. In John 7:8 they remove the word "Yet" then 2 verses later Jesus goes up. Hmmmm why would they remove it
That is an issue related to underlying source material. Depending upon the set of original documents being used, the KJV "leaves things out". The Syriac text has nearly 40% more material in the original language than what is commonly called "the majority text". The NIV etc. use "the critical text".
While I prefer KJV and other majority text translations, there is still a place for the others in certain situations.
Im new to collecting bibles. Ive had n grew up with kjv, but i been exploring modern english translations to get more context n insights that i didnt catch in kvj. I just bought the NIT today(the day I posted this comment) n bought a NLT couple weeks ago. The NLT helped a lot in understanding things I couldnt understand in the KJV. For eg, in leviticus when it talks about a man or a woman with a “running issue”. I could not for my sake understand that. Turned to my NLT n it means Discharge diseases where u just release fluids n whatnot involuntarily.
But idk, Imma pick up the NKJV when it restocks. Lol.
Such a wonderful explanation!! Totally enjoyed this !
Thank you for that wealth of information.
Thank you Bishop. God blesd
Thank God that His words preserved through human scholar like David Bernard I'm satisfied with his explain❤ Thank you🙏
Lately I've been using the ESV as my primary translation, but the first alternate translation I check is usually the NET, more for the translator's notes than the text itself. (This only works with the "full notes" edition, or online).
Excellent!!
Thank you for this video. It is very helpful.
The NKJV is my go to.
Very good. Thank you.
Excellent!
Nkjv and esv are my personal favorites.
I'm using a NLT version and I appreciate the way David Bernard explain that in this video.
May God bless his servant
Superb episode, digestible and spot on! I think “in” KJV because I grew up with it but I have also found that the dynamic equivalence translations, particularly NIV and NLT, to be super helpful in bringing new light to passages that had become almost ornamental Christianese in the KJV, and reading it in these other translations actually helped free the KJV in my mind when returning to it.
I really like the NASB for its precision, but I 100% agree on your characterization of it as “wooden” because of that precision - it’s clear that we are reading in fact a translation from another language which of course does not have the same structure and flow as English. 😅
Another dynamic equivalent translation that I have used for years and love is the God's Word translation. You can find it in Bible Gateway if you'd like to test it out.
An example...
The dynamic equivalence of the God's Word translation (GW) has an amazing look at this problematic verse...
1 Corinthians 15:29
KJV
29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
GW
29 However, people are baptized because the dead ⌞will come back to life⌟. What will they do? If the dead can’t come back to life, why do people get baptized as if they can ⌞come back to life⌟?
The GW translation words this difficult verse better and shows that Paul wasn't speaking about baptizing living people for those who have passed but how baptism's purpose relates to death, burial, and resurrection, putting it correctly in line with passages like Romans 6:3-5, 8
3 Don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 When we were baptized into his death, we were placed into the tomb with him. As Christ was brought back from death to life by the glorious power of the Father, so we, too, should live a new kind of life. 5 If we’ve become united with him in a death like his, certainly we will also be united with him when we come back to life as he did. ...
8 If we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.
GW
ESV AND NASB AND CSB NIV . DEPENDS ON MY MOOD. ALL ARE GOOD. GOOD TO HEAR OF NLT.
The problem is not necessarily the translation but the omitting of scripture.
I grew up memorizing KJV. I also read other material in middle English such as Shakespeare and Howard Pyle. For those reasons, I am very comfortable with the language and style. But I am teaching a home Bible study to some folks right now who have little Biblical background and knowledge. For that, I am using the NLT.
Excuse me, but the KJV wasn't written in "Middle English". It was written in "Modern English" (not to be confused with "contemporary English"; which is what we speak.)
I’d stick to my revised Tyndale - er I meant KJV! I found this discourse most edifying and informative though. Thanks for sharing.
Have always used the KJV however do have a NKJV Bile for study.
But you got it watch what you read cause a lot add or take away from the Bible.
That’s why I read Kjv
I don’t know why I got very excited when he said the CSB is a great literal Bible. I love that translation. I am also very surprised at how literal, yet simple it is to read. Anyone else using the CSB that would like to chime in?
Superb!! Considering the diachronic aspect of language, I totally agree to take recourse to other translations. But, yes, of course, I would use KJV and the ones prior to 1611 as the main texts. Thank you, Pastor 🙏🙏
No the other translations change and contradict the king JAMES. There can be only one truth. If bible's contradicts each other then there is 1 that is truth. Why king JAMES?
1. It took.7 years to make. 7 means complete and perfect in the Bible.
2. The papacy tried to kill king James because of the Bible.
3. The people asked the king, because the papacy church Bible was full of errors.
4. Jesus said freely give as freely received. The king JAMES BIBLE is the only Bible in the world that doesn't have a copyright. And so much more. Please watch my videos on BIBLE'S.
@@davidinchcliff4560 the NET bible has no copyright and can be printed and freely given. There's others as well. It's simply a translation. What translation should people who don't speak English read? You're putting a translation on a pedestal saying this.
I like using NIV and the Amplified Bible as well.
Rev. Bernard, I really appreciate these videos they are extremely helpful and Godly! Can you please make a video about what is Russia’s purpose in the end Time? I would really appreciate it.
God Bless You!
I was just thinking about this today on my way to. Work and was like Bro. Bernard should talk about this topic. Good timing. 😃👍🏻 Then I just now stumbled on this video.
KNOWLEDGE
Amen.
For me, I believe that using english translation of the bible is still good, Apostle Paul's journey gives us the best example of it. He journeyed through out the Asian countries insuch he uses many various languages to communicate with them, that'swhy he has that gift of tongues which is prerequisite to be successful in his ministry. So in my stand wether Hebrew, Aramaic or English translation can still be use to easily understand the bible according to our language we use.
Nasb Bible and the NIV Bible
I use but have many versions I like all Message Bible too
I have been using the Amplified Bible it seems to be close to the KJV. Gives a more understanding of what is going on in the text.
Has anyone else used this Bible?
I have read it in my Bible app for comparison but would not go buy a physical copy of it.
Amplified is awful. It changed apostolic doctrine. Check Acts 2:38.
Yes! Great translation
I read the Nkjv ... I would never pick up an NIV nor do I like hearing it quoted.
amen
Bro. Bernard, where do I find Greek and Hebrew Bibles? I would love to learn to read them.
Just curious if you have any thoughts on the 1989 NIV vs the 2011 (or close to that date) NIV.
The 2011 revision fixed a lot of what i considered to be weaknesses to the NIV, but it also made some odd translation choices with other areas of its revision. To give an example of both sides, the 1984 NIV had an issue with inconsistency of word use. For example, the Greek word sarx, meaning “flesh,” occurs eighteen times in the Book of Galatians. The NIV 1984 translated it eight different ways, as “man,” “body,” “human effort,” “illness,” “ordinary way,” “sinful nature,” “outward impression,” and “flesh.” The 2011 revision changed all these instances to "flesh" which cleared this issue up.
Mark 1:41 in the 2011 NIV is an example of a revision i dont agree with, the Greek word is "splagchnizomai" (Strong's NT:4697) which is often translated as "moved with compassion" or "pity", the 2011 NIV changes this to "indignation" which is no where close to the meaning.
Overall though, i would say the 2011 revision to the NIV improved the translation
Can you do a video regarding women pastors?? Thanks and God bless!!
Now I'm not the expert that Dr Bernard is but I will tell you a story. A young man who grew up in the church backslid.
Finally, he came back and needed praying through again. The grandmas and the aunties in the church were praying around him after church. I was standing a little further back but also praying toward him. A man sitting on the pew said to me, "Those women should not be praying with a man like that." I did not think of it until later but I always wish now that I had asked him why he wasn't praying with him then. Should we have let him walk out the door without praying through?
To go along with that, a minister/pastor visited from another church. He told how his wife had started and was heading the church's prayer night for everyone.
Someone in his congregation made the same rebuke...i.e. that a man should be the one to lead something like that.
The minister/pastor agreed but said that when he had consulted the Lord on the matter, the Lord told him, "I did call on several different men to start this but they would not answer the call so then I called your wife."
That makes me think if there are women pastors, they're standing in for the, "Oops...not me group."
Great explanation ! For myself I found that something is lost when the original Greek was translated to English.
For instance, in the original Greek, our English word " tongues" is singular not plural and means " another language" and " a language".
Another example is the English word " recieve". In the original Greek it means " to take hold of". I am not proficient at all in the original Greek but I didn't need to be to look up key words having to do with salvation in the Strongs Exhaustive Concordence Of The New Testament and The Hebrew/ Greek/ English Interlinear.
As always even with those aids no correct translation can truly understand without the indwelling Holy Spirit teaching us and guiding us in understanding what we are reading I'm the context that it is written.
Let The Word itself be the basis of your understanding not what your denomination or pastor says because that is what everyone will be judged by Jesus.
I use the NASB primarily. I like the ESV a lot also. I think I will use the NIV more for scripture comparison from now on. I think the NIV has gotten a bad rap.
KJV seems to make it easier for me to remember scriptures...I think because it does have different sound to it.
I heard that some of the other new translations wordings are different and may change the whole meaning of the text. Could Bishop Bernard please address that for me.
Dr. Bernard addressed this question in an earlier episode titled "What Bible Translation Should Apostolics Read?" ruclips.net/video/PLA1dCWqCsU/видео.html (Podcast Production Team)
It does and most especially the oneness.
Completely off topic question: I know that Pastor Bernard was a PK in Korea, and my question is how "good" is his Korean? Is he fluent, or is he "close your eyes" good? Just curious!!
You can find him preaching in Korean here on RUclips.
Both the MEV and NKJV are solid and reliable translations.
KJV works for me
Me too, I trust it more than the other versions.
yeah but what about the catholic translation which has the apocryphal books as part of doctrine, we'll likely this conversation doesn't emphasize on all translations
All of the old English translations say Holy Ghost, many of the NT translations have corrected that with Holy Spirit which the Hebrew and Greek says Holy Breath..
I’m not saying I know near as much as bro Bernard but NIV takes a lot of verses and scripture out of the Bible I would never want to use that translation
It is the source material that accounts for the difference. KJV and NKJV use what is commonly called "the majority text" and NIV uses "the critical text". This is another layer that Dr. Bernard is very much aware of, but chose not to dive into with this particular presentation.
Thomas Reppond, you are not wrong. The NIV is a fake.
@@arthurvanderhoff2413 Actually, KJV and NKJV used the Textus Receptus, not the Majority Text. There are some who try to say thats what it is, but they are both translated from Erasmus' Textus Receptus compiled in the mid 1500's
Could u give an example of which verses ? Like just 1 ?
@@jonathanw7520 Well to be more precise the TR is a more refined version of the Majority Text/Byzantine family, in this text family there is less than 2% variations that are primarily spelling of names of people, and places. Which happens as people have migrated, so not an issue at all! So to say TR/Majority Text/Byzantine type text family is perfectly fine.
Where can I find your books/website
I personally don’t read anything but the KJV it’s the only one I can get revelation from but I have other brothers in the Apostolic faith that uses other translations it does bring some confusion in a church setting if the pastor is reading the NIV some are using the KJV or NASB etc I’ve learned over the years the Bible will interpret the Bible and if you have the Holy Ghost if you run into a difficult scripture ask your teacher The Holy Ghost I do use a older strongs concordance seems as time passes men come up with different interpretations and are they full of the Holy Ghost or just in it for the money? Ever read the Message Bible ? That is a weird interpretation
Yes!!! God will reveal what we need, we don’t need other versions to do so. Especially since most of them take away the oneness of God.
Dr. Bernard, greetings in the name of JESUS CHRIST. How do address the questions about missing verses from the NIV Bible?
The underlying Greek in the NIV is called the Critical Text which is compromised of Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus mostly and they disagree within the Gospels alone over 3,000+ times and Codex Sinaiticus was made by a Greek heretic in 1844 and Codex Vaticanus was made by the Vatican in Rome in the 1400’s. So why would God promise us in His word that he will preserve His word unto all generations but then hide his Word from us for 1400-1800 years? The Hebrew Masoretic Text is traced throughout millennias and the Textus Receptus which is the Greek text underlying the King James is traced to the 1st century and upward, fitting exactly what the Bible claims about itself saying that God preserved His Word. But nobody wants to talk about those facts.
@@marcusgrant731 Would be very interested in seeing a source for the claim that the Textus Receptus is traced to the 1st Century and upward. How about the known added verses like 1 John 5:7, which is in no Greek manuscript prior to the 1500's and was knowingly added into the 3rd or 4th revision of the Textus Receptus?
@@jonathanw7520 In regards to the previous question “Eyewitnesses to Jesus” which are liberal scholars found a fragment called the “Magdalene Papyrus” which dates to the 60’s AD or even earlier which is TR. All of the early versions Coptic, Peshitta, Old Latin, Georgian, etc. are all TR based. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that 1 John 5:7 has always been in the Bible. One example, the internal evidence of the Greek in 1 John 5 demands that verse 7 has to be there. In verse 8 the 3 nouns are masculine and in verse 7 the 3 nouns are neuter. Basic Greek grammar demands that the 3 neuters have to be there to compliment to 3 masculine nouns. The external witnesses throughout history overwhelmingly support the Johannine comma in the TR. It was removed and added back into the TR by Erasmus not added in for no reason.
@@marcusgrant731 In addition to what you mentioned, the scripture quotes of the early Church leaders also support the TR/Majoriy Text/Byzantine type text family, you can actually reconstruct the Bible from their quotes, and it would match the KJB. Since the other commenter mentioned 1 John 5:7-8, it is specifically quoted by Poly Carp(Apostle John’s disciple), and Cyprian 209-248(martyred).
MY BROTHER, MY ELDER, Mr. Bernard :
Can we PLEASE talk about MATH 16:28!
I have been told there is no rapture and Jesus has already returned based on this one scripture. I’ve even been told this is the one verse that has people very stumped including pastors. Can we please dive into this to get clarity because it has really made me feel “let down” in some way but never faithless.
Could you please help me Brother ??
I'm not sure what the answer is so I hope Brother Bernard responds but here is something that might help a little:
"Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.” (2 Timothy 2:18)
That tells me that the same thing was happening back in Paul and Timothy's time too.
Pray and if Brother Bernard doesn't answer you, maybe God Himself will show you. I've had Him do that for me on occasion too.
Bless you!!!
Im not Bro Bernard, but let me give you what i know.
Several commentaries (such as the NIV Application Commentary on Matthew, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, and the Bible Exposition Commentary) point to the next chapter and the "Mount of Transfiguration" as the fulfillment to this statement, yet i would disagree as it almost makes His statement pointless if its fulfilled within such a short time frame. The other possibilities are: It speaks of Pentecost and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, thats certainly fulfills Mark's rendering of this passage in Mark 9:1. Or it could refer to John and the vision He had on the isle of Patmos, known in the Bible as the book of Revelation where he certainly saw the Son of Man coming in his kingdom, though it was a future event. It could even refer to Jesus resurrection and ascension into heaven.
The argument that Jesus had already come is laughable, firstly, people are still able to be filled with the Spirit of God, thus the church is still here on Earth. Secondly, we are definitely NOT experiencing the wrath of God as seen in several Chapters of the book of Revelation. So there is nothing to fear from that point. There are plenty of explanations which flow with scripture without having to resort to one that tries to jump the gun on Christ's return.
@@jonathanw7520 based. Some interpretations do give misconceptions on key doctrinal points about the second coming of Christ, but r all easily debunked by the book of revelations and the prophecy not happening yet.
It relates to the Transfiguration , in which several disciples got an advanced preview of the Lord’s coming in glory. This however will not take place until the Second Coming when Christ physically returns to earth, every eye sees Him, He defeats His enemies, rescues the remnant of Israel, and establishes His Millennial Kingdom on earth.
Do one on the subject of dress (men vs women) and how culture/gender distinction is what matters and not the objective article of clothing.
Why should we shave our beards if the Bible tells us in Leviticus 21:5 not to shave?
Who said you had to shave?
Thats more based upon preferences rather than Bible. Pretty sure the stance on beards was removed from the UPCI manual several years ago.
Some of the Apostles also quoted directly from the book of Enoch found in the dead sea scrolls. Bet you wont touch that with a 10 foot pole.
Amplified Bible is also excellent as a reference alongside KJV NKJV ✔️
Biggest issue with the Amplified is that a word in context has meaning, and the range of meaning for a particular word cannot be in every sentence. In other words and, as an example, pistis can be translated 'faith', 'trust', 'system of doctrine' and 'faithfulness'. It doesn't mean all of that at the same time every time it appears in the New Testament.
This is SAD . For the time will come
Why don't you talk about the words that got change
So many doctrinal scriptures have been taken out, so sad ppl don’t understand we go to God for revelation.
How about the Amplified Bible?
Hello, from what I heard, this is another translation becoming popular within apostolic circles. I’m actually personally surprised that that CSB made the formal cut and not the dynamic. I mean, it’s pretty formal, but reads very dynamic.
Case and point, amplified is good.
The Chuck Jones version
Okay after read follow it and get save some where seek truth not useless information. If you want the truth God will freely give. Look at Cornelius in the kjv Bible he prayed and God answered
The best study is Greek to learn what the Disciples and Jesus meant by what they said.
If you love the KJV, but want a translation that has more modern wording, but still has some of the KJV language, then I highly recommend the RSV (Revised Standard Version) and the NASB 1977 edition, which both have the thee's, thou and thine, but only in reference to God, as a way to elevate Him, which I love!
I always heard if you don't use the king James bible it takes away the blood
That is not true.
Well modern translations do remove the “blood” in several places, and is really worse than what most people know! Long story short, the 3-main text used in most modern bibles have serious problems. After much research I have discovered that they are actually fraudulent! If you are studious, and would like more information I would be happy to help. I can also show how the text base for the KJB is solid, and can be traced back to the first century.
Should a woman wear leggings under a skirt? If not how do they stay warm? For instance me and my wife would like to go hunting together but it’s freezing for her to just wear a skirt. Do you have any suggestions?
Do you wear a coat outside when it's cold
This is a question you need to ask your pastor not RUclips.
Tell her to wear the leggings. God's not gonna care.
God invented clothes (Genesis 3) and defined modesty in multiple passages, some of which help us by saying what is immodest and ungodly. Wearing a skirt long enough and full enough to cover legs according to the Bible definition should also cover any underwear used and needed to stay warm. This isn't true of the mini-skirts and knee grasers that are far too common among fully initiated holiness folks (as opposed to new converts who should be given all the time they need to be taught by God through His Word and Holy Ghost) over the last couple of decades. When Jesus (our Supreme Example) shows up in Revelation 1, his "garment" is "down to the foot". That is a Biblical standard and not one subject to whims of any fallible human being, in or out of a role of church leadership.
Dr Bernard , do you realize that the modern versions take the BLOOD out of many of the verses . Prov. 30 : 5 says that Every word of God is pure . The AV KJV of 1769 is what we use today and is written in 6 th grade english . Bro. Bernard i can't believe that you think the New KJV is as good as the old . Yes the Tyndale Bible is the best translation , but that bible as well as the Geneva is not readily in print today . Dr. Bernard you oversee 42,000 churches , how can you recommend these corrupt Catholic inspired versions to your churches . Also in Spanish we recommend the Reina Valera - Gomez . Let me give you I Cor. 1 - 10 , Now i beseech you, brethern by the name of our LORD JESUS CHRIST , that you ALL speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you ...
Nasb is the earlier manuscripts late 3rd and 4th century manuscripts .. the Kjv is from 11 th and 12th century manuscripts.. some verses were not in the earlier manuscripts such as 1 john 5:7 that found their way into kjv Bible because of late manuscripts .. and so Erasmus put some of those mistakes in his 3rd addition that tysdale used , that Luther did not ,he used eraasmus 2nd addition which don’t have 1 john 5:7 .. so I strongly recommend Nasb 95 addition . It tells you which verses were added . It also tells you how mark 16 ends at verse 8. The rest of mark is known as the long ending . that the translator’s warned was not a part of original manuscripts .. I’m glad to hear dr Bernard isnt a king James only person .. a good word for word translation is best for doctrine. The Nasb 95 is word for word and most accurate translation today…
Your information is not correct, I will explain! I used the NIV(78&84), and NASB(77&95) for more than 30 yrs, along with the KJB. The missing verses, words, phrases, passages, brackets, notes etc have never set well with me in my spirit. So the Berean in me kicked in, and began to search out the matter. I discovered that the modern Church has been deceived, and lied to. Most modern bibles use as their underlying text the Alexandrian type: 3 main copies (.06%) Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus. In the 4th century when the Alexandrinus text began to be circulated, Jerome got ahold of a copy comparing it to those that were from Antioch(in the first 4 centuries Antioch was the only authorized place to obtain Biblical manuscripts). He found that the book of Revelation 50 yrs from when John penned it was corrupt in the Alexandrinus, and the rest of the NT by the end of the 2nd to the begining of the 3rd centuries were corrupted. So Jewish scribble protocols were invoked, all known copies were destroyed(burned). But the Alexandrian's(who were gnostic, cultist, and heretics)were so rebelious, unrepentant, and hard hearted, that they managed to bury a single copy, which is what we have today. The Vaticanus supposedly discovered in the 1400's with no prior history? When Erasmus was compiling the Greek NT, the Catholic Church gave to him to use. After examining it , he found it to be fraudulent. All the Reformers, and reformed era scholars knew this, and rejected it as well. Hense why it was not utilized in translating any of the prior English translations, to include the KJB. Als Erasmus had multiple dozens of Greek manuscripts that he obtained that were traced to Antioch(was the only authorized source for Biblical manuscripts in the first 4 centuries). The Sinaiticus supposedly discovered by Constantine Tishcendorf(who was a known money hungry liar)in the mid-1800's, but was actually created by Constantine Simonides in the early mid-1800's. The Information on this is easy to find, additional information on this can found at Chick Publications by David Daniels. He has a video series on this, and related subjects where he systematically shows Simonides created Sinaiticus. David Daniels also has evidence through independent chemical testing, showing the ink is 19th century, both the written, and art. So we have these fraudulent so-called manuscripts, making bibles from them? It seems that the devil has been busy, working overtime deceiving people! To show that the TR/Majority Text/Byzantine type text is the only true Biblical text, all we have to do is to compare with other sources that line up, and match. The scriptural quotes by the early Church leaders match the TR/Majority Text/Byzantine type text, and the KJB, In fact you could reconstruct the Bible just from their quotes, and it matches the KJB. The we have other ancient text from the mid-2nd century AD, like the Syriac, or ancient Bibles like the Greek Orthodox Bible mid-2nd century AD, and the Old Latin 90-130 AD. The Old Latin started by the Apostle John, with his disciples Poly Carp, and Papias. Then completed by Poly Carp, Papias, and there disciples Justin Martyr, and, Ignatius. These all match together with the TR/Majority Text/Byzantine type text, and the KJB. There are no missing verses etc, to include 1 John 5:7-8(besides being in these early text, they are directly quoted by Poly Carp(John's disciple, and Cyprian 200-248 AD-martyred, and Mark 16:9-20 as being authentic, and original! My position is TR/Majority Text/Byzantine type text only, and KJB preferred/best. I do utililize other Bibles from these text: pre-KJV Reformed era Bibles, NKJV, MEV(Modern English Version) MLV(Modern Literal Version), WEB(World English Bible), and there are other KJV variants KJV2000, KJV21, KJVER, Simplified KJV etc. I absolutely reject anything Alexandrian based. There's more I'll post later, showing KJB being inspired, and mathematically perfect.
The 47 KJB translators were chosen because of their skill set, education, and training was on a far superior level that wasn’t seen before or since. Their education started around 4-5 years of age, and were fluent in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin by 6-7 years of age, as well as other languages. As adults they studied 12-16 hours a day, in comparison modern scholars average 8 years of higher education, and might know one ancient language somewhat? The 47 would make modern scholars look like children, infants even. As they were charged with putting together an accurate English translation, and be as precise as possible. With prior English translations like the Geneva, Tyndale, and others it was the 7th in the refinement, as the others were stepping stones to get to the KJB. As the Hebrew OT, and Greek NT languages are mathematical in nature, they are written in such a manner that makes it impossible for any person on this planet to have written any part of scripture apart from God. This means that the men God chose to write, were essentially secretaries taking dictation.To show that God’s inspiration carried over into the KJB, first is the bringing together the 47 scholars who translated themselves is definitely no accident! Then you have the mathematical perfection that is unique to the KJB! Though there is multiple sites on the mathematics in scripture, I will attach link to a short video showing how.
The Spanish rvr1960 is more accurately translated than the kjv
That’s the translation my father preferred.
How do you measure that?
Spanish has grammar more similar to Greek in construction. English is a mash-up of German, French, Latin and Greek roots. It is a composite language. Therefore, the RVR is superior in terms of capturing more of the original language grammar.
@@stevensanabria1326 One simply needs to know Spanish and English and compare with Greek study tools. Using a Strong's concordance, and several Greek lexicons like Kittel's TDNT 10 Vol, Thayer's Greek lexicon, and Louw and Nida Greek lexicon, and some Bible dictionaries one can easily see the translation issues within the KJV. Granted, many of these are due to the language not being updated into modern English so in essence one is actually reading a foreign language that they think they know (pretty dangerous considering its the Word of God). This is why i use modern English translations such as the ESV and NASB as they tend to make better translation choices according to Hebrew and Greek, also, they prove the Apostolic doctrine more clearly.
Oh man, you brought ptsd with that hahaha almost all hispanic/latino churches use Reina Valera 1960. Sociedad Biblicas is also a good translation. La Biblia de las Americas tends to be a very practical and easy translation used. All Spanish translation, another widely used one is the La Biblia el Arco Iris, i think its a mc arthur study bible.
I read your book, "God's Infallible Word" years ago after my Bachelor's, and it guided me to make great choices with translations to use, but to always refer to Greek or Hebrew when hunting original meaning.
But for Everyman who is reading his phone, not a Bible, it's time to let the KJV rest. You made a great point that KJV is a 5th revision, which doesn't lend it any more authority than any good modern translation. Instead of remaining a body who doesn't read any translation, this should be a call and challenge to dig into a more readable Bible, and climb out of our bliss of comfortable ignorance.
Baloney !
1 John 5:7 is always a problem for the KJV-Only Apostolics as it proves trinitarian interpolation not tracing back to the majority of root texts. NIV corrects this. The passage is very detrimental to oneness christology and should never have been added to the KJV. For me, I prefer the Alfred Marshall KJV/NIV Greek/English Interlinear New Testament because you can really access the text more fully and more accurately. Marshall relies on Nestle.
Not quite understanding the point your trynna point out here brother.
Then re-read it. He states it quite clearly
This is false as to as to 1 John 5:7-8 not being original! The Alexandrian text base used for the NIV, and others like NASB, and ESV, has serious problems, even worse than that. Having used both the NIV(78&84), and NASB(77&95) for more than 30 years, along with the KJB. After much research, I have discovered the Alexandrian text to be fraudulent. If you are a Berean, and studious I will show you how. There are plenty of documents that verify 1 John 5:7-8, and the many others that are missing in Alexandrian based bibles.
This my 2nd reply, someone doesn't like, or want to know the truth? I can show that 1 John 5:7-8 are original, and authentic along with other passages Alexandrian Bibles are missing, or with brackets.
KJV is a poor translation but the closest to the original read them all but go back to the KJV.
Proverbs 4:7
Answer to the video title: the Akjv(authorized king james version)
Is the UPCI moving away from the the KJV as their approved and used bible? Sounds like the superintendent has. A little Leaven leavens the bread. Gal 5:9
While we have great respect for the KJV, the UPCI has never been a KJV-only organization.
In the UPC I articles of faith position papers for 1953, 2014, 2019 it states as follows we continue to except the king James version of the Bible is the most accurate translation of the Scriptures to be used in our churches and among our people. It talks about upon examining the revised standard version of the Bible we find that many passages concerning the fundamentals of our Christian faith and doctrine have been changed and are very misleading, namely, the virgin of Christ, remission of sins as taught in the New Testament the deity of Christ and other truths. Whereas a majority of the committee of translators themselves, according to their associations, connections and records are shown to be modernist and liberal scholars who do not believe or embrace the revealed truths of God‘s holy Word, including the plan of salvation.
Look it up and see for yourself!
Page 207 on the bottom and page 208.
Glad to see Apostolic leadership move away from a KJV only position, it's been needed for a long time.
In your opinion.
NIV removes oneness of God
God purified His Word 7x and the KJV was the last of the 7 thus the KJV is the ONLY true word of God. All other translations afterwards have been proven to be corrupt.
Wrong again. The KJV uses the Masoretic text in the OT. The Septuagint is much more accurate, not only more ancient it also does not have the date changing in it that took place when the Jews altered times to hide he accuracy of Daniel and his messianic time line. You need to go back and realize why scholars like DR, John MacArthur translated the ESV using the Septuagint and not the Masoretic text.
Septuagint is a forgery, created by Origen in the 3rd century. There are multiple organizations that have studied this, and have the data showing it is fraudulent. Two off the top of my head are Chick Publications- with David Daniels, and KJB Research Counsel. Based on Jewish historical records there was an original Septuagint produced around 250 BC, and it was destroyed by fire a 100 year later. There is more on this, but I will post later.
The Septuagint is a 3rd century fraud produced by Origen of Alexandria. My 2nd post, someone doesn't like, or want to know the truth! I had provided more detail in the first one. If you are a Berean, and a seeker of truth I will expound.