As I started studying the Bible in its original languages I truly believe they should have left some words in the original language. The English falls short on word definitions. Like the word obey being used for a woman and child. Children are to harken their parents. Women are to respect man as their head as to the orderly arrangement of God. So if the man as head doesn’t follow God a woman has no need to follow his leadership. The Authority is God. Man is head only by following God’s Word.
@@gregory6402 just a very basic search from a Strong’s concordance shows they’re two different words for obey. Col 3:20 Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord. Obey here is: G5219 (Strong’s #) hupakouō From G5259 and G191; to hear under (as a subordinate), that is, to listen attentively; by implication to heed or conform to a command or authority: - hearken, be obedient to, obey. Wives obedience: Tit 2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. G5293 (Strong) hupotassō From G5259 and G5021; to subordinate; reflexively to obey: - be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto. Women submit voluntarily to their husbands, not just because God committed it that way, but also because women are the weaker vessels. So wether by authority or carnal nature women should submit to a point. If you deny the spiritual order, then deny natural order the only obedience left is that of the demonic realm. Women aren’t slaves, they’re help mates. A man doesn’t follow God’s laws, then she has no reason to follow her husband. The tasso in hupotasso is an orderly arrangement. G5021 (Strong) tassō A prolonged form of a primary verb (which latter appears only in certain tenses); to arrange in an orderly manner, that is, assign or dispose (to a certain position or lot): - addict, appoint, determine, ordain, set. God bless
Yes, on the face of it, indeed ridiculous. Until one keeps in mind that at that time, there were so many conflicting ideas and Bible versions, that the copyright on the KJV (at the time) was meant to ensure the printing presses of that day could not alter any of the decided upon text of the Bible - it wasn't copyrighted then for reasons of profit (as is normally the case), but to keep the content there-of pure, even to the extent of only allowing one printing press (Barker family) to be allowed to print the Bible (later extended to Oxford and Cambridge Universities as well, in order to correct topographical errors). Hence it probably did serve a purpose from that time to the present. It may even still be necessary , in order to continue to keep it true - as we are truly swamped by a magnitude of false Bibles today, mostly contaminated by the Vatican ground texts.
@@ChaplainBobWalkerBTh Thank you, I will look into that version - it's becoming noticeably more difficult to obtain pure copies of the original editions, as each year passes. A sign of the times.
I had only been saved a year or two before I knew KJV was right bible. Other ones tracking their lineage of manuscript & Antioch vs Alexandrian manuscripts have fought forever it seems. But KJV being stopped & frozen so has made it stick out against bibles that are corrupted & NIV that legit publishes 'Joys Of Gay Sex' & 'The Satanistnic Bible.' That's also ontop of NIV being able to Change it around. Verse 22. Stop messing with the bible.
When my brother was a student-preacher in small church back in early 1960s he used the ASV. The elders made him go back to KJV, "just the way Paul wrote it".
@@kenavery8144 Not quite sure what you are saying; but am reasonably sure the elder in question would not know there was an underlying text. Such is the life of a student pastor in a small town. David
@@davidllewis4075 This is an assumption on my part, that the Elder had knowledge of the superior biblical accuracy of the Syrian text over the Egyptian text.
I know I mentioned this in your lecture on Anglicanism and King James, but it bears repeating, because there was a parallel that recently occurred to me. In 2007, I got my grandfather the King James version of the Bible for his last birthday, unaware that he had the same birthday as King James VI/I: June 19. Like it was meant to be. What's even weirder is that I recently found another striking parallel between the two, theologically speaking. My great-great-great grandfather, John Peacock Wood (1818-1899), immigrated from England and joined the Mormon Migration; he and his descendants were Mormon until my grandfather broke the tradition when he became Lutheran. King James's forbears were Catholic until he broke the tradition in being the first Anglican king of Scotland in 1567.
Bible translations are important, but there is a greater factor: “As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day” (Ezekiel 34:12). Those given to the Son before the foundation of the world will come to Him and be preserved to the last day. It’s not so much what WE know, or are able to ascertain by labor or study (and I’m not impugning study), but it’s about WHO knows US. If we exhaust all the knowledge of all the great and godly men who ever lived, at the end of our lives the final plaintive wail of the good thief, “remember me!” and Christ’s glorious reply is all that matters. Godspeed!
@@wdcurry111 Indeed…. Those that are given to the Son before the foundation of the world isn’t a predestination of individuals. It’s a confirmation to those that are biblically reborn that they will be saved.
Not only that but also, according to Parson Weems' hagiography, the boy George Washington didn't actually CHOP down the said cherry tree: rather, he simply barked it.
I Read the Authorize King James Bible Only! Because it's from the Textus Receptus New Testament and the Levitical Hebrew Text Old Testament which is Real Scriptures!
I pray and meditate several times a day, filling my mind with the beauty of Gods wonderful words. I rehearse soul winning verses which I use when the opportunity presents itself to share the Gospel. I am so thankful to God for the comfort of his beautiful words. Praise His Holy Name.
Extinguished a Junk Professor Hello sir. What you suggest is impossible. When a person has become a true BORN AGAIN BELIEVER, a spiritual transaction occurs that can never be stopped. God indwells the person with his Holy Spirit (Romans 8:16). This last for all eternity.
@@Policesamuri77717 I know you believe this nonsense and you will use excruciating verbal gymnastics to explain the journey of those who escape the grip of superstition. You are fortunate to have the power of discernment to determine that the true believers who no longer believe, were not genuine believers in the first place. I also have the magic power to determine that those apologists who say they were atheists were not true atheists in the first place and are deceivers.
Extinguished a Junk Professor 😊 You definitely put a smile on my face. It is always nice to read a comment from someone interesting. It is late and I am up early for work tomorrow. I will pray that God gives me a proper response. 🙏🕵️👍
Michel Duncan no, Christianity has been discussed and debated amongst Christians themselves for hundreds of years. Refusing a educated discussion or conversation is the adult equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears. You look silly.
Eliyahu I honestly don't even understand your reply. Are you saying you never see preachers debating the gospel? Well yeah, a person preaching it already has their views relatively set.....though depending on the type of Christianity they may have four to thirteen YEARS of schooling relating to theology and ministry to even be ordained in the first place (the exception being Baptists, where a "preacher" can have anywhere from a masters to zero formal education-the individual church decides). Seems like ample time to me for discussion. And this is a video BY a christian talking about christian history- not one attacking the Bible. The poster I replied to didn't seem to watch the video at all and instead had a knee jerk reaction to the title. And yes, I still think that makes them look silly.
@@goodnight8169 I think you need to study your Bible more closely ma'am ! Read 2 Timothy 4:2 'Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine'. Bible believers, amongst themselves, are *_obliged_* to study doctrine, and reprove, even rebuke, those with wrong doctrine. That is how a saved Christian grows in his/her faith.
Mark Chapman - I agree, understanding that there is a difference between an apple tree and a cherry tree is very taxing on the brain, especially for a person gullible enough to believe Iron Age biblical myths.
Are you so weak that you through out the entire teaching for 1 thing you disagree with? Not that I see that it makes any difference but CHerry Tress were not brought to the U.S. until 1906. They are native to Japan, the Japanese embassy told the U.S, they were going to plant 2,000 trees, in Washington..
I also want to point out that the Puritans and Separatists were NOT the same group. The Separatists wanted to simply form their own little theocratic enclave and be more or less left alone by Great Britain. The Puritans were revolutionaries who wanted to change Britain and purify it. This is born out by Cromwell. Eventually the Separatists of Plymouth Colony were swallowed up by the bigger more powerful Massachusetts Bay Colony who were Puritans. Also Britain sent a lot of non Separatists to Plymouth and within 30 years the Separatists were in the minority despite the fact that the colonial leaders imposed strict religious policies such as mandatory church attendance and participation. Perhaps the most famous "Pilgrim" was John Alden and he wasn't even a Separatist at all but merely a young barrel maker employed by the captain as mandated by law but because he became friendly with Bradford he was permitted to remain in Plymouth. I would also like to point out that throughout New England there were numerous fishing villages and trading posts, particularly out on Cape Cod, the islands and up in Maine where religion was not always a significant part of life and in fact out in Provincetown on the Cape, there has always been a tradition of being socially rebellious. Fishermen, artists, poets and today the LGBTQ community have taken refuge there but that was the case in the 1630s when a few families fled Plymouth to live a far more liberal lifestyle. Technically all of the cape was part of Plymouth Colony until it was absorbed into the Massachusetts Bay Colony but in practice, due to it's remoteness it was mostly left alone to it's own devices. The various islands and Maine were likewise mostly left alone. If you wanted real religious freedom you moved to a more remote area away from the Puritanical theocratic dogma. Just like back in England, if you lived in a more remote and rural part of the country you could live a more liberal lifestyle. If you preferred city life and wanted religious freedom you moved to Holland, perhaps Amsterdam. Jamestown in Virginia was made up of 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. sons of well to do families and their servants. Religion played a lesser role in their lives. They were more pragmatic though not suitable as colonists as most had never done any work in their lives and when the problems started in that colony most of the servants they brought with them rebelled leaving the poor spoiled brat sons of wealthy and noble families to learn some harsh lessons about survival. Many did not learn those lessons. So Virginia was ostensibly members of the Church of England though in practice they were most likely agnostic. Connecticut was founded by Puritans from the Boston area. New Hampshire, while technically ruled by the Puritans for much of it's early history was a de facto independent territory. Religiously it was very diverse with rural families ranging from Roman Catholic in the northern part of the province to Puritan in the Southern most reaches though no part of the province was completely devoted to any one denomination and in between were, at least at the beginning, populated by non Christian Indians. Religion in colonial America is a very complex topic which should exclude generalizations like referring to the "Pilgrims" as puritans.
I appreciate your approach to scholarship on this topic, though I would imagine any change to a revealed word of god, however miniscule, could give rise to multiple interpretations and readings, which result in sectarianism and further division. As carefully as the scriptures have been read and scrutinized, these minor changes have the potential for major deviations in interpretation. Again, not really a criticism, rather a personal opinion on the matter. I would like to see your take on the influence of Daemonologie, and what impact, if any, it had on Biblical scholarship in the English speaking world going forward. Cheers
Wow, so much wrong here, I don't know where to start, I'm surprised you didn't happen to mention the catholics giving Tyndales bones a trial, finding his bones guilty, then burning his bones,and throwing the ashes in the river swift, no mention of the catholics working on the douaday rhems version in France, at the same time, no mention of the gun powder plot, the fact that king james PAID the translation teams, on the final work, ( although most translators never got paid) and the original Bible had a letter in it written to James, dread sovereign if I remember correctly. Then, if that wasn't enough you didn't address font or spelling changes which although were "corrections " didn't affect any doctrine. Plus being burned at the stake by catholics, for the crime of translating the Bible in English, the fact that the king himself worked on translating a part for his own personal benefit. All future translations would be radically different that the king james, because the source text was different. Corrupt source text produces a corrupt Bible. All you have to do on the modern versions is compare to the king james, and you can see the doctrine changes.
I've always been a fan of separation of C&S, so even if it were unofficially " authorized", I'd be good with that, too.. you are correct about revisions of KJV, hence certain evangelicals that now believe in a 7 Year Tribune.. The Left Behind series... Peace! c):~)
As a non-religious person deeply interested in this from a strictly historical point of view, the rivalries and battles between denominations and even person to person always struck me as really odd. I understand that when you have an order to enforce so as not to have a million different violently opinionated heretics running around causing trouble, it's important to make sure everyone's on the same page. This is why I think the whole idea of the ruthlessly totalitarian medieval church is kind of a scarecrow; the alternative is quite probably widespread tribal sectarian war led by a bunch of backwoods preachers who all think they've got it figured out. However when it carries on to the modern day, all that stuff feels like it should be in the past. Like if an American still hated the British for the way they treated us as colonies, it's just a bizarre hill to pick a fight on. I certainly don't mean to sound condescending but it just seems like the sort of thing that should have been left behind by the march of history, and the fact that so many people still take it so personally always seemed kind of petty to me. Maybe it's just because my mom's family was Catholic and my dad's is Lutheran. Is this sort of conflict an over exaggerated hysteria in the modern day? I don't mean to get political but a lot of the time this sort of thing gets played up and blown out of proportion in society, for instance if you put too much stock in the narrative about race in America you'd think that white people and black people were brawling in the streets every time they saw each other. I truly don't mean to belittle race struggles at all, but I think you know what I mean, nobody ever wrote the headline "White person and Black person have normal interaction or "Protestant and Catholic become friends and hang out sometimes". As I haven't gone to church since I was a tiny child and have never really worn any team colors so to speak, I have no reference on how much modern sectarian conflict is a real thing and how much of it is outrage culture hyperbole.
The most ruthlessly totalitarian medieval church was in Geneva under John Calvin. The Vatican wasn't far behind but in many ways not even close to Calvin for ruthlessness.
+Skylitze Religion was culture in those days it was also the Law of the land. Not Just in Catholic Europe either. You can find it in any Religion the same issue. Even Buddhism and Hinduism their various sects Use to fight all the time. Yes Even the philosophy of the Chinese were divided at times. .
6 лет назад
Protestant nonsense propaganda and outright lies aren't historical fact.
The King James Bible is one of the great literary treasures our world has ever seen, especially when you consider who wrote the King James Bible, why it was written and when it was written. While it is a literary masterpiece, more importantly it is the Word of God. This is why it has endured. Not because of the commission of King James but because of the commission of God himself. Regardless of how people feel about God's word, you can be confident in knowing that God's word will endure forever. "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever" (Isaiah 40:8 KJV)
There is a age old saying that loosely goes as such..... "History is written by the victor and history is filled with liars". Read your bibles and trust what your hear and mind tells you the best you can and let your conscience be your guide. May God bless us all and have mercy on our corrupted, sinful souls. For God is humanity's one and only hope for a truly pure and just existence, James Thompson.
Years ago I looked up King James life and history, and found 10 pages of his life as a guy man and meney lovers, the Bible he put out had to be done over a fue times, but he had put in it,.when Christ was telling us about the last days,.that, two men will be in bed, one will be taken, and the other left,.?
I wonder if these King James only people stop to think about the fact that not everyone knows English. A person that speaks french only can't read a word of the king James Bible and understand it.
William Tyndale deserves a lot of credit for the foundation of the Authorized Version 1611 and Geneva Bible was the most popular bible in the colonies. The KJV translators gave a great deal of credit to King James in the front matter.
Tynedale copied his new testement part from erasmus Greek New testement, its nearly same just English. Erasmus used Greek manuscripts he had acquired and the Vulgate, he knew there was parts added to the Vulgate and he knew his Greek manuscripts had many mistakes. He wrote about these facts. Also he admitted his version he wrote had many mistakes. Tynedale used original Hebrew for old testement part but erasmus Greek for the new testement part. King James (original) is almost same as tynedale
While I typically prefer kjv to modern bibles, I'm afraid those who say it's the one true perfect inerrant word of God are wrong. The kjv new testament was translated from the greek textus receptus and the creator Beza of the textus receptus admitted to changing the Bible. He changed Revelation 16 5 and said that he did it to change it back to what he thought it originally said in his notes. You might say "Beza was inspired by the holy spirit to change it back to what it originally was" but the word of God cannot be inspired twice according to psalm 12 6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. They can be lost and then found but they cannot be lost and inspired again.
What about the Oxford and Cambridge revisions of the 1760s? Thousands of changes were made at the time. It is an amalgam of these two efforts that is currently printed and available in stores. See A Textual History of the King James Bible by David Norton (Cambridge University Press, 2005) The version of history you delivered in your most informative and useful video doesn't account for these facts at all.
Most of those changes were spelling , grammar, notes and typographical errors. Very little in way of translation was changed. I am very blessed to own a very rare 1762 Folio of Dr. Francis Sawyer Parris' standardized version that is the foundational link from antiquity to modernity
@@roberttassone7676 Unfortunately, this is only a portion of the story for this edition was very quickly superceded by the 1769 edition revised by Benjamin Blayney. He made over 20,000 changes and David Norton's NEW CAMBRIDGE PARAGRAPH BIBLE (which is about as close to the true text of the 1611 as scholarship can produce) and his companion volume on the textual history document that many of these changes were actual changes of words and not just corrections of spellings and typographical errors. Despite what the KJV only supporters state, there is no one, perfect King James Version. Even the currently available versions of the KJV in stores today are not in complete agreement as to the text. The closest one comes are the Oxford and Cambridge University Presses editions. (They are also the closest to Blayney's 1769 text except for four minor changes, the last made in the late 1800s, if I remember correctly.) Even they disagree on several words--spelling only--and the punctuation of one or two verses which slightly changes the meaning but doesn't impact any doctrines. There are more differences between these versions and those published in the United States, where the text produced by different publishers (Thomas Nelson, Zondervan, Crossways, Hendrickson, etc.) aren't in 100% agreement as to the text.
I ordered your book Dr Reeves. It arrives tomorrow ! Looking forward to reading it!!!!! Update. Your book is in my hand and I am about to start reading it.
Welcome back professor - I quoted you twice in a new book right alongside "Roman lives" by Plutarch. Looking forward to more of your wonderful and insightful teaching
Problem is the English language is continuing to change, as it has since 1611. The kjv is getting harder and harder for English speakers to understand. Eventually it will be like trying to read the "Canterbury tales", and no person in the future will be able to understand it. Funny how so many do not see this huge glaring problem. Eventually the kjv will have to be abandoned. For one it uses verb conjugations and subject pronouns that have totally fallen out of use.
THE KING JAMES VERSION & THE AMERICAN STANDARD OR BASICALLY THE ASPE FOR SO MEANINGS OF SOME WORDS HERE & THERE. I GREW UP IN THE BAPTIST CHURTH BUT I REMEMBER AS CHILD WE WOULD GO TO CHURCH ON THE PEW'S WHERE SONG BOOKS WERE THAY WOULD BE BIBLES IN THERE WITH THE SONG BOOKS ALL OF THEM WERE AMERICAN STANDARDS OF CAUSE THE CHURCH USED THE KING JAMES VERSION THAT IS WHAT I RAED TO. BUT I WOULD TAKE AMERICAN STANDARD & TRY TO FOLLOW WHAT PREACHER PREACHING THAT SUNDAY & TRY TO FOLLOW IN THE AMERICAN STANDARD OF CAUSES THE WORDS WERE DIFFERENT SO BECAUSE OF THAT I COULD NOT FOLLOW THE KING JAMES VERSION I HAD TO LISTEN TO THE BIBLE RAED BY THE PREACHER. BUT NOW I HAVE A NEW AMERICAN STANDARD IT'S MORE SIMILAR WITH THE KING JAMES VERSION BUT I LOVE READING BOTH OF THEM. THE KING JAMES VERSION OR THE NEW KING JAMES VERSION OR BOTH GOOD TRANSITIONS. THE AMERICAN STANDARD IT'S GOOD TO. I STICK WITH THE KING JAMES VERSION & NEW KING JAMES VERSION THE 0NLY REAL DIFFERENTS IN THE 2 IS THE K.J.V SAY THE HOLY GHOST & IN THE N.K.J.V IT SAYS HOLY SPIRIT. I LIKE HOLY GHOST! BUT I LIKE ALL THREE. AMEN! ✝️ 😃
The King James Bible is the perfect inerrant word of God. Matthew 24:35 “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” King James Version (KJV)
Not only was king James against the use of only one version of the Bible the king James translators themselves were against it and even acknowledged in the introduction to the king James version that it would need to be updated as more reliable manuscripts came available and the English language evolved.
Idk what make you come with that realization! His intention was to come with a more reliable bible than was available at that time. The methods of King James translation where a proper method. The problem of today's new translations is that is not the proper way to translate a text. They don't translate word for word as in KJV, they translate thought for thought, what make the translator decide what the text means instead of what the text really said! King James Only is a product of this incompetence to translate a text properly that the NVs come at each publication of a new so called bible. I have no problem with new translations as long they translate the words with the proper way to translate a text. I bet John Wesley's translation was a proper way to translate a text for the common language at the time, not authering the proper doctrines. In accordance to KJV. But in the case of this new corrupted translations you find so much errors and verses that is missing compared to KJV you can't consider you are holding a bible. So, there is nothing wrong with KJV onlyism as long the basis for KJV onlyism is right! That is defending the word of God as it says, not what I think God says. KJV = the right manuscripts + proper translation methods + comitment to the word of God NV = the wrong manuscripts + the wrong translation methods + comitment to the ever changed language
@@kjvitor We came to this realization from reading the introduction to the KJV itself. In it the translators admit the KJV is not the end all be all translation and would bee revision if more reliable manuscripts are found and the english language changed. According to the Bible itself, the translation method the KJV translators used is actually not the proper one. The only verse in the Bible that speaks to the issue of translation says the Bible should only be translated in a way that preserves the original meaning(AKA thought for thought). The problem with word for word translations is that is can be extremely difficult to translate without changing the original meaning. For example a common greeting in Chinese is the equaivent of "I'm glad your are here" in English but literally translates to "Have you eaten". In some areas the NIV is actually more accurate and literal then the KJV. The verses you claim are missing from the NIV, are actually not missing at all, they are in the footnotes as they are not in the most reliable manuscripts which date to just 40 years after the book of Revolution was completed as opposed to the KJV manuscript basis which came 1000 years later. The only real basis for KJV onlyism is the believe that the KJV is the correct one based on simple tradition of use, not reliability or readability. The KJV isn't using the "right" manuscripts. It was using the best they had at the time, and they were no older then the 11th century. We now have 26,000 manuscripts, many of which date all the way to the second century for th new testament and the third century BC for the old testament. The NIV is using far more accurate and reliable manuscripts much closer to the originals, in a way that God himself says to Translate the Bible in the book of Nehemiah. The english language is also always changing. Is much so that it has changed more in just 40 years than Greek has in 2000. Many words in the KJV have changed meaning or have fallen out of use. If you try to force people to use a Bible they cannot understand, what makes you any better then the people who try to force the Bible away from people?
Again you lie. you say that the new bibles are almost the same as the King James Bible, that there are very few differences, when in fact there are over 8,000 differences in the New Testament and over 10,000 in the Old Testament.
Why are we saying that they were modernizing the language and calling it by a different name and calling that a King James Bible that is not the same thing. And the language was already archaic, are we going to agree on this when the Bible was published in 1611. Nobody was speaking in the Elizabethan English at that time and you can see it in the translators letters and their one to the king it's not written in the Elizabethan English so all the people aren't using it at that time. Why modernize what you can understand, why modernize or touch what God is using in a great way. Is it not factual to say that millions and millions of people were saved while the King James Bible as we know it during 1600 1700s 1800s 1900s, the point is it worked fine in the Elizabethan language, no modernization is needed. Can we not say it produced faith to move tens of thousands of men and women to leave home and comfort to the mission fields of the world "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God" Sorry I'm not seeing that in any of the modernized versions in either area 100% not needed. Of course I'm going to defend the King James Bible and not let this subtlety of corruption slip in here because my children can read it and understand it and now my children's children can read it and understand it and people are saved all the time at the church from hearing it's words and messages in this very day, there is no need for modernization and nobody has any right to mess with the Bible that God is using! The English speaking world needs to get back to the old King James and may it be preached and believed and studied and given out like it once was, the drawing back from it is producing a very weak, worldly, unholy Christianity.
Wow. Thank you. There's so many people that try to disprove every form of KJV advocacy. I really appreciate your moderate stick-to-the-facts approach. It actually allows for some of us, who love and keep the KJV as faithful translations, to be welcomed in the family of sober thinking Christianity.
@@ΑΡΗΣΚΟΡΝΑΡΑΚΗΣ actually the King James Version is a faithful translation, and they were using the best manuscripts they had at the time. However, there is no such thing as a perfect translation
The King James bible was more sacred propaganda than it was a "translation". It could not be a translation. It was a translation of a translation of a translation. No one spoke Greek and certainly NO ONE spoke Hebrew. No Jewish scholars were consulted becasue the Jews were exiled from England in the 1300s and only returned in late 1600s LONG AFTER the KJV was created. And it shows. There are SERIOUS errors between the KJV and the Hebrew scriptures. But it's not just indicative of the KJV.. it's inidicative of Church texts. The KJV just kept the POLEMIC renderings the Church Texts (and subsequent bibles) intact in its own "translation". All it did was to sort of Textually unite Protestant Post-Elizabethan England by gettng them to use a standard bible. But this elevation to "inerrant" and "infallible" status is laughable if it weren't so tragic.
@@warrenrhinerson6373 It's a translation of a translation of a translation. All they did was merge the two bibles currently in use into ONE "Text only" unit. Which is now the fourth generation translation. And then the KJV changed three more times since then. Rabbi Tovia Singer did a whole lecture on the book of Daniel -- and how the KJV rendered it and found during his research that in the mid 1800s there was a serious change to one of the chapters when comparisons were made between the orignal 1611 copy of the KJV and sometime in the late late 1700s/early 1800s when they reissued the KJV. Then in 1911 or sometime around there, they brought out the orignal plates of the KJV and reprinted the original version. Of course, neither comports to the original Hebrew/Aramaic Text, but then there's that.
Hello, waiting for him to say king James is a Israilites brother,but that will never come out at the beginning of the story or end, show who the devil's are....
Ummm.. except the fact that the KJV is about 80-90% of Tyndale Bible. Tyndale was the closest to the truth until the KJV, which had more manuscripts to glean from
Correct! Tyndale's NT was first included in the 1537 Matthew Bible which was the first authorized version, just one year after a Tyndale's martyrdom. Over 70% of Tyndale is retained in the KJV
I’m so happy you’re back I’m an Angolan Christian and you have no idea how much your lecture impacted my life. I hope you get to see this comment massive thanks. Are your books available on Amazon ?
People lie don't worry about why would they lie just know the difference and trust in the truth of the son of God and why he came in the first place. Then you'll feel the shame of this fallen world were in ✝️✝️✝️
3 года назад+1
King James is from Tudor's Usurper lineage. We follow the Red rose of Lancastrians for 500 years. The Henry bible of 1530 is filled with apocryphal text. The only truth and true Bible is for the purpose of power, and all power is secret. The world may never have a copy of the true bible because it holds the secrets to creation and life itself. The public is filled with hosts of demons and devils, which you may call spies and usurpers of every post of authority.
I always heard King James had it printed so the average person could have and hold their own bible . It angered him that only the priest and bishops could read it ! It was an insult to the king's intelligents .
I've always taken it as a given - King James bore no contradiction - and must have been ticked that his corrupted catholic Bible didn't disperse the Geneva for 50 years.
+@@richardwebb2348 NOT sure what your point is - for the Anglican church of Henry VIII was Roman Catholic in all but name - what doctrines did they change other then the infallibility of the Romish Pope? SO if he was Anglican he was English Catholic - Defender to the faith - the English Catholic faith - of which a huge number wanted to rejoin Rome - including many of those of the KJ editing committee. Funny how people take it in stride when maybe half the KJ editing committee wanted to return to Rome - yet Hort - who also wanted to return to Rome is attacked for so doing. AHHHH - the vagaries of English Bibles . . .
Looking for a docu about king James. So I just search king James and one of the first videos a video of some black dudes that claim king James was secretly a black man LOL
I seen most of them admit he was evil man. But him having problems with Catholics & letting KJV be made is one that is a small window to do it. Not hard following the lines in track of how far other bibles have liberally changed things that are missing or thinking they can tweak it for their false side religion stances. Apostasy on every couple of blocks.
@@haku22222 A translators job is to translate. It is not theology. Many of the verses that are "missing" #1 originated in the marginal notes that eventually made it into the text, and therefore were not part of the Greek manuscripts, #2 were the result of "homoeoteleuton" or "similar endings", #3 the result of "expansion of piety", as well as other reasons. The problem that KJV people have is that they've set the KJV up as THE standard by which they judge other translations instead of the manuscripts they were translated from. Erasmus himself spoke of the struggles he had and the pressure he was under to lean on the Latin Vulgate instead of the manuscripts. The KJV translators themselves also spoke of this same struggle in the "Preface to the reader".
Number one I am a king James version only as is the only true Bible and I am not apologetic for that Number two Although it was Jesus Christ who died on the cross he shed his blood for me and Jesus where’s my way to salvation to practice with the Baptist Church and I never like it when they say that the Baptist Church is one of the Protestant churches because we never had anything to do with the Catholic religion which was created during the days Rome and actually a denomination never created by Jesus Christ Jesus Christ created Christianity not a religion but having said Badness are not protestants as they never came from the Catholic church at all that would be Martin Luther and the messages the Presbyterians and people like that and you can always tell who they are because they are designed just like a socialist system there’s a hierarchy and there is an easy way to tell a protestant church they all have a vertical organization where someone at the top tells those beneath t them how to believe and practice The exact way that way Presbyterians to Methodist and Lutherans for example organize the Baptist Church is organized horizontally each church makes his own decisions on who the pastor i oh there’s a movement to criticize and delegitimize those who use the new king James version only but isn’t that the way satan operates the great liar and deceiver and he’s always trying to create disharmony Do use the NIV, ESV, RSV and many of the other versions are just that trying to change the word of God when we already have the king James version and it gives us all that we need.
No, they were not ethnically cleansed. Catholicism survived in many parts and people worshipped in secret at Mass Stones in remote areas served by the heather priests who travelled the country saying Mass. The overwhelming majority of Catholics in the Highlands and islands are of Scots descent and in Edinburgh less than 10% are of Irish descent.
@@nasticanasta A commendable sentiment were it not for the fact that in the pre - and post Nicene sense, the Greek term "Katholicos" meant preaching the entire corpus of the apostolic teaching. It never meant "universal" in an organisational sense. If the Roman church believed that, it would have used the well known Latin term "Universalis" when Bowdlerising the Greek teaching of one holy catholic and apostolic church. In the teaching of the foundational Christian churches - now the various Orthodox churches, the church exists in autocephalous congregations - where two or three are gathered in Christ's name and therefore in the presence of Christ and both united under Christ as the only head of the Church ("one"), holy the holiness of Christ alone and in our existence "in Christ" ("holy"), catholic in the comprehensively teaching of the apostolic tradition as recorded in Scripture (" catholic and apostolic in the meaning of the text") and avoidance of any other tradition. This means that most churches are "catholic" in the proper meaning of the term, with the probable exception of the one sect which has sought to subject Scripture and the apostolic tradition as taught by Paul and the other apostles (except James, who got things wrong) to the inconsistent and incompatible tradition of Platonic and Aristotlean philosophy. Ic
Your lectures have really opened my mind to history! For someone who isn't able to go to seminary or bible college--these videos are a blessing to the laity of the local church. God bless!
Haha King James was irrefutably white from the house of stuart and the son of Mary Queen of Scots And Henry Stuart. His wholeole lineage Is known he is descended from Henry the VII. This is British history not ancient history. You should be ashamed that you're a sheep that has fell for an internet hoax based of one image that is uncredited and has no provenance. Stop embarrassing yourself
The king James Bible use William Tyndale as their basis as he died trying to get the Bible written in English not change the Bible so that we could all read the Bible and he was executed because of that but one of the differences with William Tyndale was that it was at the time of the printing press so many Bibles
Now that they are in Heaven they probably read the KJV more than the older texts because it is God's Ultimate translation to reach a damned world that is learning English in all nations under the one world global demonic order. Even Israelis speak English, such as Netanyahu. He really needs Jesus more than most because he is a damned murderer and liar.
Tom Burgess the kjv was not good enough for them they used παράδοση meaning tradition they didn't rely on books. A complete bible is alexandrians codex and that would be the orthodox bible. It is illegal in greece to change subtract or add to the original documents as they were article 3 3
igregmart - it is all myth based on a the misogyny, racism, and homophobia in the Iron Age biblical text, and a genocidal god who advocated the rape of women and children. You must be so proud. Praise be.
The King James Bible should not be called The Authorized version seeing as these words never appeared on the 1611 Title page. But the words "Appointed to be read in Churches" did appear there. Liberal scholars so called, called the KJB the authorized version to justify the printing of the many new versions that have been printed since 1881.Every year there seems to be a new English Bible printed. Just as we call Tyndale's Bible the Tyndale Bible, Coverdale, Matthew's, Great, Geneva, Bishop's, so we call the King James, the King James Bible. The first Bible authorized by a King was the 1537 Matthew's Bible and the 1539 Great Bible. The 1611 King James Bible has been updated in spelling and printer errors over the years, but it remains the 1611 KJB edition. Today it is easy to compare a modern day KJB with the original 1611 as you can view it online. An NIV, ESV, NASV etc. are not the KJB and are much harder to read and understand. And to answer any lie purported by Anthony Weldon in 1650 and Moody Monthly in 1985 about King James being a homosexual just read King James Unjustly Accused by Stephen Coston and books by Phil Stringer and Dr. Sam Gipp as well as the books printed about King James after 1650. Thank you for sir for your information here in this video.
Here is part of the preface to the original KJV written by Thomas Bilson, Bishop of Winchester - " And now at last, by the Mercy of GOD, and the continuance of our Labours, it being brought unto such a conclusion, as that we have great hope that the Church of England shall reape good fruit thereby; we hold it our duety to offer it to your MAJESTIE, not onely as to our King and Soveraigne, but as to the principall moover and Author of the Worke ". it is clear that the translators recognised King James as promoting and being involved in the production of their work..
I have a 1599 Geneva Bible, which is the Bible the Puritan Pilgrims had when they arrived. Many verses read exactly like the KJV while others are very similar. This is because King James used some of the same translators. The Geneva is great because of the study notes, though I do prefer the KJV Study Bible. Lastly, the 1611 had the same number of books as the Catholic Bible. It was in the mid 1800s when those books where removed.
Nevertheless, no matter what unsaved or saved people think, the KJV is the most published book on planet Earth, and the most hated by bible colleges and churches. Yet it remains as an unmovable pillar!!!
hello, there is only one verse stated by the Lord Jesus himself that 'would appear' to allow for the gay lifestyle. That verse...Luke 17 verse 34. the ASV, ERV 1881, Webster's Bible, Weymouth Bible, NKJV, & MEV have the same reading as the KJV. How respondeth ye?
The context of this passage is set in Sodom and Gomorrah. So yes, there were two men in one bed. This has zero appearance of an allowance for the gay lifestyle since they were destroyed. Sorry, nice try, but no....
@@maaifoediedelarey4335 Unfortunately for you you seem to have forgotten the MANY re writes ! Plus you seem to forget that 1611 ia a bloody long way away from year 0
@@gowdsake7103 There weren't 'many rewrites', only minor ones related to obsolete English words and grammar, not related to translation, and records of these were certainly kept, in detail. You seem unaware that the scholars of that time not only had a superior knowledge of the base languages, many even spoke it, in contrast to today's scholars, who have little more than a basic (indoctrinated) knowledge of it. In addition, many material, dating back a long time, were available to those scholars to study, which are no longer available today. The King James Bible is the most thorough and most correct English version of the Bible, which is certainly no myth. If you disagree, I sincerely hope you read whatever Bible version you use, with a very critical eye, especially if it's based on the Textus Vaticanus.
@@maaifoediedelarey4335 from wiki -"The title of the first edition of the translation, in Early Modern English, was "THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Teſtament, AND THE NEW: Newly Tranſlated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Tranſlations diligently compared and reuiſed, by his Maiesties ſpeciall Comandement". The title page carries the words "Appointed to be read in Churches",[11] and F. F. Bruce suggests it was "probably authorised by order in council" *but no record of the authorization survives "because the Privy Council registers from 1600 to 1613 were destroyed by fire in January 1618/19"* .[12]
One of the funniest and most ridiculous claims I hear the KJV onlyists make is that “the KJV reads at a 5th grade level “. They don’t understand that the Flesch-Kincaid reading test they used to compare it to other translations doesn’t actually read what it’s testing!..It only counts the words and syllables per sentence. You could literally put complete gibberish into it (and they have) or foreign languages (and they have) and as long as it has less words per sentence and less syllables (average) it will come out to a lower reading level. No! The KJV isn’t at a 5th grade reading level and almost no 5th grader could understand most of it..Research what I just told you for yourself. So that you can call them out on this nonsense when they repeat it. In their defense, Most of them have absolutely no idea about the actual “reading test” they used (Flesch-Kincaid). They just repeat whatever another KJV Onlyist has told them.
Just FYI..The Flesch-Kincaid test actually does a great job of predicting the readability of texts in similar styles of writing. When they’re from the same period and in the same language.
I ask people"Do you read Shakespeare?" They answer "No" I ask "Why?" They answer "I don't understand it." I ask "What Bible do you read?, They answer "Oh, only KJV." I say "How can you understand it ? It is the same English as Shakespeare!!"
Oh how we love to lie against the King James Bible. You talk about the "Revised Version" as if it is a revised king James Bible, but it is not, in fact it is not even made from the same Greek text, it is a new bible in truth and so are all modern bibles that all come from that same Greek text.
@@eliegbert8121 Sorry, no, as I said, "Revised Version", that was talked about in this video, it is from the Greek text made by Brooke Westcott and John Hort and it is from this Greek text that modern bibles are made. There are over 8000 differences between the Greek text used to make the King James Bible and the Greek text made by Westcott and Hort, that is the text I talked about not the textus receptus.
I was under the impression that the original 1611 KJV included marginal notes and a letter from the translators to the reader that was later removed for a reason I don't know. You mentioned that James pushed for printing without notes. What's the story there?
The printed notes found in the 1537 Matthew Bible and the 1560 Geneva Bible took shots at the Catholic church and against the Monarchy itself. These men were under fierce persecution and were fighting back through the media of the printing press. These notes disqualified both Bibles from official use of the Church of England and spurred the ones that followed: 1537 Matthews - 1539 Great Bible and 1560 Geneva- 1568 Bishops Bible
I never even knew there was a KJV only movement. I only really started reading the Bible in 2016 and I compared the versions and the King James stands out to me in comparison to the ESV NIV and stuff because it doesn't remove verses from the text. Like 1John 5:7...great verse for the trinity....gone. 1 Tim 3:16 "God was manifest in the flesh"....they changed God to He now the verse makes no sense when you read it in context. Christ talked about a certain devil not going out but by prayer and fasting (Matt 17:21) and they took fasting out of the verse. They take the blood out of Colossians 1:14. "redemption through his blood" don't mess with things like that. So it just annoys me. I stick with KJV for these reasons. And there are maaaany more.
@TJ M I have known about ommisions mentioned by the OP for a while, but have just now began to truly invesitigate these matters. From which manuscript was the KJV translated and copied from? Masoretic/Septuigant? Original Hebrew and Greek sources? Sorry if I sound clueless, tbh I kind of am! Im about to start my research to learn more.
@@jeffwest9195 The cited verses thoroughly support and bolster the crucial tenets of Christianity, while the modern translations do not. That is a problem that appears to be, dare I say, sinister in nature.
I AM NOT ANGLICAN, AND I DON'T WANT TO BE, and to listen to an english king who thinks his the head of the church. I don't want to be in his church. Protestant translated "i would rather be absent from the body" not "to be absent from the body is". Why kj skipped the greek word malon/rather ? Is a fundamental mistake. Many other things are massacred in translation. Like YEHOVA, I AM, is translated Lord.
Again missing the fact of how the "English" version of the bible came about, the actual "Bible" , new & old testament , the proper version, is based off 3 languages , the "English" interpretation is based off only Latin ...
King James was white from the house of Stuart son of Mary Queen of Scots And Henry Stuart he had his portrait painted many times as did his children and grandchildren. Mary Queen of Scots had her deathmask done in wax clearly showing she was white and her actual white descendants own it. Lord darnley had his skull craniofacial superimposition reconstruction done by Durham university again proving he was white. Lastly King James was the man who started Britain's involvement in the trans Atlantic slave trade
No. King James was white from the house of Stuart he had his portrait painted many times and twice By the same artist. His mother Mary Queen of Scots had her wax deathmask done clearly showing she was white and her actual white descendants own it and Henry Stuart had his skull craniofacial superimposition reconstruction done by Durham university again proving he was white.
@@IrishCinnsealach I went down the rabbit hole... I got all my answers and where they were coming from yeah! Thank you so much for getting back to me that is very nice of you! ✌️✌️🤟
Oh hi everyone! I'm back.....check out my new book that came out last week! amzn.to/2MtmSYY
IT'S ABOUT TIME!
Ryan Reeves
You were gone? :-)
Steven Wiederholt Rude! :)
Ryan Reeves
Somebody has to be the skinny old wise guy. I do have decades of experience in this regard.
Ryan Reeves its a true pleasure and privilege to have you back and to be able to hear your new lectures
As I started studying the Bible in its original languages I truly believe they should have left some words in the original language. The English falls short on word definitions. Like the word obey being used for a woman and child. Children are to harken their parents. Women are to respect man as their head as to the orderly arrangement of God. So if the man as head doesn’t follow God a woman has no need to follow his leadership. The Authority is God. Man is head only by following God’s Word.
😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
Bullshit sounds less like bullshit in English
@@gregory6402 just a very basic search from a Strong’s concordance shows they’re two different words for obey.
Col 3:20 Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.
Obey here is:
G5219 (Strong’s #)
hupakouō
From G5259 and G191; to hear under (as a subordinate), that is, to listen attentively; by implication to heed or conform to a command or authority: - hearken, be obedient to, obey.
Wives obedience:
Tit 2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
G5293 (Strong)
hupotassō
From G5259 and G5021; to subordinate; reflexively to obey: - be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto.
Women submit voluntarily to their husbands, not just because God committed it that way, but also because women are the weaker vessels. So wether by authority or carnal nature women should submit to a point. If you deny the spiritual order, then deny natural order the only obedience left is that of the demonic realm. Women aren’t slaves, they’re help mates. A man doesn’t follow God’s laws, then she has no reason to follow her husband.
The tasso in hupotasso is an orderly arrangement.
G5021 (Strong)
tassō
A prolonged form of a primary verb (which latter appears only in certain tenses); to arrange in an orderly manner, that is, assign or dispose (to a certain position or lot): - addict, appoint, determine, ordain, set.
God bless
what are your thoughts on 1 Peter 3?
AMEN!!!
Makes me laugh to hear the Word of God has been and is copyrighted.
the King James is not copyrighted in the USA
Yes, on the face of it, indeed ridiculous. Until one keeps in mind that at that time, there were so many conflicting ideas and Bible versions, that the copyright on the KJV (at the time) was meant to ensure the printing presses of that day could not alter any of the decided upon text of the Bible - it wasn't copyrighted then for reasons of profit (as is normally the case), but to keep the content there-of pure, even to the extent of only allowing one printing press (Barker family) to be allowed to print the Bible (later extended to Oxford and Cambridge Universities as well, in order to correct topographical errors). Hence it probably did serve a purpose from that time to the present. It may even still be necessary , in order to continue to keep it true - as we are truly swamped by a magnitude of false Bibles today, mostly contaminated by the Vatican ground texts.
@@maaifoediedelarey4335 Excellent reply - thank you
the Cambridge edition (old one) is still faithful that I know of.
@@ChaplainBobWalkerBTh Thank you, I will look into that version - it's becoming noticeably more difficult to obtain pure copies of the original editions, as each year passes. A sign of the times.
I had only been saved a year or two before I knew KJV was right bible. Other ones tracking their lineage of manuscript & Antioch vs Alexandrian manuscripts have fought forever it seems. But KJV being stopped & frozen so has made it stick out against bibles that are corrupted & NIV that legit publishes 'Joys Of Gay Sex' & 'The Satanistnic Bible.' That's also ontop of NIV being able to Change it around. Verse 22. Stop messing with the bible.
When my brother was a student-preacher in small church back in early 1960s he used the ASV. The elders made him go back to KJV, "just the way Paul wrote it".
yes, because paul spoke 17th century english xd
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I'm sure the 65,000 difference in the underlying text had nothing to do with it.
@@kenavery8144 Not quite sure what you are saying; but am reasonably sure the elder in question would not know there was an underlying text. Such is the life of a student pastor in a small town. David
@@davidllewis4075 This is an assumption on my part, that the Elder had knowledge of the superior biblical accuracy of the Syrian text over the Egyptian text.
I know I mentioned this in your lecture on Anglicanism and King James, but it bears repeating, because there was a parallel that recently occurred to me. In 2007, I got my grandfather the King James version of the Bible for his last birthday, unaware that he had the same birthday as King James VI/I: June 19. Like it was meant to be. What's even weirder is that I recently found another striking parallel between the two, theologically speaking. My great-great-great grandfather, John Peacock Wood (1818-1899), immigrated from England and joined the Mormon Migration; he and his descendants were Mormon until my grandfather broke the tradition when he became Lutheran. King James's forbears were Catholic until he broke the tradition in being the first Anglican king of Scotland in 1567.
I'll look into that and let you know if I am. If I am, that will blow my mind even more.
Isn't there a Stuart somewhere who still claims to be the rightful King of England?
I don't know, but what I do know is that my grandfather never claimed to be him--his last name wasn't even Stuart, it was Wood.
Mormon or Moron?
It hardly bears repeating.
Bible translations are important, but there is a greater factor: “As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day” (Ezekiel 34:12). Those given to the Son before the foundation of the world will come to Him and be preserved to the last day. It’s not so much what WE know, or are able to ascertain by labor or study (and I’m not impugning study), but it’s about WHO knows US. If we exhaust all the knowledge of all the great and godly men who ever lived, at the end of our lives the final plaintive wail of the good thief, “remember me!” and Christ’s glorious reply is all that matters. Godspeed!
@@wdcurry111 Indeed…. Those that are given to the Son before the foundation of the world isn’t a predestination of individuals. It’s a confirmation to those that are biblically reborn that they will be saved.
@@wdcurry111 The Bible teaches that the Church will go through tribulations….
@@wdcurry111 Just another false religion…
@@wdcurry111 Nope.. The word of God is the only authority..
Absolutely 💯
THE REEVES HAS RETURNED
Absolute L e g e n d
Only the best sounding voice on the youtubes.
so happy you are back, you really got me into church history.
Me too
josh w - otherwise known as Iron Age biblical myth.
Simple minds.
It's George Washington and the CHERRY tree, not the apple tree. LOL.
i saw that too
Mandela effect?
Ask Johnny Cherrytree
Not only that but also, according to Parson Weems' hagiography, the boy George Washington didn't actually CHOP down the said cherry tree: rather, he simply barked it.
@@codypendant1 Either him, or Johnny Grape-Pit. Both reliable sources.
You are back finally! Really enjoy your lectures man, keep it up!
He hasn’t posted a new video in a long time. What do you think happened to him?
I Read the Authorize King James Bible Only! Because it's from the Textus Receptus New Testament and the Levitical Hebrew Text Old Testament which is Real Scriptures!
I pray and meditate several times a day, filling my mind with the beauty of Gods wonderful words. I rehearse soul winning verses which I use when the opportunity presents itself to share the Gospel. I am so thankful to God for the comfort of his beautiful words. Praise His Holy Name.
Such a odd comment.
I am sorry you wasted your time, How many have you sucked in so far? I will help them escape.
Extinguished a Junk Professor Hello sir. What you suggest is impossible. When a person has become a true BORN AGAIN BELIEVER, a spiritual transaction occurs that can never be stopped. God indwells the person with his Holy Spirit (Romans 8:16). This last for all eternity.
@@Policesamuri77717 I know you believe this nonsense and you will use excruciating verbal gymnastics to explain the journey of those who escape the grip of superstition. You are fortunate to have the power of discernment to determine that the true believers who no longer believe, were not genuine believers in the first place. I also have the magic power to determine that those apologists who say they were atheists were not true atheists in the first place and are deceivers.
Extinguished a Junk Professor 😊
You definitely put a smile on my face. It is always nice to read a comment from someone interesting. It is late and I am up early for work tomorrow. I will pray that God gives me a proper response. 🙏🕵️👍
It’s almost like we could discuss these matters reasonably... oh wait! We can!
Discuss matters reasonably? What? No. That's so 20th century.
Who created the portraits of King James of Scotland as a shemite?
He commissioned and approved the portraits...He was Gay, you knew that right?
Does anyone know that King James was black?
@רחבעם the first king of England was black, king James was black. Why not research it,see it for yourself.
Great Video. I sure enjoyed your Church History series. I have watched that several times.
FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE.....
NO PROOF IS NECESSARY.....
FOR THOSE WHO DON'T BELIEVE...
NO PROOF IS POSSIBLE......!!!!
Michel Duncan no, Christianity has been discussed and debated amongst Christians themselves for hundreds of years.
Refusing a educated discussion or conversation is the adult equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears. You look silly.
@@colemarie9262 what??? Are you even real??? Don't you see a lot of preachers who had discussion in the university and other public platforms ???
Eliyahu I honestly don't even understand your reply. Are you saying you never see preachers debating the gospel?
Well yeah, a person preaching it already has their views relatively set.....though depending on the type of Christianity they may have four to thirteen YEARS of schooling relating to theology and ministry to even be ordained in the first place (the exception being Baptists, where a "preacher" can have anywhere from a masters to zero formal education-the individual church decides).
Seems like ample time to me for discussion.
And this is a video BY a christian talking about christian history- not one attacking the Bible. The poster I replied to didn't seem to watch the video at all and instead had a knee jerk reaction to the title. And yes, I still think that makes them look silly.
@@goodnight8169 I think you need to study your Bible more closely ma'am ! Read 2 Timothy 4:2 'Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine'. Bible believers, amongst themselves, are *_obliged_* to study doctrine, and reprove, even rebuke, those with wrong doctrine. That is how a saved Christian grows in his/her faith.
We call those people fools
You lost me at George Washington’s “apple tree” instead of a cherry tree.
Mark Chapman - I agree, understanding that there is a difference between an apple tree and a cherry tree is very taxing on the brain, especially for a person gullible enough to believe Iron Age biblical myths.
@Dawn Yearby It's a"fib" to show how HONEST he was. (But he really wasn't).
@@richardwebb2348 He has a right to believe the Bible without being mocked for it! Everybody needs something to believe in!
I don't think it really matters what kind of tree it was?
Are you so weak that you through out the entire teaching for 1 thing you disagree with? Not that I see that it makes any difference but CHerry Tress were not brought to the U.S. until 1906. They are native to Japan, the Japanese embassy told the U.S, they were going to plant 2,000 trees, in Washington..
I also want to point out that the Puritans and Separatists were NOT the same group. The Separatists wanted to simply form their own little theocratic enclave and be more or less left alone by Great Britain. The Puritans were revolutionaries who wanted to change Britain and purify it. This is born out by Cromwell. Eventually the Separatists of Plymouth Colony were swallowed up by the bigger more powerful Massachusetts Bay Colony who were Puritans. Also Britain sent a lot of non Separatists to Plymouth and within 30 years the Separatists were in the minority despite the fact that the colonial leaders imposed strict religious policies such as mandatory church attendance and participation. Perhaps the most famous "Pilgrim" was John Alden and he wasn't even a Separatist at all but merely a young barrel maker employed by the captain as mandated by law but because he became friendly with Bradford he was permitted to remain in Plymouth. I would also like to point out that throughout New England there were numerous fishing villages and trading posts, particularly out on Cape Cod, the islands and up in Maine where religion was not always a significant part of life and in fact out in Provincetown on the Cape, there has always been a tradition of being socially rebellious. Fishermen, artists, poets and today the LGBTQ community have taken refuge there but that was the case in the 1630s when a few families fled Plymouth to live a far more liberal lifestyle. Technically all of the cape was part of Plymouth Colony until it was absorbed into the Massachusetts Bay Colony but in practice, due to it's remoteness it was mostly left alone to it's own devices. The various islands and Maine were likewise mostly left alone. If you wanted real religious freedom you moved to a more remote area away from the Puritanical theocratic dogma. Just like back in England, if you lived in a more remote and rural part of the country you could live a more liberal lifestyle. If you preferred city life and wanted religious freedom you moved to Holland, perhaps Amsterdam. Jamestown in Virginia was made up of 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. sons of well to do families and their servants. Religion played a lesser role in their lives. They were more pragmatic though not suitable as colonists as most had never done any work in their lives and when the problems started in that colony most of the servants they brought with them rebelled leaving the poor spoiled brat sons of wealthy and noble families to learn some harsh lessons about survival. Many did not learn those lessons. So Virginia was ostensibly members of the Church of England though in practice they were most likely agnostic. Connecticut was founded by Puritans from the Boston area. New Hampshire, while technically ruled by the Puritans for much of it's early history was a de facto independent territory. Religiously it was very diverse with rural families ranging from Roman Catholic in the northern part of the province to Puritan in the Southern most reaches though no part of the province was completely devoted to any one denomination and in between were, at least at the beginning, populated by non Christian Indians. Religion in colonial America is a very complex topic which should exclude generalizations like referring to the "Pilgrims" as puritans.
I NEVER CLICKED ON A VIDEO SO FAST ! Welcome back, hope to see more videos !
This video was very informative, and interesting. I have used the KJV most of my life and I really appreciate how well you explained it's origin.
It was a cherry tree,I'm 67 and that's the way I read it.
I appreciate your approach to scholarship on this topic, though I would imagine any change to a revealed word of god, however miniscule, could give rise to multiple interpretations and readings, which result in sectarianism and further division. As carefully as the scriptures have been read and scrutinized, these minor changes have the potential for major deviations in interpretation. Again, not really a criticism, rather a personal opinion on the matter.
I would like to see your take on the influence of Daemonologie, and what impact, if any, it had on Biblical scholarship in the English speaking world going forward.
Cheers
Acts 10:34 ¶ Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Wow, so much wrong here, I don't know where to start, I'm surprised you didn't happen to mention the catholics giving Tyndales bones a trial, finding his bones guilty, then burning his bones,and throwing the ashes in the river swift, no mention of the catholics working on the douaday rhems version in France, at the same time, no mention of the gun powder plot, the fact that king james PAID the translation teams, on the final work, ( although most translators never got paid) and the original Bible had a letter in it written to James, dread sovereign if I remember correctly. Then, if that wasn't enough you didn't address font or spelling changes which although were "corrections " didn't affect any doctrine. Plus being burned at the stake by catholics, for the crime of translating the Bible in English, the fact that the king himself worked on translating a part for his own personal benefit. All future translations would be radically different that the king james, because the source text was different. Corrupt source text produces a corrupt Bible. All you have to do on the modern versions is compare to the king james, and you can see the doctrine changes.
King James did not look like that
How do you know, did you know him personally
So glad that you are back! Thanks for your hard work -it's a blessing to all of us interested in church history
I've always been a fan of separation of C&S, so even if it were unofficially " authorized", I'd be good with that, too.. you are correct about revisions of KJV, hence certain evangelicals that now believe in a 7 Year Tribune.. The Left Behind series... Peace! c):~)
As a non-religious person deeply interested in this from a strictly historical point of view, the rivalries and battles between denominations and even person to person always struck me as really odd. I understand that when you have an order to enforce so as not to have a million different violently opinionated heretics running around causing trouble, it's important to make sure everyone's on the same page. This is why I think the whole idea of the ruthlessly totalitarian medieval church is kind of a scarecrow; the alternative is quite probably widespread tribal sectarian war led by a bunch of backwoods preachers who all think they've got it figured out. However when it carries on to the modern day, all that stuff feels like it should be in the past. Like if an American still hated the British for the way they treated us as colonies, it's just a bizarre hill to pick a fight on.
I certainly don't mean to sound condescending but it just seems like the sort of thing that should have been left behind by the march of history, and the fact that so many people still take it so personally always seemed kind of petty to me. Maybe it's just because my mom's family was Catholic and my dad's is Lutheran. Is this sort of conflict an over exaggerated hysteria in the modern day? I don't mean to get political but a lot of the time this sort of thing gets played up and blown out of proportion in society, for instance if you put too much stock in the narrative about race in America you'd think that white people and black people were brawling in the streets every time they saw each other. I truly don't mean to belittle race struggles at all, but I think you know what I mean, nobody ever wrote the headline "White person and Black person have normal interaction or "Protestant and Catholic become friends and hang out sometimes". As I haven't gone to church since I was a tiny child and have never really worn any team colors so to speak, I have no reference on how much modern sectarian conflict is a real thing and how much of it is outrage culture hyperbole.
The most ruthlessly totalitarian medieval church was in Geneva under John Calvin. The Vatican wasn't far behind but in many ways not even close to Calvin for ruthlessness.
? Now we see your Bias. Citation? Proof? 1 > the medieval period was over. It was the period of the Renaissance.
Monty Python and Black Adder are not reliable sources of historical information.
+Skylitze
Religion was culture in those days it was also the Law of the land. Not Just in Catholic Europe either. You can find it in any Religion the same issue. Even Buddhism and Hinduism their various sects Use to fight all the time. Yes Even the philosophy of the Chinese were divided at times. .
Protestant nonsense propaganda and outright lies aren't historical fact.
They persecute the KJB just like they persecuted Jesus. Forgive them Father, they truly do not understand what they do.
The King James Bible is one of the great literary treasures our world has ever seen, especially when you consider who wrote the King James Bible, why it was written and when it was written. While it is a literary masterpiece, more importantly it is the Word of God. This is why it has endured. Not because of the commission of King James but because of the commission of God himself. Regardless of how people feel about God's word, you can be confident in knowing that God's word will endure forever.
"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever" (Isaiah 40:8 KJV)
School’s back in session, yes.
Proverbs 28:21 To have respect of persons is not good: for for a piece of bread that man will transgress.
There is a age old saying that loosely goes as such..... "History is written by the victor and history is filled with liars". Read your bibles and trust what your hear and mind tells you the best you can and let your conscience be your guide. May God bless us all and have mercy on our corrupted, sinful souls. For God is humanity's one and only hope for a truly pure and just existence,
James Thompson.
King James was Black according to other youtube channels?
Years ago I looked up King James life and history, and found 10 pages of his life as a guy man and meney lovers, the Bible he put out had to be done over a fue times, but he had put in it,.when Christ was telling us about the last days,.that, two men will be in bed, one will be taken, and the other left,.?
I wonder if these King James only people stop to think about the fact that not everyone knows English. A person that speaks french only can't read a word of the king James Bible and understand it.
Hmmmm...
It would be like going back to medieval times and only hearing the word read in latin to me (and interpreted to me)....
@@MiikWatson66 exactly
so glade your back my friend
William Tyndale deserves a lot of credit for the foundation of the Authorized Version 1611 and Geneva Bible was the most popular bible in the colonies. The KJV translators gave a great deal of credit to King James in the front matter.
Tynedale copied his new testement part from erasmus Greek New testement, its nearly same just English. Erasmus used Greek manuscripts he had acquired and the Vulgate, he knew there was parts added to the Vulgate and he knew his Greek manuscripts had many mistakes. He wrote about these facts. Also he admitted his version he wrote had many mistakes. Tynedale used original Hebrew for old testement part but erasmus Greek for the new testement part. King James (original) is almost same as tynedale
While I typically prefer kjv to modern bibles, I'm afraid those who say it's the one true perfect inerrant word of God are wrong. The kjv new testament was translated from the greek textus receptus and the creator Beza of the textus receptus admitted to changing the Bible. He changed Revelation 16 5 and said that he did it to change it back to what he thought it originally said in his notes. You might say "Beza was inspired by the holy spirit to change it back to what it originally was" but the word of God cannot be inspired twice according to
psalm 12 6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
They can be lost and then found but they cannot be lost and inspired again.
What about the Oxford and Cambridge revisions of the 1760s? Thousands of changes were made at the time. It is an amalgam of these two efforts that is currently printed and available in stores. See A Textual History of the King James Bible by David Norton (Cambridge University Press, 2005) The version of history you delivered in your most informative and useful video doesn't account for these facts at all.
Most of those changes were spelling , grammar, notes and typographical errors. Very little in way of translation was changed. I am very blessed to own a very rare 1762 Folio of Dr. Francis Sawyer Parris' standardized version that is the foundational link from antiquity to modernity
@@roberttassone7676 Unfortunately, this is only a portion of the story for this edition was very quickly superceded by the 1769 edition revised by Benjamin Blayney. He made over 20,000 changes and David Norton's NEW CAMBRIDGE PARAGRAPH BIBLE (which is about as close to the true text of the 1611 as scholarship can produce) and his companion volume on the textual history document that many of these changes were actual changes of words and not just corrections of spellings and typographical errors.
Despite what the KJV only supporters state, there is no one, perfect King James Version. Even the currently available versions of the KJV in stores today are not in complete agreement as to the text. The closest one comes are the Oxford and Cambridge University Presses editions. (They are also the closest to Blayney's 1769 text except for four minor changes, the last made in the late 1800s, if I remember correctly.) Even they disagree on several words--spelling only--and the punctuation of one or two verses which slightly changes the meaning but doesn't impact any doctrines.
There are more differences between these versions and those published in the United States, where the text produced by different publishers (Thomas Nelson, Zondervan, Crossways, Hendrickson, etc.) aren't in 100% agreement as to the text.
I ordered your book Dr Reeves. It arrives tomorrow ! Looking forward to reading it!!!!!
Update. Your book is in my hand and I am about to start reading it.
Welcome back professor - I quoted you twice in a new book right alongside "Roman lives" by Plutarch. Looking forward to more of your wonderful and insightful teaching
Problem is the English language is continuing to change, as it has since 1611. The kjv is getting harder and harder for English speakers to understand. Eventually it will be like trying to read the "Canterbury tales", and no person in the future will be able to understand it. Funny how so many do not see this huge glaring problem. Eventually the kjv will have to be abandoned. For one it uses verb conjugations and subject pronouns that have totally fallen out of use.
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
The KJV is simply one of many English translations and those who somehow think the KJV is the "only" Bible is thankfully decreasing.
Case in point is Wycliffe's translation in middle English. It is almost unrecognizable as English
THE KING JAMES VERSION &
THE AMERICAN STANDARD
OR BASICALLY THE ASPE FOR
SO MEANINGS OF SOME WORDS HERE & THERE. I
GREW UP IN THE BAPTIST
CHURTH BUT I REMEMBER
AS CHILD WE WOULD GO TO
CHURCH ON THE PEW'S WHERE SONG BOOKS WERE
THAY WOULD BE BIBLES IN
THERE WITH THE SONG BOOKS ALL OF THEM WERE
AMERICAN STANDARDS OF
CAUSE THE CHURCH USED
THE KING JAMES VERSION
THAT IS WHAT I RAED TO.
BUT I WOULD TAKE AMERICAN STANDARD & TRY
TO FOLLOW WHAT PREACHER PREACHING
THAT SUNDAY & TRY TO
FOLLOW IN THE AMERICAN STANDARD OF CAUSES THE
WORDS WERE DIFFERENT SO
BECAUSE OF THAT I COULD
NOT FOLLOW THE KING JAMES VERSION I HAD TO
LISTEN TO THE BIBLE RAED
BY THE PREACHER. BUT NOW
I HAVE A NEW AMERICAN
STANDARD IT'S MORE SIMILAR WITH THE KING JAMES VERSION BUT I LOVE
READING BOTH OF THEM.
THE KING JAMES VERSION
OR THE NEW KING JAMES VERSION OR BOTH GOOD
TRANSITIONS. THE AMERICAN STANDARD IT'S
GOOD TO. I STICK WITH THE
KING JAMES VERSION & NEW
KING JAMES VERSION THE
0NLY REAL DIFFERENTS IN
THE 2 IS THE K.J.V SAY THE
HOLY GHOST & IN THE N.K.J.V IT SAYS HOLY SPIRIT.
I LIKE HOLY GHOST! BUT I LIKE ALL THREE. AMEN! ✝️ 😃
The King James Bible is the perfect inerrant word of God.
Matthew 24:35
“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”
King James Version (KJV)
So, King James himself was against any “King James Version Only” movement? Wow!
ClockworkMultiverse KJV only will never find providence with the Lord
Not only was king James against the use of only one version of the Bible the king James translators themselves were against it and even acknowledged in the introduction to the king James version that it would need to be updated as more reliable manuscripts came available and the English language evolved.
@@dafflad1 It already has it.
Idk what make you come with that realization! His intention was to come with a more reliable bible than was available at that time.
The methods of King James translation where a proper method. The problem of today's new translations is that is not the proper way to translate a text.
They don't translate word for word as in KJV, they translate thought for thought, what make the translator decide what the text means instead of what the text really said!
King James Only is a product of this incompetence to translate a text properly that the NVs come at each publication of a new so called bible.
I have no problem with new translations as long they translate the words with the proper way to translate a text.
I bet John Wesley's translation was a proper way to translate a text for the common language at the time, not authering the proper doctrines. In accordance to KJV.
But in the case of this new corrupted translations you find so much errors and verses that is missing compared to KJV you can't consider you are holding a bible.
So, there is nothing wrong with KJV onlyism as long the basis for KJV onlyism is right!
That is defending the word of God as it says, not what I think God says.
KJV = the right manuscripts + proper translation methods + comitment to the word of God
NV = the wrong manuscripts + the wrong translation methods + comitment to the ever changed language
@@kjvitor We came to this realization from reading the introduction to the KJV itself. In it the translators admit the KJV is not the end all be all translation and would bee revision if more reliable manuscripts are found and the english language changed.
According to the Bible itself, the translation method the KJV translators used is actually not the proper one. The only verse in the Bible that speaks to the issue of translation says the Bible should only be translated in a way that preserves the original meaning(AKA thought for thought). The problem with word for word translations is that is can be extremely difficult to translate without changing the original meaning. For example a common greeting in Chinese is the equaivent of "I'm glad your are here" in English but literally translates to "Have you eaten". In some areas the NIV is actually more accurate and literal then the KJV.
The verses you claim are missing from the NIV, are actually not missing at all, they are in the footnotes as they are not in the most reliable manuscripts which date to just 40 years after the book of Revolution was completed as opposed to the KJV manuscript basis which came 1000 years later.
The only real basis for KJV onlyism is the believe that the KJV is the correct one based on simple tradition of use, not reliability or readability.
The KJV isn't using the "right" manuscripts. It was using the best they had at the time, and they were no older then the 11th century. We now have 26,000 manuscripts, many of which date all the way to the second century for th new testament and the third century BC for the old testament. The NIV is using far more accurate and reliable manuscripts much closer to the originals, in a way that God himself says to Translate the Bible in the book of Nehemiah. The english language is also always changing. Is much so that it has changed more in just 40 years than Greek has in 2000. Many words in the KJV have changed meaning or have fallen out of use. If you try to force people to use a Bible they cannot understand, what makes you any better then the people who try to force the Bible away from people?
I love this channel. I hope you haven't stopped making videos. I just found you. Great stuff. Thanks
Wonderful presentation! I just heard someone try to disprove the validity of the Bible by saying it has a copyright. Now, I know why. Thank you!
Again you lie. you say that the new bibles are almost the same as the King James Bible, that there are very few differences, when in fact there are over 8,000 differences in the New Testament and over 10,000 in the Old Testament.
Why are we saying that they were modernizing the language and calling it by a different name and calling that a King James Bible that is not the same thing.
And the language was already archaic, are we going to agree on this when the Bible was published in 1611.
Nobody was speaking in the Elizabethan English at that time and you can see it in the translators letters and their one to the king it's not written in the Elizabethan English so all the people aren't using it at that time.
Why modernize what you can understand, why modernize or touch what God is using in a great way.
Is it not factual to say that millions and millions of people were saved while the King James Bible as we know it during 1600 1700s 1800s 1900s, the point is it worked fine in the Elizabethan language, no modernization is needed.
Can we not say it produced faith to move tens of thousands of men and women to leave home and comfort to the mission fields of the world
"Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God"
Sorry I'm not seeing that in any of the modernized versions in either area 100% not needed.
Of course I'm going to defend the King James Bible and not let this subtlety of corruption slip in here because my children can read it and understand it and now my children's children can read it and understand it and people are saved all the time at the church from hearing it's words and messages in this very day, there is no need for modernization and nobody has any right to mess with the Bible that God is using!
The English speaking world needs to get back to the old King James and may it be preached and believed and studied and given out like it once was, the drawing back from it is producing a very weak, worldly, unholy Christianity.
Dude! It's so good to have something new from you! I've literally watched all of your previous videos at least twice. Please keep them coming!
Mark K - what is the purpose of 'literally' in your sentence?
Was King James Black man?
Wow. Thank you. There's so many people that try to disprove every form of KJV advocacy. I really appreciate your moderate stick-to-the-facts approach. It actually allows for some of us, who love and keep the KJV as faithful translations, to be welcomed in the family of sober thinking Christianity.
KJV Bible isn't a faithful translation. If you really want to study the Bible, lift your arse and go to learn the language of the prototypes.
@@ΑΡΗΣΚΟΡΝΑΡΑΚΗΣ Brother, I love you, and bless you in the name of the Lord. I am sorry if what I said offended you.
@@ΑΡΗΣΚΟΡΝΑΡΑΚΗΣ actually the King James Version is a faithful translation, and they were using the best manuscripts they had at the time. However, there is no such thing as a perfect translation
The King James bible was more sacred propaganda than it was a "translation". It could not be a translation. It was a translation of a translation of a translation. No one spoke Greek and certainly NO ONE spoke Hebrew. No Jewish scholars were consulted becasue the Jews were exiled from England in the 1300s and only returned in late 1600s LONG AFTER the KJV was created. And it shows. There are SERIOUS errors between the KJV and the Hebrew scriptures. But it's not just indicative of the KJV.. it's inidicative of Church texts. The KJV just kept the POLEMIC renderings the Church Texts (and subsequent bibles) intact in its own "translation". All it did was to sort of Textually unite Protestant Post-Elizabethan England by gettng them to use a standard bible. But this elevation to "inerrant" and "infallible" status is laughable if it weren't so tragic.
@@warrenrhinerson6373 It's a translation of a translation of a translation. All they did was merge the two bibles currently in use into ONE "Text only" unit. Which is now the fourth generation translation. And then the KJV changed three more times since then. Rabbi Tovia Singer did a whole lecture on the book of Daniel -- and how the KJV rendered it and found during his research that in the mid 1800s there was a serious change to one of the chapters when comparisons were made between the orignal 1611 copy of the KJV and sometime in the late late 1700s/early 1800s when they reissued the KJV. Then in 1911 or sometime around there, they brought out the orignal plates of the KJV and reprinted the original version. Of course, neither comports to the original Hebrew/Aramaic Text, but then there's that.
Hello, waiting for him to say king James is a Israilites brother,but that will never come out at the beginning of the story or end, show who the devil's are....
Gen 22:18, Matt 25:32, Acts 17:26, Rev. 7:9 Don't be misled. I pray you find the Truth
Ummm.. except the fact that the KJV is about 80-90% of Tyndale Bible. Tyndale was the closest to the truth until the KJV, which had more manuscripts to glean from
So the KJV was based
largely on the Tyndale
which Henry VIII had
outlawed.
Correct! Tyndale's NT was first included in the 1537 Matthew Bible which was the first authorized version, just one year after a
Tyndale's martyrdom. Over 70% of Tyndale is retained in the KJV
Welcome back. I've viewed a few KJV video ramblings. This is a more concise distillation for those of us of the lay. Thanks!
I’m so happy you’re back
I’m an Angolan Christian and you have no idea how much your lecture impacted my life. I hope you get to see this comment massive thanks. Are your books available on Amazon ?
No Such Thing As Christines In The KJV They Killed My Lord Yahweh APTTMH
I also encourage you to give a fella named Finis Dake a listen. And if you for any one you would like me to hear, let me know.
Glory To GOD!!
Thank you Ryan Reeves for all your hard work - your book which I look forward to reading and for sharing this with us!
People lie don't worry about why would they lie just know the difference and trust in the truth of the son of God and why he came in the first place. Then you'll feel the shame of this fallen world were in ✝️✝️✝️
King James is from Tudor's Usurper lineage. We follow the Red rose of Lancastrians for 500 years.
The Henry bible of 1530 is filled with apocryphal text.
The only truth and true Bible is for the purpose of power, and all power is secret.
The world may never have a copy of the true bible because it holds the secrets to creation and life itself.
The public is filled with hosts of demons and devils, which you may call spies and usurpers of every post of authority.
I always heard King James had it printed so the average person could have and hold their own bible . It angered him that only the priest and bishops could read it ! It was an insult to the king's intelligents .
I think this is a bias review based on his own understanding. Not once did he mention the "Septuagint"!
I have never heard of the KJV being used to silence puritism.
I've always taken it as a given - King James bore no contradiction - and must have been ticked that his corrupted catholic Bible didn't disperse the Geneva for 50 years.
@@paulrobinson9318 - James VI and I was baptised Roman Catholic, but brought up Presbyterian and leaned Anglican during his rule.
+@@richardwebb2348 NOT sure what your point is - for the Anglican church of Henry VIII was Roman Catholic in all but name - what doctrines did they change other then the infallibility of the Romish Pope?
SO if he was Anglican he was English Catholic - Defender to the faith - the English Catholic faith - of which a huge number wanted to rejoin Rome - including many of those of the KJ editing committee.
Funny how people take it in stride when maybe half the KJ editing committee wanted to return to Rome - yet Hort - who also wanted to return to Rome is attacked for so doing.
AHHHH - the vagaries of English Bibles . . .
Looking for a docu about king James. So I just search king James and one of the first videos a video of some black dudes that claim king James was secretly a black man LOL
Kang Jamez
I seen most of them admit he was evil man. But him having problems with Catholics & letting KJV be made is one that is a small window to do it. Not hard following the lines in track of how far other bibles have liberally changed things that are missing or thinking they can tweak it for their false side religion stances. Apostasy on every couple of blocks.
@@haku22222 A translators job is to translate. It is not theology. Many of the verses that are "missing" #1 originated in the marginal notes that eventually made it into the text, and therefore were not part of the Greek manuscripts, #2 were the result of "homoeoteleuton" or "similar endings", #3 the result of "expansion of piety", as well as other reasons. The problem that KJV people have is that they've set the KJV up as THE standard by which they judge other translations instead of the manuscripts they were translated from. Erasmus himself spoke of the struggles he had and the pressure he was under to lean on the Latin Vulgate instead of the manuscripts. The KJV translators themselves also spoke of this same struggle in the "Preface to the reader".
Number one
I am a king James version only as is the only true Bible and I am not apologetic for that
Number two
Although it was Jesus Christ who died on the cross he shed his blood for me and Jesus where’s my way to salvation to practice with the Baptist Church and I never like it when they say that the Baptist Church is one of the Protestant churches because we never had anything to do with the Catholic religion which was created during the days Rome and actually a denomination never created by Jesus Christ Jesus Christ created Christianity not a religion but having said
Badness are not protestants as they never came from the Catholic church at all that would be Martin Luther and the messages the Presbyterians and people like that and you can always tell who they are because they are designed just like a socialist system there’s a hierarchy and there is an easy way to tell a protestant church they all have a vertical organization where someone at the top tells those beneath t them how to believe and practice
The exact way that way Presbyterians to Methodist and Lutherans for example organize the Baptist Church is organized horizontally each church makes his own decisions on who the pastor i oh there’s a movement to criticize and delegitimize those who use the new king James version only but isn’t that the way satan operates the great liar and deceiver and he’s always trying to create disharmony
Do use the NIV, ESV, RSV and many of the other versions are just that trying to change the word of God when we already have the king James version and it gives us all that we need.
Of all the 30,000+ Christian denominations that embrace the KJV, which one is the true church that Christ founded? Asking for my friend, Jesus. 😊
Scotland was not "thoroughly reformed." Many parts of Scotland were untouched by the reformation and remained Catholic, and are still so today.
@Adam Bruce the moral of that story is DON'T be a catholic...
No, they were not ethnically cleansed. Catholicism survived in many parts and people worshipped in secret at Mass Stones in remote areas served by the heather priests who travelled the country saying Mass. The overwhelming majority of Catholics in the Highlands and islands are of Scots descent and in Edinburgh less than 10% are of Irish descent.
@@nasticanasta A commendable sentiment were it not for the fact that in the pre - and post Nicene sense, the Greek term "Katholicos" meant preaching the entire corpus of the apostolic teaching. It never meant "universal" in an organisational sense. If the Roman church believed that, it would have used the well known Latin term "Universalis" when Bowdlerising the Greek teaching of one holy catholic and apostolic church. In the teaching of the foundational Christian churches - now the various Orthodox churches, the church exists in autocephalous congregations - where two or three are gathered in Christ's name and therefore in the presence of Christ and both united under Christ as the only head of the Church ("one"), holy the holiness of Christ alone and in our existence "in Christ" ("holy"), catholic in the comprehensively teaching of the apostolic tradition as recorded in Scripture (" catholic and apostolic in the meaning of the text") and avoidance of any other tradition. This means that most churches are "catholic" in the proper meaning of the term, with the probable exception of the one sect which has sought to subject Scripture and the apostolic tradition as taught by Paul and the other apostles (except James, who got things wrong) to the inconsistent and incompatible tradition of Platonic and Aristotlean philosophy.
Ic
@Adam Bruce true!
many paets were normal anglicans rather than the silly presbytarian stuff
Your lectures have really opened my mind to history! For someone who isn't able to go to seminary or bible college--these videos are a blessing to the laity of the local church. God bless!
Have a look at elearning.online-bible-college (just add . com) they seem to be pretty solid, and it is free. Blessings.
When it changes from Greek to Latin it's was the end of its true context just like the filique Claus...
Filioque is biblical
Your forgot to mention he's been white washed and actually black
Haha King James was irrefutably white from the house of stuart and the son of Mary Queen of Scots And Henry Stuart. His wholeole lineage Is known he is descended from Henry the VII. This is British history not ancient history. You should be ashamed that you're a sheep that has fell for an internet hoax based of one image that is uncredited and has no provenance. Stop embarrassing yourself
The king James Bible use William Tyndale as their basis as he died trying to get the Bible written in English not change the Bible so that we could all read the Bible and he was executed because of that but one of the differences with William Tyndale was that it was at the time of the printing press so many Bibles
Those are not myths. Legends, maybe, but not myths.
John Carboni
That’s not right.
gillecroisd 92
I know what myths and legends are, that was why I posted my comment.
The video title is Three myths....
" if it was good enough for Peter, Paul and Moses, the KJ is good enough for me" 😜, actually I love it, but have no grinder do against the others
I actually saw a serious claim like that except the KJV was the Apostle Paul's Bible. Some people's kids.
Baltic Hammer 😜
I would rather see people read some bible than no bible.
Now that they are in Heaven they probably read the KJV more than the older texts because it is God's Ultimate translation to reach a damned world that is learning English in all nations under the one world global demonic order. Even Israelis speak English, such as Netanyahu. He really needs Jesus more than most because he is a damned murderer and liar.
Tom Burgess the kjv was not good enough for them they used παράδοση meaning tradition they didn't rely on books. A complete bible is alexandrians codex and that would be the orthodox bible. It is illegal in greece to change subtract or add to the original documents as they were article 3 3
Providing more detail to historical events does not mean they were myths.
igregmart - it is all myth based on a the misogyny, racism, and homophobia in the Iron Age biblical text, and a genocidal god who advocated the rape of women and children. You must be so proud. Praise be.
Richard Webb you sound like you have all the answers. You aren't even a quarter as smart as you fancy yourself to be.
Lmfao! That's a good one!
Sam Bacon he's not worth my energy and neither are you. Why do you care, you got no skin in this game. Intrusive troll.
The King James Bible should not be called The Authorized version seeing as these words never appeared on the 1611 Title page. But the words "Appointed to be read in Churches" did appear there. Liberal scholars so called, called the KJB the authorized version to justify the printing of the many new versions that have been printed since 1881.Every year there seems to be a new English Bible printed. Just as we call Tyndale's Bible the Tyndale Bible, Coverdale, Matthew's, Great, Geneva, Bishop's, so we call the King James, the King James Bible. The first Bible authorized by a King was the 1537 Matthew's Bible and the 1539 Great Bible. The 1611 King James Bible has been updated in spelling and printer errors over the years, but it remains the 1611 KJB edition. Today it is easy to compare a modern day KJB with the original 1611 as you can view it online. An NIV, ESV, NASV etc. are not the KJB and are much harder to read and understand. And to answer any lie purported by Anthony Weldon in 1650 and Moody Monthly in 1985 about King James being a homosexual just read King James Unjustly Accused by Stephen Coston and books by Phil Stringer and Dr. Sam Gipp as well as the books printed about King James after 1650. Thank you for sir for your information here in this video.
👏👏👏🙏💯
Here is part of the preface to the original KJV written by Thomas Bilson, Bishop of Winchester -
" And now at last, by the Mercy of GOD, and the continuance of our Labours, it being brought unto such a conclusion, as that we have great hope that the Church of England shall reape good fruit thereby; we hold it our duety to offer it to your MAJESTIE, not onely as to our King and Soveraigne, but as to the principall moover and Author of the Worke ".
it is clear that the translators recognised King James as promoting and being involved in the production of their work..
I have a 1599 Geneva Bible, which is the Bible the Puritan Pilgrims had when they arrived. Many verses read exactly like the KJV while others are very similar. This is because King James used some of the same translators. The Geneva is great because of the study notes, though I do prefer the KJV Study Bible.
Lastly, the 1611 had the same number of books as the Catholic Bible. It was in the mid 1800s when those books where removed.
Geneva is Calvinist
@@TheChurchIsLikenUntoTheMoon
POINT?
@@paulrobinson9318 itll point ya toward heresy.
@@TheChurchIsLikenUntoTheMoon Based on exactly WHAT?
@@TheChurchIsLikenUntoTheMoon So the Geneva Bible will point you towards Roman Catholicism or some other heresy ?
So glad to see you back!
Kathleen Phillips I
Nevertheless, no matter what unsaved or saved people think, the KJV is the most published book on planet Earth, and the most hated by bible colleges and churches. Yet it remains as an unmovable pillar!!!
blah blah blah....unmovable pillar. hahaahhaahhaa
J C AMEN and AMEN !
3 myths ?
The whole thing is a myth !!!
hello, there is only one verse stated by the Lord Jesus himself that 'would appear' to allow for the gay lifestyle. That verse...Luke 17 verse 34. the ASV, ERV 1881, Webster's Bible, Weymouth Bible, NKJV, & MEV have the same reading as the KJV. How respondeth ye?
The context of this passage is set in Sodom and Gomorrah. So yes, there were two men in one bed. This has zero appearance of an allowance for the gay lifestyle since they were destroyed. Sorry, nice try, but no....
Finally! After all these years!
Sage Seraph 315 Only one! But I was writing two books and tired...:)
Ryan Reeves Haha. Good for you dude. Awesome content as always.
Thanks Ryan! So glad to have a new video from you! You and Bruce Gore are the best when it comes to Church history!
Garbage
Myths occur when men fail to keep an honest record of events.
Fortunately therefore everything regarding the KJV had been honestly kept all the way since 1611.
@@maaifoediedelarey4335 Unfortunately for you you seem to have forgotten the MANY re writes ! Plus you seem to forget that 1611 ia a bloody long way away from year 0
Myths are deliberate and created by mankind
@@gowdsake7103 There weren't 'many rewrites', only minor ones related to obsolete English words and grammar, not related to translation, and records of these were certainly kept, in detail. You seem unaware that the scholars of that time not only had a superior knowledge of the base languages, many even spoke it, in contrast to today's scholars, who have little more than a basic (indoctrinated) knowledge of it. In addition, many material, dating back a long time, were available to those scholars to study, which are no longer available today. The King James Bible is the most thorough and most correct English version of the Bible, which is certainly no myth. If you disagree, I sincerely hope you read whatever Bible version you use, with a very critical eye, especially if it's based on the Textus Vaticanus.
@@maaifoediedelarey4335 from wiki -"The title of the first edition of the translation, in Early Modern English, was "THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Teſtament, AND THE NEW: Newly Tranſlated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Tranſlations diligently compared and reuiſed, by his Maiesties ſpeciall Comandement". The title page carries the words "Appointed to be read in Churches",[11] and F. F. Bruce suggests it was "probably authorised by order in council" *but no record of the authorization survives "because the Privy Council registers from 1600 to 1613 were destroyed by fire in January 1618/19"* .[12]
One of the funniest and most ridiculous claims I hear the KJV onlyists make is that “the KJV reads at a 5th grade level “. They don’t understand that the Flesch-Kincaid reading test they used to compare it to other translations doesn’t actually read what it’s testing!..It only counts the words and syllables per sentence. You could literally put complete gibberish into it (and they have) or foreign languages (and they have) and as long as it has less words per sentence and less syllables (average) it will come out to a lower reading level. No! The KJV isn’t at a 5th grade reading level and almost no 5th grader could understand most of it..Research what I just told you for yourself. So that you can call them out on this nonsense when they repeat it. In their defense, Most of them have absolutely no idea about the actual “reading test” they used (Flesch-Kincaid). They just repeat whatever another KJV Onlyist has told them.
Just FYI..The Flesch-Kincaid test actually does a great job of predicting the readability of texts in similar styles of writing. When they’re from the same period and in the same language.
The Geneva Bible had notes very critical of royalty. That's why there were no notes in the KJV.
I ask people"Do you read Shakespeare?"
They answer "No"
I ask "Why?"
They answer "I don't understand it."
I ask "What Bible do you read?,
They answer "Oh, only KJV."
I say "How can you understand it ? It is the same English as Shakespeare!!"
actually they are talking about the phrases used in Shakespeare not the words...Read Hamlet
KJV the dumbed down buybull loved by Americans go figure !
@@gowdsake7103 dumbed down from what?
@@corywiedenbeck1562 Dumbed down from Latin its not by any means the first translation but was written in common English.
@@gowdsake7103 latin or greek?
FYI tights were favored by any knight vain enough ;)
Ha!
My ninja, happy to see you back on da mic..
Oh how we love to lie against the King James Bible. You talk about the "Revised Version" as if it is a revised king James Bible, but it is not, in fact it is not even made from the same Greek text, it is a new bible in truth and so are all modern bibles that all come from that same Greek text.
@@eliegbert8121 Sorry, no, as I said, "Revised Version", that was talked about in this video, it is from the Greek text made by Brooke Westcott and John Hort and it is from this Greek text that modern bibles are made. There are over 8000 differences between the Greek text used to make the King James Bible and the Greek text made by Westcott and Hort, that is the text I talked about not the textus receptus.
I was under the impression that the original 1611 KJV included marginal notes and a letter from the translators to the reader that was later removed for a reason I don't know. You mentioned that James pushed for printing without notes. What's the story there?
The printed notes found in the 1537 Matthew Bible and the 1560 Geneva Bible took shots at the Catholic church and against the Monarchy itself. These men were under fierce persecution and were fighting back through the media of the printing press. These notes disqualified both Bibles from official use of the Church of England and spurred the ones that followed:
1537 Matthews - 1539 Great Bible and
1560 Geneva- 1568 Bishops Bible
I clicked with some trepidation. I was glad that you did a fair video
Yay! My brain is very excited about this :)
I never even knew there was a KJV only movement. I only really started reading the Bible in 2016 and I compared the versions and the King James stands out to me in comparison to the ESV NIV and stuff because it doesn't remove verses from the text. Like 1John 5:7...great verse for the trinity....gone. 1 Tim 3:16 "God was manifest in the flesh"....they changed God to He now the verse makes no sense when you read it in context. Christ talked about a certain devil not going out but by prayer and fasting (Matt 17:21) and they took fasting out of the verse. They take the blood out of Colossians 1:14. "redemption through his blood" don't mess with things like that. So it just annoys me. I stick with KJV for these reasons. And there are maaaany more.
@TJ M I have known about ommisions mentioned by the OP for a while, but have just now began to truly invesitigate these matters. From which manuscript was the KJV translated and copied from? Masoretic/Septuigant? Original Hebrew and Greek sources? Sorry if I sound clueless, tbh I kind of am! Im about to start my research to learn more.
You are assuming the KJV is correct and the other translations are inaccurate
Perhaps the KJV is translated incorrectly in the versus you cite ?
@@jeffwest9195 The cited verses thoroughly support and bolster the crucial tenets of Christianity, while the modern translations do not. That is a problem that appears to be, dare I say, sinister in nature.
All authority on earth is ordained by God. Men can be used by God, Saint or Sinner.
I AM NOT ANGLICAN, AND I DON'T WANT TO BE, and to listen to an english king who thinks his the head of the church. I don't want to be in his church. Protestant translated "i would rather be absent from the body" not "to be absent from the body is". Why kj skipped the greek word malon/rather ? Is a fundamental mistake. Many other things are massacred in translation. Like YEHOVA, I AM, is translated Lord.
Finally a new video from Ryan.
Another new myth.
Glad to have you back!! Much love from a Catholic!
Again missing the fact of how the "English" version of the bible came about, the actual "Bible" , new & old testament , the proper version, is based off 3 languages , the "English" interpretation is based off only Latin ...
Not so, research the first authorized Bible of the Church of England - the 1537 Matthew Bible
Down that rabbit hole I have another question was King James Black?
King James was white from the house of Stuart son of Mary Queen of Scots And Henry Stuart he had his portrait painted many times as did his children and grandchildren. Mary Queen of Scots had her deathmask done in wax clearly showing she was white and her actual white descendants own it. Lord darnley had his skull craniofacial superimposition reconstruction done by Durham university again proving he was white. Lastly King James was the man who started Britain's involvement in the trans Atlantic slave trade
No. King James was white from the house of Stuart he had his portrait painted many times and twice By the same artist. His mother Mary Queen of Scots had her wax deathmask done clearly showing she was white and her actual white descendants own it and Henry Stuart had his skull craniofacial superimposition reconstruction done by Durham university again proving he was white.
@@IrishCinnsealach I went down the rabbit hole... I got all my answers and where they were coming from yeah! Thank you so much for getting back to me that is very nice of you! ✌️✌️🤟