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.
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.
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. 🙏🕵️👍
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!
@@backwatersage 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.
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
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 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.
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
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?
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.
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
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.
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..
"Was the KJV or Authorized Bible ever changed in history since 1611?" The KJV of the bible is a foundation text of modern English literature. This is not to say that Bible scholarship has not advanced since 1611. Scholars today know much more about ancient Greek, Latin and Aramaic than did scholars in 1611. Recent translations are probably more accurate than those of the 17th century, even though as literature, they may seem prosaic compared to the majestic but simple language of the KJV. However, in the decade before the KJV was published, Catholic scholars had produced the Douay-Rheims version, a Bible in English based on the Vulgate a Latin version of the Bible. The Douay-Rheims version was difficult to read, unlike the KJV, which was written in simpler English. The Catholics had to revise their Bible later to make it more readable. Many thanks to Dr Reeves for making these videos available. I have downloaded 50, converted to MP3 and loaded them on my Smartphone for intensive study. After writing this I found this reference: @t
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.
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)
(2 Corinthians 2:17) "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."
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!
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.
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 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
William Tyndale was my 15th great-uncle. I am also related to King James. The King James version of the Bible we have today is the Oxford edition published in 1769 to standardize the spelling and the punctuation.
Wow, someone has been doing their genealogy! I don't even know my paternal grandparent's siblings or what happened to my maternal grandfather, much less knowing my great-grandparents! It's weird to think how unattached I am to family history.
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.
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.
MERCY MERCY Matthew 6:22 22“The eye MERCY is the lamp of the body. If your eyes MERCIES are healthy, c your whole body will be full of light. 23But if your eyes are unhealthy, d your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness! Mercy Surah Al-Kahf - Verse 98 قَالَ هَذَا رَحْمَةٌ مِن رَّبّـِي فَإِذَا جَآءَ وَعْدُ رَبّـِي جَعَلَهُ دَكَّآءَ وَكَانَ وَعْدُ رَبّـِي حَقّاً 98. “He said: ‘This is mercy from my Lord. But when the promise of my Lord comes to pass, He will make it level (with the ground), and the promise of my Lord is ever true’.” Matthew 9:13 But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Lamentations 3:22-23 King James Version (KJV) 22 It is of the Lord's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not. 23 They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness. 1 Corinthians 1:22, NLT: "It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom." Numbers 17
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.
@@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]
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.
Columbus was the first person in European history to report back to Europe of the existence of America. America includes the Caribbean. He also landed in Panama, Costa Rica, Honduras and Belize, all on the mainland of North America.
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’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 ?
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
I have returned to this video because I wanted to express my thanks to God for his Holy Word. At 67 years old I am memorizing more soul winning verses so I can be a greater servant of my precious savior Jesus. Thank God for the comfort of his Holy Word (KJV).
@@richlopez4466 Thank you for your comment. I recommend you read “Which Bible” by David Otis Fuller. It might be hard to find because there is no ebook. It is the first book I read on how the KJV was translated. Since I am an old man, my love of every word from the KJV will never change. My hardest task is finding the right light to enable me to see my large print leather Bible. Maybe that is I try to commit more and more versus to memory.
@@Policesamuri77717 Any KJV Bible you would have purchased in the USA the past 100 years is not the same as the 1611 version and missing 7 Old Testament books is all.The Ordinariate uses the original 1611 version Still much better than the countless modern translations they keep pumping out
@@richlopez4466 Interesting statement. I have seen a 1611 copy. Different grammar and spelling but no other changes. However I always check out things like this when I have not herd it before for myself. Still, the KJV comes from the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic text, and I do not know of any other translation that is as true to the original text. My old Greek teacher used to say, “there are no changes I would ever attempt to make in the translation.”
@@Policesamuri77717 In the 1880's the British Bible Society removed 7 books from the 1611 KJV Judith 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees Sirach Wisdom Eccesiastes Tobit Chapters 13 and 14 from Daniel Those 7 books were removed centuries after the KJV came out and had been quoted/referenced by Jesus Christ and His apostles over 300 times in the New Testament.They were used by the Early church and have always been a part of the Christian canon of Scripture
The salient fact about about Anglicanism is that it was begun by an otherwise staunchly Catholic king in need of a quickie divorce -- which he would have gotten had his soon-to-be ex-wife's nephew not had the Pope under house-arrest. While the break with Rome allowed Henry to free-up all the wealth held by the monastic system (incidentally he was not alone. Above mentioned nephew was doing the same in Spain and the Holy Roman Empire), dogmatically he remained pretty Roman. Erasmus' Catholic Humanist tutoring ran deep. To wit, Henry had Tyndale executed for heresy AFTER the break from Rome. Given the secular-political expediency surrounding its formation, the history of Anglicanism been marked by dogmatic confusion more than anything else. At present they have an 'if it works for you' position surrounding essential Catholic dogmas like transubstantiation, penance, and the Marian dogmas, in other words a big cop-out. James, whose devoutly Catholic mother was executed in part for her beliefs, must have felt extremely ambivalent about religion in general.
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 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
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!!"
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.
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.
What I want to know is what was the source manuscripts used to create the KJ Bible? My understanding is that original manuscripts were NOT used, but rather the committee used existing translations as source material. This seems problematic.
@@RyanReevesM Since the KJ committee relied 80% on Tynsdales translation, no one can claim KJ accuracy of original scripture manuscripts. The committee should have done their own study of the original manuscripts, not assumed Tynsdale's translations were accurate. That method lacks proper scholarship. Daniel in the furnace in the King James version is in error. KJ indicates that Jesus was with them in the furnace, but the manuscript states it was an angel of God.
The translators used the 1602 Bishops Bible as their foundation. Also, if you read the dated General title page, it says what they used. Further, all early King James Bibles included in the prefatory material is an 11 page letter titled " The translators to the reader". All the questions you have are answered there- straight from the horses mouths
Always ask God for the truth... There are many men who disguised themselves as Christians but are not... The FALSE Church has many blind slaves who are willling to do everything to convince people that the false Church is indeed Christ's authorized church.
Yup. Its amazing how, for all of the times in the Bible that we are warned against false teachers, so many believers will just take what sounds good and run with it
It's not so much the church denomination (I almost wrote demonination - quite apt actually) it is the Body of Christ (Those who have Christ as the Head of their gatherings and daily lives) that are the true "church".
@@jesussaves1875 Rabbi, for if the (Greek) christ ever existed, then most probably may have been his (Hebrew) name. Consider the hidden meaning of Barabbas, to be released under a (never existed) custom...
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.
I read NIV, KJV, and ESV and the message is all the same: salvation from hell, only through Jesus Christ, Son of God, born of a virgin, God in flesh, who died and rose again, a sacrifice for sins for all who put their faith in Him.
Prefer to use his real Hebrew name Yeshua HaMashiach English translation changed my Messiah name No J vowel in ancient Hebrew Changing his name just wrong
Born of a Virgin is the constellation Virgo. Virgo the Virgin. It's cause the sun is in the zodiac Virgo right now for harvest season right after the Autumn equinox when the sun or son is in Leo the lion. The lion is part of the Cherubims. Along with Taurus the bull and Scorpio the eagle. Then again this only makes sense when you knowsus.
You say salvation from hell it tells me how far you are from the truth!!!! The NIV and the ESV I would not trust those translations!!!!! I know the Lord speaks to my heart KJV is a true word of God!!!
None is most accurate. I've found issues with all I've looked at. Best tool is at BibleGateway.com, the parallel feature with show up 5 translations at a time. A lot of passages are pretty similar/same and some verses can vary drastically between versions, which tells you there's disagreement about interpretation among scholars. I learned to never never ever stake your beliefs based on one English translation. The Mounce Reverse-Interlinear NT is handy for basic Greek - English translation. I've noticed the NIV is often closest to the Mounce Greek-English. Any more I only use the KJV to see what degree it warps the message by inaccurate translation and archaic prose. Some Bible scholars like Dr Michael Heiser use the ESV but not exclusively since he reads Hebrew and Greek like most of us read English.
I like the NET Bible. 62,000 translator's notes explaining WHY they chose a word or phrase lets you understand that there is NO such thing as an accurate word for word translation - the BEST translation is created by attempting to translate thought by thought, and after that is accompluisged - to check the accuracy and import of the individual words.
I not a scholar . Im just a peasant. To me its always a word for word translation. Base on the oldest a and verified text, parchments scrolls, Codex we do have. Since there is no Original to say that was is more accurate ? well? You would need a bases of comparison. A word for word translation is at least a "guide post" to stay more target of the intent of scripture. A thought for thought means my glasses have to stay on all the time so any theological bias that I may will show through.
It's impossible to do a word for word translation from Hebrew, and probably Greek, to English. And idioms make NO sense in a word for word translation. Young's Literal is close to a word for word translation - but take any online interlinear and you will soon see the impossibility of doing so. Hence the BEST approach is to use a thought by thought translation - as it is the THOUGHT, not the actual words that are being expressed. Try translating "spick and span" into any other language - it cannot be done. Just as there is NO equivalency for some words in English for some Greek and Hebrew words. And Vice Versa. TRY translating the nuances of Greek expressions of affection - what is translated into English as "love" - from their dozen or so distinctions . . . qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-da4345eba80d95b59a855491f74bdc8c-c Here's an example from Jeff Benner as the best I could find attempting a word for word translation (in the time I had) "Here is Exodus 20:2 from my translation: MT: I (אָנֹכִי a'no'khi) YHWH (יְהוָה YHWH) Elohiym~you(ms) (אֱלֹהֶיךָ e'lo'hey'kha) WHICH (אֲשֶׁר a'sher) I~did~make~GO.OUT(Verb)~you(ms) (הוֹצֵאתִיךָ ho'tsey'ti'kha) from~LAND (מֵאֶרֶץ mey'e'rets) Mits'rayim (מִצְרַיִם mits'ra'yim) from~HOUSE (מִבֵּית mi'beyt) SERVANT~s (עֲבָדִים a'va'dim) RMT: I am YHWH your Elohiym, who made you go out from the land of Mits'rayim, from the house of servants." Convenmtional: (KJV) 2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. (NIV) 2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Be grateful that so many godly scholars have taken their lives to make our modern translations as accurate, readable and well-sourced as possible - and they have such an incredible array of very ancient examples to work from. NONE of this was available 400 years ago.
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.
On point 2. @9:29 the 1611 copy of the KJV says that is was "by his Maiesties speciall Commandement." So the head of the Anglican Church ORDERED the new translation, set requirements on the translators and instructed the Anglican Churches to have a copy. Sounds pretty authorized in my humble opinion.
Army Mobility Officer That's still not authorized according to actual historical usage of the term in their day. The point of myths is not that there isn't some reason people think it sounds logical.
@@mlwsf The Caribbean Islands are part of the American Continent. America is all the land, mainland and islands, in the western hemisphere. So, yes, Columbus made it to the American continent in 1492. He was not the first one... but that is another story.
@@carlosbardales4179 and then they got their name from a bloody Italian. My point was that we may consider those islands part of the Americas now but they certainly weren't at the time.
Lets not confuse the name of America, named after Amerigo Vespuci, and Columbus whose real name was Cristophoro Colombo. In any event, the main point here is to undestand that when the discovery of America is given to Columbus, it is related to his voyage of 1492 and subsequent ones where he landed in other islands, parts of Central America and northern South America.
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):~)
Glad to see you back Mr Reeves! Your videos have been an awesome education while i watch my newborn, she loves all of the paintings and i love the content, keep it up.
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'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 . . .
The RV (sometimes called the 1885 RV) is the only officially recognized revision of the KJV in Great Britain. It is not very popular in the US, but I think it sort of like the UK equivalent of the ASV. Wescott and Hort were on the translation committee.
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
Interesting video, thank you. To be clear, I am a KJV Only believer. What is often misunderstood by those who like to take potshots at that phrase 'KJV Only' is that they (erroneously) assume that it refers to the specific English language use in that Bible that should not be changed. No, that is not the case - 'KJV Only' refers to *_the ancient texts and manuscripts_* on which the KJV Bible translation is based, as well as *_the specific lexicons_* used, and *_the specific definitions in those lexicons_* agreed upon ( *_This fact can not be overemphasised_* ). Hence, if you can bring out any Bible that uses the exact same ancient texts and manuscripts, and apply the exact same lexicons, and the exact same definitions in those lexicons, to your new Bible (and not use any modern English word that today have a different meaning than that of any English word used when the KJV was translated , then for all intents and purposes you would have a KJV which is identical *_in every single aspect of it_* , apart from using more modern, but still exactly the same meaning, English vocabulary. Show me that Bible today, and I will use it any day. However, I can assure you of this : NO new Bible version since the KJV has ever met that condition - ALL of them, even those that professed to the the same as KJV, but with more modern vocabulary, has ALSO changed the basis of the ground texts used for translation / changed the use of lexicons / changed the definitions chosen from those lexicons - any and all of which fundamentally did change that Bible. Hence : There has never been any Bible issued after the KJV that can lay claim to be exactly the same as the KJV , but with more modern vocabulary - such a Bible does not exist. Why is this so important, some may ask ? Well, it may not be that important when giving any Bible to an unbeliever, who simply needs to hear the basis dogma, i.e. the true message of salvation. However, it most certainly matters to already saved Christians , who need to grow in their faith by delving into deeper doctrine, and for that you *_do_* need a standard and true Word of G_d. For Bible study and study of doctrine therefore, it is absolutely essential to have such a Bible, and the only Bible that meets that requirement (correct ground texts and manuscripts, correct lexicons and correct lexicon definitions, which have not been contaminated by amongst other, the Vatican ground text etc), is alas, the KJV Bible, older language or not.
@@MichaelB1666 Completely agree, one of their hymns even contains praise to Lucifer. Their Textus Vaticanus is an intentional corruption of the true Word of G_d.
So one must use a kjv word that has changed in meaning since 1611 rather than a modern word which accurately translates what the kjv translators meant? That makes you a kjv only cultists. And btw Erasmus was Catholic.
@@flintymcduff5417 You must've missed the part where I stated it's not about the English words, it's about the source text. Show me a modern English translation based *only* on the *Masoretic Text (Textus Receptus)*, the only true source material, and I will happily read it. Your only problem is : You will not find it.
The best translations are still different from the original, so unfortunately if you want to know exactly what the original text said, you have to read the original text, not a translation. Otherwise you just get some approximation of the original, which may lack meanings from the original or which may introduce new meanings which were not intended. "Lost in translation" is real. And that's with a good translation. Then you have mistranslations, which are sometimes done on purpose.
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
we're talking about a 400 year old translation... many more original manuscripts have been discovered since then. To think the KJV is somehow more "accurate" or divinely inspired is ridiculous
it's a more direct translation from the greek and aramaic original texts in old English honestly the less "new" of a version the closer you are to a real translation. learn greek and aramaic and you would get the true message in there
NO - no originals exist or have ever been found. HOWEVER Dan Wallace and others digitizing the fragments of Bibles discoverd what they think MAYBE a fragment as old as 78 AD - a copy close to the original. But I get your drift . . .
+ Joel Tunnah "Jack Bauer, you mean the Catholic forgeries Sinaiticus and Vaticanus? Do some research on them, please. You have to have a very fertile imagination to think EITHER were forgeries - I know what KJO cult spokesman Daniels says - about Coffee aging the Sinaticus - but he's made up so many stores that he has confused even himself. He may even believe some he has told them so often. IF Daniels says it you can be reasonably certain its false. MOST of the KJO myths about those two MSS are false. Like Sinaticus was found in a trash bin. FALSE!
Trevor: The question is the accuracy in the translation from the Hebrew and Greek. Not the accent of the translators. Your comment is stupid. I suppose the bible shouldn't be translated into polish because the translators have a polish accent? Do you have a brain?
And Greek and Aramaic, the language of the New Testament. " John O'Donnell Yeah, but I doubt it if there wasn't a time gap of about 1600 years between "Paul" and "King James of Scotland/England/", and a distance of about 1, 800 miles! "Paul" read "Hebrew bible"/ tenak, didn't he? "
+Karen S "Trevor: The question is the accuracy in the translation from the Hebrew and Greek. Not the accent of the translators. Your comment is stupid. I suppose the bible shouldn't be translated into polish because the translators have a polish accent? Do you have a brain? " Do you not understand sarcasm? The point is that the KJ, and the various accents are NOT accurate reflections of the Bibes the New Testament church used. Many of the modern translations are. Paul never spoke English, OR Polish
Btw since the Cherry Tree is probably not a fact, it doesn’t matter what tree is mentioned. That story was created to get people to tell the truth more than likely. Course it didn’t help but it was worth a try!
The letter J was new to the English language during this time so the proves names were altered. James VI used his name the names of close relatives in place of the original figures in the bible..
The letters J and V were not used in the London printings of the 1611 until 1640 15 years after James died. Cambridge University was the first to use them in their first KJV printed in 1629.
@roberttassone76 CORRECT! ABOMINATIONALLY REAL WRONG. YESHUA WAS FROM GALILEE, HOW IN THE WORLD CAN MEN CALL HIM Jesus, When he was born in Galilee, spoke Aramaic/Hebrew. Satan is a LIAR, HE fooled Adam and Eve in Garden of Eden, GOD kicked them out of Eden, now, Satan has nearly the whole world 🌎 calling him Jesus, when GOD SAID, " NO OTHER NAME MUST WE BE SAVED! WAKE UP! Satan wants people to burn 🔥 in hell with him for eternity. It's a Shame he has so many FOOLED!
The ones that came to America, were the separatists movement of the pilgrims which had moved to Holland. The ones in Holland joins a Church of England group.
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
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.
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.
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. 🙏🕵️👍
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!
@@backwatersage 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.
@@backwatersage The Bible teaches that the Church will go through tribulations….
@@backwatersage Just another false religion…
@@backwatersage Nope.. The word of God is the only authority..
Absolutely 💯
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!!!
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.
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.
Acts 10:34 ¶ Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Proverbs 28:21 To have respect of persons is not good: for for a piece of bread that man will transgress.
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.
Reprobate. Gods non elect.
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
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 love this channel. I hope you haven't stopped making videos. I just found you. Great stuff. Thanks
THE REEVES HAS RETURNED
Absolute L e g e n d
Only the best sounding voice on the youtubes.
It’s almost like we could discuss these matters reasonably... oh wait! We can!
Discuss matters reasonably? What? No. That's so 20th century.
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?
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?
King james was a Caucasian
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
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
I NEVER CLICKED ON A VIDEO SO FAST ! Welcome back, hope to see more videos !
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.
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?
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..
"Was the KJV or Authorized Bible ever changed in history since 1611?" The KJV of the bible is a foundation text of modern English literature. This is not to say that Bible scholarship has not advanced since 1611. Scholars today know much more about ancient Greek, Latin and Aramaic than did scholars in 1611. Recent translations are probably more accurate than those of the 17th century, even though as literature, they may seem prosaic compared to the majestic but simple language of the KJV.
However, in the decade before the KJV was published, Catholic scholars had produced the Douay-Rheims version, a Bible in English based on the Vulgate a Latin version of the Bible. The Douay-Rheims version was difficult to read, unlike the KJV, which was written in simpler English. The Catholics had to revise their Bible later to make it more readable.
Many thanks to Dr Reeves for making these videos available. I have downloaded 50, converted to MP3 and loaded them on my Smartphone for intensive study.
After writing this I found this reference: @t
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 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 ?
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)
(2 Corinthians 2:17) "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."
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.
So glad that you are back! Thanks for your hard work -it's a blessing to all of us interested in church history
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.
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 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
William Tyndale was my 15th great-uncle. I am also related to King James. The King James version of the Bible we have today is the Oxford edition published in 1769 to standardize the spelling and the punctuation.
Wow, someone has been doing their genealogy! I don't even know my paternal grandparent's siblings or what happened to my maternal grandfather, much less knowing my great-grandparents! It's weird to think how unattached I am to family history.
Woah
The Cambridge is different than the Oxford edition.
@@flintymcduff5417 I know
@@flintymcduff5417 "The Cambridge is different than the Oxford edition."
At which point it becomes "straining at a gnat" Mt 23:24
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
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.
MERCY
MERCY
Matthew 6:22
22“The eye
MERCY
is the lamp of the body. If your eyes
MERCIES
are healthy, c your whole body will be full of light. 23But if your eyes are unhealthy, d your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!
Mercy
Surah Al-Kahf - Verse 98
قَالَ هَذَا رَحْمَةٌ مِن رَّبّـِي فَإِذَا جَآءَ وَعْدُ رَبّـِي جَعَلَهُ دَكَّآءَ وَكَانَ وَعْدُ رَبّـِي حَقّاً
98. “He said: ‘This is mercy from my Lord. But when the promise of my Lord comes to pass, He will make it level (with the ground), and the promise of my Lord is ever true’.”
Matthew 9:13
But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
Lamentations 3:22-23 King James Version (KJV)
22 It is of the Lord's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.
23 They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness.
1 Corinthians 1:22, NLT: "It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom."
Numbers 17
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.
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!
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]
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.
Columbus was the first person in European history to report back to Europe of the existence of America.
America includes the Caribbean.
He also landed in Panama, Costa Rica, Honduras and Belize, all on the mainland of North America.
stop lying like afrocentric
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’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.
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
I have returned to this video because I wanted to express my thanks to God for his Holy Word. At 67 years old I am memorizing more soul winning verses so I can be a greater servant of my precious savior Jesus. Thank God for the comfort of his Holy Word (KJV).
The Doauy Rheims which came out before influenced the later KJV and is the better translation
@@richlopez4466 Thank you for your comment. I recommend you read “Which Bible” by David Otis Fuller. It might be hard to find because there is no ebook. It is the first book I read on how the KJV was translated. Since I am an old man, my love of every word from the KJV will never change. My hardest task is finding the right light to enable me to see my large print leather Bible. Maybe that is I try to commit more and more versus to memory.
@@Policesamuri77717 Any KJV Bible you would have purchased in the USA the past 100 years is not the same as the 1611 version and missing 7 Old Testament books is all.The Ordinariate uses the original 1611 version
Still much better than the countless modern translations
they keep pumping out
@@richlopez4466 Interesting statement. I have seen a 1611 copy. Different grammar and spelling but no other changes. However I always check out things like this when I have not herd it before for myself. Still, the KJV comes from the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic text, and I do not know of any other translation that is as true to the original text. My old Greek teacher used to say, “there are no changes I would ever attempt to make in the translation.”
@@Policesamuri77717 In the 1880's the British Bible Society removed 7 books from the 1611 KJV
Judith
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Sirach
Wisdom
Eccesiastes
Tobit
Chapters 13 and 14 from Daniel
Those 7 books were removed centuries after the KJV came out and had been quoted/referenced by Jesus Christ and His apostles over 300 times in the New Testament.They were used by the Early church and have always been a part of the Christian canon of Scripture
Amen! Praise God Almighty! Hallelujah!!! God bless you for sharing your videos...
The salient fact about about Anglicanism is that it was begun by an otherwise staunchly Catholic king in need of a quickie divorce -- which he would have gotten had his soon-to-be ex-wife's nephew not had the Pope under house-arrest. While the break with Rome allowed Henry to free-up all the wealth held by the monastic system (incidentally he was not alone. Above mentioned nephew was doing the same in Spain and the Holy Roman Empire), dogmatically he remained pretty Roman. Erasmus' Catholic Humanist tutoring ran deep. To wit, Henry had Tyndale executed for heresy AFTER the break from Rome.
Given the secular-political expediency surrounding its formation, the history of Anglicanism been marked by dogmatic confusion more than anything else. At present they have an 'if it works for you' position surrounding essential Catholic dogmas like transubstantiation, penance, and the Marian dogmas, in other words a big cop-out.
James, whose devoutly Catholic mother was executed in part for her beliefs, must have felt extremely ambivalent about religion in general.
Glad to have you back!! Much love from a Catholic!
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 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
Glad to have you back. I stayed subscribed for the last year hoping that you would return with fresh historical content.
At least they are better myths than him being a black Israelite.
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?
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....
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.
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.
👏👏👏🙏💯
What I want to know is what was the source manuscripts used to create the KJ Bible?
My understanding is that original manuscripts were NOT used, but rather the committee used existing translations as source material.
This seems problematic.
They used Greek and Hebrew texts.
@@RyanReevesM Tinsdale was English, which the committee used? No?
@@RyanReevesM Since the KJ committee relied 80% on Tynsdales translation, no one can claim KJ accuracy of original scripture manuscripts. The committee should have done their own study of the original manuscripts, not assumed Tynsdale's translations were accurate. That method lacks proper scholarship.
Daniel in the furnace in the King James version is in error. KJ indicates that Jesus was with them in the furnace, but the manuscript states it was an angel of God.
@@sheilasmith7779 // Not how it happens or happened.
The translators used the 1602 Bishops Bible as their foundation. Also, if you read the dated General title page, it says what they used. Further, all early King James Bibles included in the prefatory material is an 11 page letter titled " The translators to the reader". All the questions you have are answered there- straight from the horses mouths
Always ask God for the truth... There are many men who disguised themselves as Christians but are not... The FALSE Church has many blind slaves who are willling to do everything to convince people that the false Church is indeed Christ's authorized church.
Yup. Its amazing how, for all of the times in the Bible that we are warned against false teachers, so many believers will just take what sounds good and run with it
There is as much evidence for Mohammad as Hsu ben bar Rabba...
It's not so much the church denomination (I almost wrote demonination - quite apt actually) it is the Body of Christ (Those who have Christ as the Head of their gatherings and daily lives) that are the true "church".
@@jameswhyard2858 what is that "Rabba" ~ no use talking "french" in amongst English speakers, you may as well be speaking Chinese
@@jesussaves1875 Rabbi, for if the (Greek) christ ever existed, then most probably may have been his (Hebrew) name. Consider the hidden meaning of Barabbas, to be released under a (never existed) custom...
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
School’s back in session, yes.
Where the word of a King is, there is power: and who may say unto him, what doest thou? Ecclesiastes 8:4 KJB.
1 Timothy 2:4 kjv
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
God is saving everyone according to the kjv
@@iicecourt00 yes, thats the greek translation word for word. You misunderstand it.
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!
Welcome back. I've viewed a few KJV video ramblings. This is a more concise distillation for those of us of the lay. Thanks!
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
Very informative. This is the kind of video that we need more of on RUclips that really educates.
0:00
在我開始之前想指出
0:01
我出版的一本新書是
0:03
現在出來了
0:04
如果有的話，請查看下面的附屬鏈接
0:06
你想了解更多重要時刻
0:09
歷史往往是神話的尼龍搭扣
0:11
關於他們的創作，無論是喬治
0:14
華盛頓在蘋果樹朱利葉斯
0:16
凱撒是剖腹產出生的
0:18
這就是哥倫布這個名字的由來
0:21
發現了美洲而不是加勒比海
0:23
這些神話往往會增長，而同時
0:27
有些神話比其他神話更糟糕
0:29
發明是為了使事物大於
0:31
它們是或被創造出來的
0:34
歷史上的許多神話都是捏造的
0:36
錯誤記憶事實的結果或
0:40
錯誤判斷先前的上下文
0:42
現在我們要花一段時間
0:44
看看關於這個的三個神話
0:46
欽定版聖經現在我們不打算
0:49
今天涉及很多索賠
0:52
僅由英皇欽定本 (KJV) 提供
0:55
到那個運動，而是我們要
0:57
看看更廣泛的神話
0:59
流行教科書中經常講述或
1:02
只是時不時地就像故事一樣
1:05
歷史講述者實際上誤判了
1:08
上下文或一些事實
1:10
因為它們已經發生所以我們不想說
1:13
這些神話是有害的謊言或
1:15
類似的事情，而是他們
1:17
誤判故事他們推翻了事情
1:20
他們阻止我們注意到一些
1:23
關於起源的細微差別和陰影
1:25
英皇欽定本
1:26
第一個神話是詹姆斯國王是如此
誤區一 詹姆斯國王想要壓制清教主義
1:30
反對清教主義，他希望
1:32
聖經為了讓他們閉嘴這個神話
1:36
更多的是我們大眾的問題
1:37
我發現的故事的娛樂
1:40
KJV 這通常發生在
1:43
感恩節的時候，比如
1:45
學校期間舉行戲劇表演和遊行
1:47
感恩節是我們的時節
1:50
通常聽說宗教是怎樣的
1:52
在舊世界被禁止
1:54
這些擠在一起渴望呼吸的人群
1:56
免費，所以他們整理了一些
1:59
搖搖欲墜的籌碼並駛過
2:01
大西洋有時確實可以聽起來
2:03
就像聖經本身被剝奪一樣
2:05
事實上我的信徒之手
2:07
記得我的孩子參加過
2:10
他學前班的日子實際上是國王
2:13
詹姆斯四處走動
2:14
每個人都在頭腦中並採取他們的
2:16
聖經 我聽過流行的說法
2:18
雖然那應該更清楚
2:20
電視裡有幾十人被處決
2:22
在伊麗莎白的領導下，首先是為了簡單
2:24
作為伊麗莎白時代清教徒的事實
2:27
詹姆士一世時期的英格蘭開始聽起來有點
2:29
當然，我們有點像斯大林主義的俄羅斯
2:32
不要輕視迫害或
2:33
即使是壓迫，但情況
2:36
英格蘭更注重結束異議
2:38
而不是直接的迫害
2:40
伊麗莎白統治時期和統治時期
2:42
詹姆斯一世英國聖公會你
2:45
必須清楚地了解
2:47
每個人都知道這是新教徒
2:48
新教徒後來宣稱盎格魯人
2:51
天主教或某種複古
2:54
如果無像論避免了新教
2:56
是一項現代發明，問題在於
3:00
伊麗莎白和詹姆斯的時代雖然是
3:02
這部動畫以崇拜為中心，而不是
3:04
很少有人知道我總是迴避的一個事實
3:07
人們為了告訴他們什麼
3:09
然而你正在處理的是兩個
3:11
新教的版本是在
3:14
1560 年代伊麗莎白統治時期
3:17
雙方就法衣爭論不休
3:19
實際上引用了相同的來源反對
3:22
彼此好你還沒有讀過所以
3:25
所以如果你這樣做了你就會知道
3:27
這些法衣錯了，你
3:28
沒有讀過某某，他們說
3:30
他們並沒有錯，他們是
3:31
良心問題所以到底怎樣
3:34
正在英國聖公會教堂發生
3:36
本身這些年確實比較多
3:39
兄弟姐妹之間的爭論
3:41
並不使它變得無關緊要，它只是意味著
3:42
我們正在處理的不是
3:44
有反對派的占主導地位的教會
3:47
其核心是神學或信仰告白
3:49
相反，我們正在尋找不同的
3:51
應用程序和那些可以是非常
3:52
重要的事情，但它們並不能讓你
3:55
彼此完全分開
3:59
重要的是最終的朝聖者
4:00
進入這個新世界的是
4:02
他們沒有逃離詹姆斯，而是被派來的
4:05
他們被特許他們被允許
4:07
詹姆斯以多種方式開始
4:10
允許異議者離開是善意的
4:12
將兩個 Squa 模糊分開
4:15
到大西洋的另一邊
4:16
當你在那裡時，只要你發送
4:18
好好交易回來，然後你就會被允許
4:20
比你崇拜的任何教堂都更敬拜
4:21
碰巧在這裡建造了它
4:23
英國國教所以當詹姆斯坐著時
4:26
在漢普頓宮會議上
0:00
在我开始之前想指出
0:01
我出版的一本新书是
0:03
现在出来了
0:04
如果有的话，请查看下面的附属链接
0:06
你想了解更多重要时刻
0:09
历史往往是神话的尼龙搭扣
0:11
关于他们的创作，无论是乔治
0:14
华盛顿在苹果树朱利叶斯
0:16
凯撒是剖腹产出生的
0:18
这就是哥伦布这个名字的由来
0:21
发现了美洲而不是加勒比海
0:23
这些神话往往会增长，而同时
0:27
有些神话比其他神话更糟糕
0:29
发明是为了使事物大于
0:31
它们是或被创造出来的
0:34
历史上的许多神话都是捏造的
0:36
错误记忆事实的结果或
0:40
错误判断先前的上下文
0:42
现在我们要花一段时间
0:44
看看关于这个的三个神话
0:46
钦定版圣经现在我们不打算
0:49
今天涉及很多索赔
0:52
仅由英皇钦定本 (KJV) 提供
0:55
到那个运动，而是我们要
0:57
看看更广泛的神话
0:59
流行教科书中经常讲述或
1:02
只是时不时地就像故事一样
1:05
历史讲述者实际上误判了
1:08
上下文或一些事实
1:10
因为它们已经发生所以我们不想说
1:13
这些神话是有害的谎言或
1:15
类似的事情，而是他们
1:17
误判故事他们推翻了事情
1:20
他们阻止我们注意到一些
1:23
关于起源的细微差别和阴影
1:25
英皇钦定本
1:26
第一个神话是詹姆斯国王是如此
误区一 詹姆斯国王想要压制清教主义
1:30
反对清教主义，他希望
1:32
圣经为了让他们闭嘴这个神话
1:36
更多的是我们大众的问题
1:37
我发现的故事的娱乐
1:40
KJV 这通常发生在
1:43
感恩节的时候，比如
1:45
学校期间举行戏剧表演和游行
1:47
感恩节是我们的时节
1:50
通常听说宗教是怎样的
1:52
在旧世界被禁止
1:54
这些挤在一起渴望呼吸的人群
1:56
免费，所以他们整理了一些
1:59
摇摇欲坠的筹码并驶过
2:01
大西洋有时确实可以听起来
2:03
就像圣经本身被剥夺一样
2:05
事实上我的信徒之手
2:07
记得我的孩子参加过
2:10
他学前班的日子实际上是国王
2:13
詹姆斯四处走动
2:14
每个人都在头脑中并采取他们的
2:16
圣经 我听过流行的说法
2:18
虽然那应该更清楚
2:20
电视里有几十人被处决
2:22
在伊丽莎白的领导下，首先是为了简单
2:24
作为伊丽莎白时代清教徒的事实
2:27
詹姆士一世时期的英格兰开始听起来有点
2:29
当然，我们有点像斯大林主义的俄罗斯
2:32
不要轻视迫害或
2:33
即使是压迫，但情况
2:36
英格兰更注重结束异议
2:38
而不是直接的迫害
2:40
伊丽莎白统治时期和统治时期
2:42
詹姆斯一世英国圣公会你
2:45
必须清楚地了解
2:47
每个人都知道这是新教徒
2:48
新教徒后来宣称盎格鲁人
2:51
天主教或某种复古
2:54
如果无像论避免了新教
2:56
是一项现代发明，问题在于
3:00
伊丽莎白和詹姆斯的时代虽然是
3:02
这部动画以崇拜为中心，而不是
3:04
很少有人知道我总是回避的一个事实
3:07
人们为了告诉他们什么
3:09
然而你正在处理的是两个
3:11
新教的版本是在
3:14
1560 年代伊丽莎白统治时期
3:17
双方就法衣争论不休
3:19
实际上引用了相同的来源反对
3:22
彼此好你还没有读过所以
3:25
所以如果你这样做了你就会知道
3:27
这些法衣错了，你
3:28
没有读过某某，他们说
3:30
他们并没有错，他们是
3:31
良心问题所以到底怎样
3:34
正在英国圣公会教堂发生
3:36
本身这些年确实比较多
3:39
兄弟姐妹之间的争论
3:41
并不使它变得无关紧要，它只是意味着
3:42
我们正在处理的不是
3:44
有反对派的占主导地位的教会
3:47
其核心是神学或信仰告白
3:49
相反，我们正在寻找不同的
3:51
应用程序和那些可以是非常
3:52
重要的事情，但它们并不能让你
3:55
彼此完全分开
3:59
重要的是最终的朝圣者
4:00
进入这个新世界的是
4:02
他们没有逃离詹姆斯，而是被派来的
4:05
他们被特许他们被允许
4:07
詹姆斯以多种方式开始
4:10
允许异议者离开是善意的
4:12
将两个 Squa 模糊分开
4:15
到大西洋的另一边
4:16
当你在那里时，只要你发送
4:18
好好交易回来，然后你就会被允许
4:20
比你崇拜的任何教堂都更敬拜
4:21
碰巧在这里建造了它
4:23
英国国教所以当詹姆斯坐着时
4:26
在汉普顿宫会议上
I read NIV, KJV, and ESV and the message is all the same: salvation from hell, only through Jesus Christ, Son of God, born of a virgin, God in flesh, who died and rose again, a sacrifice for sins for all who put their faith in Him.
@Moh Zahir USMC مسيحي 7777 I think you mean that the KJV added verses that weren't in the original manuscripts.
Prefer to use his real Hebrew name Yeshua HaMashiach English translation changed my Messiah name No J vowel in ancient Hebrew Changing his name just wrong
Born of a Virgin is the constellation Virgo. Virgo the Virgin. It's cause the sun is in the zodiac Virgo right now for harvest season right after the Autumn equinox when the sun or son is in Leo the lion. The lion is part of the Cherubims. Along with Taurus the bull and Scorpio the eagle. Then again this only makes sense when you knowsus.
You say salvation from hell it tells me how far you are from the truth!!!! The NIV and the ESV I would not trust those translations!!!!! I know the Lord speaks to my heart KJV is a true word of God!!!
@@williamsealrat3833 If you're not getting that same message in the KJV I'm concerned about your interpretation of scripture.
As a scholar, what bible version(s) do you believe to be most accurate?
None is most accurate. I've found issues with all I've looked at. Best tool is at BibleGateway.com, the parallel feature with show up 5 translations at a time. A lot of passages are pretty similar/same and some verses can vary drastically between versions, which tells you there's disagreement about interpretation among scholars. I learned to never never ever stake your beliefs based on one English translation.
The Mounce Reverse-Interlinear NT is handy for basic Greek - English translation. I've noticed the NIV is often closest to the Mounce Greek-English. Any more I only use the KJV to see what degree it warps the message by inaccurate translation and archaic prose. Some Bible scholars like Dr Michael Heiser use the ESV but not exclusively since he reads Hebrew and Greek like most of us read English.
I like the NET Bible. 62,000 translator's notes explaining WHY they chose a word or phrase lets you understand that there is NO such thing as an accurate word for word translation - the BEST translation is created by attempting to translate thought by thought, and after that is accompluisged - to check the accuracy and import of the individual words.
I not a scholar . Im just a peasant. To me its always a word for word translation. Base on the oldest a and verified text, parchments scrolls, Codex we do have. Since there is no Original to say that was is more accurate ? well? You would need a bases of comparison. A word for word translation is at least a "guide post" to stay more target of the intent of scripture. A thought for thought means my glasses have to stay on all the time so any theological bias that I may will show through.
Robert Parker Yeah i'd agree
It's impossible to do a word for word translation from Hebrew, and probably Greek, to English. And idioms make NO sense in a word for word translation. Young's Literal is close to a word for word translation - but take any online interlinear and you will soon see the impossibility of doing so.
Hence the BEST approach is to use a thought by thought translation - as it is the THOUGHT, not the actual words that are being expressed.
Try translating "spick and span" into any other language - it cannot be done. Just as there is NO equivalency for some words in English for some Greek and Hebrew words. And Vice Versa. TRY translating the nuances of Greek expressions of affection - what is translated into English as "love" - from their dozen or so distinctions . . .
qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-da4345eba80d95b59a855491f74bdc8c-c
Here's an example from Jeff Benner as the best I could find attempting a word for word translation (in the time I had)
"Here is Exodus 20:2 from my translation:
MT: I (אָנֹכִי a'no'khi) YHWH (יְהוָה YHWH) Elohiym~you(ms) (אֱלֹהֶיךָ e'lo'hey'kha) WHICH (אֲשֶׁר a'sher) I~did~make~GO.OUT(Verb)~you(ms) (הוֹצֵאתִיךָ ho'tsey'ti'kha) from~LAND (מֵאֶרֶץ mey'e'rets) Mits'rayim (מִצְרַיִם mits'ra'yim) from~HOUSE (מִבֵּית mi'beyt) SERVANT~s (עֲבָדִים a'va'dim)
RMT: I am YHWH your Elohiym, who made you go out from the land of Mits'rayim, from the house of servants."
Convenmtional:
(KJV) 2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
(NIV) 2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
Be grateful that so many godly scholars have taken their lives to make our modern translations as accurate, readable and well-sourced as possible - and they have such an incredible array of very ancient examples to work from.
NONE of this was available 400 years ago.
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.
On point 2. @9:29 the 1611 copy of the KJV says that is was "by his Maiesties speciall Commandement." So the head of the Anglican Church ORDERED the new translation, set requirements on the translators and instructed the Anglican Churches to have a copy. Sounds pretty authorized in my humble opinion.
Army Mobility Officer That's still not authorized according to actual historical usage of the term in their day. The point of myths is not that there isn't some reason people think it sounds logical.
I guess you are right. It wasn't authorized, it was commanded. " Commanded Version" does have a ring to it.
The Geneva Bible had notes very critical of royalty. That's why there were no notes in the KJV.
When people said Columbus discovered America, they meant the American continent, not the USA.
But he didn't even do that, did he? He discovered the Caribean Islands off of the coast of the Americas.
@@mlwsf The Caribbean Islands are part of the American Continent. America is all the land, mainland and islands, in the western hemisphere. So, yes, Columbus made it to the American continent in 1492. He was not the first one... but that is another story.
@@carlosbardales4179 and then they got their name from a bloody Italian. My point was that we may consider those islands part of the Americas now but they certainly weren't at the time.
Lets not confuse the name of America, named after Amerigo Vespuci, and Columbus whose real name was Cristophoro Colombo. In any event, the main point here is to undestand that when the discovery of America is given to Columbus, it is related to his voyage of 1492 and subsequent ones where he landed in other islands, parts of Central America and northern South America.
@@carlosbardales4179 you're preaching to the choir buddy I was just trying to lighten it up.
My ninja, happy to see you back on da mic..
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 an Anglican, I.found this to be very informative. I had never heard these things before.
Glad to see you back Mr Reeves! Your videos have been an awesome education while i watch my newborn, she loves all of the paintings and i love the content, keep it up.
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!
Great Video. I sure enjoyed your Church History series. I have watched that several times.
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 . . .
When you say the "RV", is that the RSV (Revised Standard Version)? Or is there some English translation of which I'm not aware?
The RV (sometimes called the 1885 RV) is the only officially recognized revision of the KJV in Great Britain. It is not very popular in the US, but I think it sort of like the UK equivalent of the ASV. Wescott and Hort were on the translation committee.
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
Interesting video, thank you. To be clear, I am a KJV Only believer. What is often misunderstood by those who like to take potshots at that phrase 'KJV Only' is that they (erroneously) assume that it refers to the specific English language use in that Bible that should not be changed. No, that is not the case - 'KJV Only' refers to *_the ancient texts and manuscripts_* on which the KJV Bible translation is based, as well as *_the specific lexicons_* used, and *_the specific definitions in those lexicons_* agreed upon ( *_This fact can not be overemphasised_* ). Hence, if you can bring out any Bible that uses the exact same ancient texts and manuscripts, and apply the exact same lexicons, and the exact same definitions in those lexicons, to your new Bible (and not use any modern English word that today have a different meaning than that of any English word used when the KJV was translated , then for all intents and purposes you would have a KJV which is identical *_in every single aspect of it_* , apart from using more modern, but still exactly the same meaning, English vocabulary. Show me that Bible today, and I will use it any day. However, I can assure you of this : NO new Bible version since the KJV has ever met that condition - ALL of them, even those that professed to the the same as KJV, but with more modern vocabulary, has ALSO changed the basis of the ground texts used for translation / changed the use of lexicons / changed the definitions chosen from those lexicons - any and all of which fundamentally did change that Bible. Hence : There has never been any Bible issued after the KJV that can lay claim to be exactly the same as the KJV , but with more modern vocabulary - such a Bible does not exist.
Why is this so important, some may ask ?
Well, it may not be that important when giving any Bible to an unbeliever, who simply needs to hear the basis dogma, i.e. the true message of salvation. However, it most certainly matters to already saved Christians , who need to grow in their faith by delving into deeper doctrine, and for that you *_do_* need a standard and true Word of G_d. For Bible study and study of doctrine therefore, it is absolutely essential to have such a Bible, and the only Bible that meets that requirement (correct ground texts and manuscripts, correct lexicons and correct lexicon definitions, which have not been contaminated by amongst other, the Vatican ground text etc), is alas, the KJV Bible, older language or not.
Vatican = serpent. They’re definitely trying to change the scripture in the KJV.
@@MichaelB1666 Completely agree, one of their hymns even contains praise to Lucifer. Their Textus Vaticanus is an intentional corruption of the true Word of G_d.
So one must use a kjv word that has changed in meaning since 1611 rather than a modern word which accurately translates what the kjv translators meant? That makes you a kjv only cultists. And btw Erasmus was Catholic.
@@flintymcduff5417 You must've missed the part where I stated it's not about the English words, it's about the source text.
Show me a modern English translation based *only* on the *Masoretic Text (Textus Receptus)*, the only true source material, and I will happily read it.
Your only problem is : You will not find it.
The best translations are still different from the original, so unfortunately if you want to know exactly what the original text said, you have to read the original text, not a translation. Otherwise you just get some approximation of the original, which may lack meanings from the original or which may introduce new meanings which were not intended. "Lost in translation" is real.
And that's with a good translation. Then you have mistranslations, which are sometimes done on purpose.
There are no original texts. Even the original language manuscripts were copies of copies.
When are you going to do a video on the myth of the papacy? Or how saying 19,345 Hail Mary’s is not worship?
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
Thought you stopped making videos, good to see you making videos again. I'm just curious, which denomination are you?
so glade your back my friend
we're talking about a 400 year old translation... many more original manuscripts have been discovered since then. To think the KJV is somehow more "accurate" or divinely inspired is ridiculous
it's a more direct translation from the greek and aramaic original texts in old English honestly the less "new" of a version the closer you are to a real translation. learn greek and aramaic and you would get the true message in there
Chris Hall you are misunderstanding what jack is saying.
Jack Bauer, you mean the Catholic forgeries Sinaiticus and Vaticanus?
Do some research on them, please.
NO - no originals exist or have ever been found. HOWEVER Dan Wallace and others digitizing the fragments of Bibles discoverd what they think MAYBE a fragment as old as 78 AD - a copy close to the original.
But I get your drift . . .
+ Joel Tunnah
"Jack Bauer, you mean the Catholic forgeries Sinaiticus and Vaticanus?
Do some research on them, please.
You have to have a very fertile imagination to think EITHER were forgeries - I know what KJO cult spokesman Daniels says - about Coffee aging the Sinaticus - but he's made up so many stores that he has confused even himself. He may even believe some he has told them so often.
IF Daniels says it you can be reasonably certain its false. MOST of the KJO myths about those two MSS are false. Like Sinaticus was found in a trash bin. FALSE!
Jesus and the prophets spoke with an English accent everyone knows that.
If the KJV was good enough for Paul, then it is good enough for me.
Trevor: The question is the accuracy in the translation from the Hebrew and Greek. Not the accent of the translators. Your comment is stupid. I suppose the bible shouldn't be translated into polish because the translators have a polish accent? Do you have a brain?
And Greek and Aramaic, the language of the New Testament.
" John O'Donnell Yeah, but I doubt it if there wasn't a time gap of about 1600 years between "Paul" and "King James of Scotland/England/", and a distance of about 1, 800 miles! "Paul" read "Hebrew bible"/ tenak, didn't he? "
+Karen S
"Trevor: The question is the accuracy in the translation from the Hebrew and Greek. Not the accent of the translators. Your comment is stupid. I suppose the bible shouldn't be translated into polish because the translators have a polish accent? Do you have a brain? "
Do you not understand sarcasm? The point is that the KJ, and the various accents are NOT accurate reflections of the Bibes the New Testament church used. Many of the modern translations are.
Paul never spoke English, OR Polish
Some people are too constipated to have a sense of humor.
Btw since the Cherry Tree is probably not a fact, it doesn’t matter what tree is mentioned. That story was created to get people to tell the truth more than likely. Course it didn’t help but it was worth a try!
The letter J was new to the English language during this time so the proves names were altered. James VI used his name the names of close relatives in place of the original figures in the bible..
The letters J and V were not used in the London printings of the 1611 until 1640 15 years after James died. Cambridge University was the first to use them in their first KJV printed in 1629.
@roberttassone76
CORRECT! ABOMINATIONALLY REAL WRONG. YESHUA WAS FROM GALILEE, HOW IN THE WORLD CAN MEN CALL HIM Jesus, When he was born in Galilee, spoke Aramaic/Hebrew. Satan is a LIAR, HE fooled Adam and Eve in Garden of Eden, GOD kicked them out of Eden, now, Satan has nearly the whole world 🌎 calling him Jesus, when GOD SAID, " NO OTHER NAME MUST WE BE SAVED!
WAKE UP! Satan wants people to burn 🔥 in hell with him for eternity. It's a Shame he has so many FOOLED!
Finally a new video from Ryan.
Another new myth.
So glad to see you back!
Kathleen Phillips I
I clicked with some trepidation. I was glad that you did a fair video
First time I’ve viewed a new video! Happy to be part of the discussions and lessons.
The ones that came to America, were the separatists movement of the pilgrims which had moved to Holland. The ones in Holland joins a Church of England group.