So if scripture was corrupted since the end of the first century, how could the translators of the KJV in the 17th century know what was in the original text? Doesn't make any sense. Where was the Holy Spirit during this entire 1600 years? Are we to believe that the Holy Spirit was not actively preserving the Word of God during this time?
Please do not misunderstand what l am saying. Just because there were some who tried to palm off counterfeit Bibles does not mean that God didn't preserve His word. He did indeed preserve His word and the Holy Spirit was actively at work to do that very thing through men of God, like John the Apostle.
I think I understand. So who was maintaining the uncorrupted line? I presume the corrupted line came down through the Catholic Church. But I'm still wondering who the people were who preserved the uncorrupted line through all those centuries.
There were several different groups of people down through the centuries that had the pure Scriptures. I will address that subject in later videos. But for now l will say that one of the main groups were the Waldesian Christians. The Waldenses were among the first of the peoples of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures. Hundreds of years before the Reformation they possessed the Bible in manuscript in their native tongue. They had the truth unadulterated, and this rendered them the special objects of hatred and persecution by the Church of Rome.
@@stultusvenator3233 Hi there. I've been a Christian for over 40years and love the KJV. You have to read it slowly and when you quote it everyone knows it's the Bible. At the end of the day it's just my opinion. You can actually read other versions and be a Christian.
@@robertmcvicar5824 Well Hi there, sorry to here you have had such a long affliction, I do hope you recover. Sure people have favorite versions, KJV is popular but the New Revised Standard Version is considered the gold standard of English Bible translations for Bible scholars. It doesn't really matter. I prefer Tolkien's Lord of the Rings myself. Yes, it is an opinion as is every translation as they are interpretations out of place time and context. Let alone all the editing and massaging of the text driven by theological concerns. Anyone can call themselves a Christian some even wrote their own holy books like Morman's, shows how religions start and grow based on lies and fabrication. Although I would content most "Christians" are really following Paul (Paulinism) and have not read through the bible. The gospels should be read side by side for truth seekers it exposes the trajectory of development and invention. All the best !
@@stultusvenator3233I read my Bible everyday and never get sick of it. Every time I go through it the Holy Spirit reveals things new and old it's my daily bread. I can't live by bread alone.
@@robertmcvicar5824 Thats sad but many suffer the same as issues as you. Yet many recover to and look back saying "How did I fall for that and not see it" they live better more fulfilling lives and are much happier. So I hope for you to attain such freedom and recovery. Just finished listening to the testimony of a Pastor 20 odd years as a fundie and preaching, the last 3 months of preaching he was an Atheist even had a lady come up and say 'The Lords Sprirt" was defiantly on him during the sermon, what does that say ?? Again, much happier being honest with himself now, knowing what he knows.
We have Thousands of manuscripts that existed prior to the Catholic Church. Many of our oldest manuscripts date back to the late 2nd Century AD. We have compared them to more modern writings such as the Latin Vulgate. We don’t find many errors or differences. However when we get to the late 1st Century and early 2nd Century we do have some differences in the text. For example many key passages in the Gospel John are not present, like the woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery, or Jesus saying “Forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.” Another example is the Ending in the Gospel of Mark. It is not original to the text. As for the Catholics corrupting the text there is no Evidence of that. I am not sure if this guy is a KJV only fellow but we have many English Translation prior to KJV. Wycliff Bible 1349. Great Bible 1539, Geneva Bible 1599. These were all in English and outside the Catholic Churches control. The Geneva Bible is what the Pilgrims brought with them to the Americas. Now the Catholics did a lot of immoral things in history they perverted the way we commune with God and added things to the practices of Christianity. But they did not corrupt the text. No KJV is not the inspired version of the Bible.
There is plenty of evidence that the Catholic church corrupted the Bible. But one of the points l am making is the fact that there are two streams of Bibles---a pure line and a corrupt line. The Catholic church has burried that history--that fact. This is one of reasons why people, such as the Waldenses, were persecuted by the Papacy, because they had a pure Bible handed down to them from the Apostles. Just stay tuned. You will learn about the Bible which Constantine published .
The KJV still has idioms in Aramaic which were not addressed, but an Aramaic expert, GEORGE LAMSA , IDENTIFIED AND TRANSLATED THEM CORRECTLY. It is a revelation in itself that the poetic Eastern language was just like other colloquialisms that WE HAVE TODAY. If you translate directly, "cutting a rug", or "born with a silver spoon in his mouth", YOU GET AN IGNORANT MISTAKE ! Like "meet the Lord IN THE AIR" ! Fact.
Lamsa is not very credible. Lamsa says some Scriptures were lost and others were destroyed (e.g., burned) or rejected because they were “contrary to the new doctrines and dogmas” adopted at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325.43 He says certain passages were “deliberately forged” and added to the books of the Bible.44 The Greek texts as well as subsequent Bible versions, he adds, are corrupted by mistranslations and contradictions due to ignorant translators and the texts’ transition from Aramaic to Greek, Greek to Latin, and Latin to English.45 Lamsa also asserts that the two oldest biblical manuscripts known today are Peshitta Aramaic texts from the fifth and seventh centuries, making Greek texts appear to be later and corrupt.46 Thus, despite Lamsa’s superficial respect for the Bible, he distrusts, condemns, and changes portions of it. Scholars universally agree that the New Testament was written in Greek and that we now possess scores of manuscripts which were written before the Peshitta. Most pastors have copies of the Greek New Testament (the UBS or Nestle-Aland text) which compiles readings of several hundred old manuscripts in Greek, Aramaic, and other languages. The reader can refer to this to find the names, content, dates of production, and current location of these texts. Their dates are determined by many factors, so a claim made by Lamsa47 that deceitful translators cut the dates out of texts to make them appear older is false. Most contemporary versions (NIV, NAS, etc.) translate the UBS text directly into English (or another language), so Lamsa’s assertion that the Bible was corrupted by being translated from Greek to Latin to English is inaccurate.
But the Catholic Church put together the Canon of the Bible, so how does that work? We wouldn't have the books of the Bible put together in todays format without the Church putting it together.
@tacticalinsanity7375 the catholic church put what they wanted to in the bible...they left out books that were in the texts they used...all online easy to look up...the catholic church has lied about many things over the years...stay indoctrinated if you want, someone informed you though
The Catholic claim that they put the Bible together is an arrogant lie. They act as if they own the Almighty God. The Pope claims to be God on Earth as a matter of fact.
So if scripture was corrupted since the end of the first century, how could the translators of the KJV in the 17th century know what was in the original text? Doesn't make any sense. Where was the Holy Spirit during this entire 1600 years? Are we to believe that the Holy Spirit was not actively preserving the Word of God during this time?
Because there is a corrupted line and an uncorrupted line. God’s word has indeed been preserved and corrupted. Both are possible.
Please do not misunderstand what l am saying. Just because there were some who tried to palm off counterfeit Bibles does not mean that God didn't preserve His word. He did indeed preserve His word and the Holy Spirit was actively at work to do that very thing through men of God, like John the Apostle.
I think I understand. So who was maintaining the uncorrupted line? I presume the corrupted line came down through the Catholic Church. But I'm still wondering who the people were who preserved the uncorrupted line through all those centuries.
I’m just wondering how it was preserved. That’s all.
There were several different groups of people down through the centuries that had the pure Scriptures. I will address that subject in later videos. But for now l will say that one of the main groups were the Waldesian Christians. The Waldenses were among the first of the peoples of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures. Hundreds of years before the Reformation they possessed the Bible in manuscript in their native tongue. They had the truth unadulterated, and this rendered them the special objects of hatred and persecution by the Church of Rome.
I'm a King Jimmy man myself. It's the greatest translation of God's infallible word. The doctrines of grace are crystal clear.
So you picked a version you like?
Why is there even more than one version?
Every Translation is just another Interpretation.
@@stultusvenator3233 Hi there. I've been a Christian for over 40years and love the KJV. You have to read it slowly and when you quote it everyone knows it's the Bible. At the end of the day it's just my opinion. You can actually read other versions and be a Christian.
@@robertmcvicar5824
Well Hi there, sorry to here you have had such a long affliction, I do hope you recover.
Sure people have favorite versions, KJV is popular but the New Revised Standard Version is considered the gold standard of English Bible translations for Bible scholars. It doesn't really matter.
I prefer Tolkien's Lord of the Rings myself.
Yes, it is an opinion as is every translation as they are interpretations out of place time and context. Let alone all the editing and massaging of the text driven by theological concerns. Anyone can call themselves a Christian some even wrote their own holy books like Morman's, shows how religions start and grow based on lies and fabrication.
Although I would content most "Christians" are really following Paul (Paulinism) and have not read through the bible. The gospels should be read side by side for truth seekers it exposes the trajectory of development and invention.
All the best !
@@stultusvenator3233I read my Bible everyday and never get sick of it. Every time I go through it the Holy Spirit reveals things new and old it's my daily bread. I can't live by bread alone.
@@robertmcvicar5824
Thats sad but many suffer the same as issues as you. Yet many recover to and look back saying "How did I fall for that and not see it" they live better more fulfilling lives and are much happier.
So I hope for you to attain such freedom and recovery.
Just finished listening to the testimony of a Pastor 20 odd years as a fundie and preaching, the last 3 months of preaching he was an Atheist even had a lady come up and say 'The Lords Sprirt" was defiantly on him during the sermon, what does that say ?? Again, much happier being honest with himself now, knowing what he knows.
Martin Luther
We have Thousands of manuscripts that existed prior to the Catholic Church. Many of our oldest manuscripts date back to the late 2nd Century AD. We have compared them to more modern writings such as the Latin Vulgate. We don’t find many errors or differences. However when we get to the late 1st Century and early 2nd Century we do have some differences in the text. For example many key passages in the Gospel John are not present, like the woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery, or Jesus saying “Forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.” Another example is the Ending in the Gospel of Mark. It is not original to the text.
As for the Catholics corrupting the text there is no Evidence of that. I am not sure if this guy is a KJV only fellow but we have many English Translation prior to KJV. Wycliff Bible 1349. Great Bible 1539, Geneva Bible 1599. These were all in English and outside the Catholic Churches control. The Geneva Bible is what the Pilgrims brought with them to the Americas.
Now the Catholics did a lot of immoral things in history they perverted the way we commune with God and added things to the practices of Christianity. But they did not corrupt the text. No KJV is not the inspired version of the Bible.
There is plenty of evidence that the Catholic church corrupted the Bible. But one of the points l am making is the fact that there are two streams of Bibles---a pure line and a corrupt line. The Catholic church has burried that history--that fact. This is one of reasons why people, such as the Waldenses, were persecuted by the Papacy, because they had a pure Bible handed down to them from the Apostles. Just stay tuned. You will learn about the Bible which Constantine published .
What are these corruptions?
Maybe you should watch the video again in order to obtain the answer to your question.
The KJV still has idioms in Aramaic which were not addressed, but an Aramaic expert, GEORGE LAMSA , IDENTIFIED AND TRANSLATED THEM CORRECTLY. It is a revelation in itself that the poetic Eastern language was just like other colloquialisms that WE HAVE TODAY. If you translate directly, "cutting a rug", or "born with a silver spoon in his mouth", YOU GET AN IGNORANT MISTAKE ! Like "meet the Lord IN THE AIR" ! Fact.
Lamsa is not very credible.
Lamsa says some Scriptures were lost and others were destroyed (e.g., burned) or rejected because they were “contrary to the new doctrines and dogmas” adopted at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325.43 He says certain passages were “deliberately forged” and added to the books of the Bible.44 The Greek texts as well as subsequent Bible versions, he adds, are corrupted by mistranslations and contradictions due to ignorant translators and the texts’ transition from Aramaic to Greek, Greek to Latin, and Latin to English.45 Lamsa also asserts that the two oldest biblical manuscripts known today are Peshitta Aramaic texts from the fifth and seventh centuries, making Greek texts appear to be later and corrupt.46 Thus, despite Lamsa’s superficial respect for the Bible, he distrusts, condemns, and changes portions of it.
Scholars universally agree that the New Testament was written in Greek and that we now possess scores of manuscripts which were written before the Peshitta. Most pastors have copies of the Greek New Testament (the UBS or Nestle-Aland text) which compiles readings of several hundred old manuscripts in Greek, Aramaic, and other languages. The reader can refer to this to find the names, content, dates of production, and current location of these texts. Their dates are determined by many factors, so a claim made by Lamsa47 that deceitful translators cut the dates out of texts to make them appear older is false. Most contemporary versions (NIV, NAS, etc.) translate the UBS text directly into English (or another language), so Lamsa’s assertion that the Bible was corrupted by being translated from Greek to Latin to English is inaccurate.
Oldmate been reading too much of the davinci code
Are you Catholic?
Whomever wrote that book knows alot of heresay history that is just not so.
So, tell us where he is wrong.
Satan planted his flag in Christianity with Roman Catholicism
Yes tell us where I also want to know?
The catholic church also took books out of the bible, just like martin luther
But the Catholic Church put together the Canon of the Bible, so how does that work? We wouldn't have the books of the Bible put together in todays format without the Church putting it together.
@tacticalinsanity7375 the catholic church put what they wanted to in the bible...they left out books that were in the texts they used...all online easy to look up...the catholic church has lied about many things over the years...stay indoctrinated if you want, someone informed you though
The Catholic claim that they put the Bible together is an arrogant lie. They act as if they own the Almighty God. The Pope claims to be God on Earth as a matter of fact.
@@tacticalinsanity7375 they lied and took books out of the bible
@@JewelsofTruth The Council of Rome in 382, a historical fact? Huh?