just for some clarification, and i have read the book: posted this in another vid as well: ... no one is calling for "changing words" or updating words", not Bryan Ross or David Ried, but it gives you a lens and perspective to look at and accept the minor differences in the editions of KJBs from 1611 through 1769. (and for that matter a means to deal with the printed editions and mss through the centuries). for someone to say that this is "dangerous" because it "opens up the door for revisions" is silly - when we say we are saved by grace through faith, sealed until the day of redemption, and are eternally secure in Jesus Christ and cannot lose it, people say that is "dangerous" and you are giving people a "license to sin"... people are going to do what they are going to do because of their fallen nature, people have been sinning regardless of eternal security and people will make revisions regardless of "the myth of verbatim identicality"
Why is it that whenever I comment to the faithful followers of Bryan that the KJB is the inspired word of GOD that I am met with their new slogan: "Which version; the 1611, the 1629, the 1637, the 1679?" And then I am promptly banned? In my opinion it is dangerous because they are spreading an aura of deceitful distrust.
I was shocked to hear pastor O'Steen and Gail Riplinger constantly call br. Ross a liar . I hope they listened to his video in response to this video up here. He did not knew that there were 2 versions of the KJV 1629. So, when is a person lying? When can you call somebody a liar? Answer: Well, that is when the person intentionally the truth changes into a lie. Immediately wrote mrs. Riplinger that br. Ross lied and brother O'Steen took that over and also said he was lying. In other words: Ross is a liar. Quite a very serious accusation! In his video "Did I lie ...etc" it is very clear that Ross did not lie and he showed that very clear in that video. A person can be wrong in his conviction, but that does not make him a liar. He can be very sincerely believe in something to be true while it is not true, but he does not know that. So he is ignorant unintentionally. And that is how O'Steen and Ripplinger should have talked about Ross. I think that Ross has proven to be sincerely and not only that, he also has proven that what he teached about the subject was not wrong at all. O'Steen and Ripplinger were very fast in condemning Ross. But since Ross refuted the accusations of them It is very quite on the side of O'Steen and Ripplinger. So fast as they were in condemning him so great is the silence now! I hope that they will acknowledge their wrong attitude against Ross an make their to apologizes to br. Ross in the way they (wrongly) attacked him .
Thank you for this helpful information which affirms the fact that God's words are not to be corrected or compromised according to man's worldly wisdom. Faith is believing God's words. Anyone that says it's okay to change them is liable to overthrow the faith of some.
Gail Riplinger is one of the most profound researchers on the Bible Version issue,that I have ever seen! She has spent tens of thousands of hours over a period of over 30 years, and always going to Primary Sources,rather than Secondary sources whenever possible. I have several of her books,and they are very helpful. Also,she has done a masterful job of refuting the lies and errors of James White.
The words of the Lord are PURE words psalm12:6. These pure words are preserved to every generation, so we have them preserved in 2024. To say that the King James needs to be updated, is saying that God's words need to be updated, and updated to what man thinks. This is very dangerous ground to be taking. Thanks brother David for being this to our attention.
To expose and not to expose. I have an objective view on looking at things. IT IS WHAT IT IS! It's good to be informed. At the end of the day, God's word is Eternity. Thank you, sir! Grace and peace. Ronaldo.
I’ve actually read the book, which I doubt most of you have. It appears that the purpose was to explain the five editions to the original 1611 versions. If it was improper for this to have happened then we should be only using the 1611 original, not the “updated” 1769.
People switch their beliefs so quickly at times, just like those who seemed to be solid in the word switched over to the heresy of Rodney B. Be rooted and grounded in the Truth, and led by God's Spirit. Thank you for the study and hard work you put into this, and for your hunger for truth. Praying for you.
Thank you for the info. Final Fight Bible Radio has been playing Bryan Ross' sermons on this very subject - a series he taught refuting a preacher that came after him.
Almost nobody realizes that "stand" in scripture means "to judge". Thus, to "understand" is the "stand under" (judge from below) another's authority, recognizing that Hid us testing our willingness to let Him be sovereign over us. Something to consider
Knowing how printer errors work and what they look like, I would suggest that 2 Corinthians 4:4 "In whom the God of this world" was probably intentional. It is a popular, important, doctrinal verse and it lasted in dozens of printings and many years. That seems intentional. It is also possible that the change in the 1769 at Hebrews 10:12 was intentional. Of course I don't know what it would take to prove something like this. There is a 1629 KJV digitized online which reads like Ross'. I would suggest that there might be a variant in that year, if her image is truly from the 1629, which I have no reason to doubt it is. It should be noted that in that year, the OT was not labeled as 1629, just the NT was. The OT doesn't have a date. If I can I will also point out that Riplinger was wrong about "learned" men in the notes as quoted by Norton. There are at least 4 manuscript copies of the notes that include that word.
yes, i have found a digitized copy of a 1629 online as well that has "this" removed and reads exactly as Ross' image. obviously there is some sort of variation that happened during that time period. can you explain further or provide a bit more clarity on what is meant by "the OT doesn't have a date" and how that relates to this discussion? on the "learned men" note as well, i have seen multiple lists in multiple publications that used that phrasing, and to place the burden on Norton, though i am sure he has his faults, seems a bit preposterous. the majority of the pdf of hers seems very unstable.
@@a_hanna Both the title page of the online copy as well as the title page of Riplinger's copy do not have a date stated. The New Testament of the online copy does have a date of 1629. All that means is that it is possible that the Old Testament could be from a different year and paired up with the NT. I don't really think that is the case though. If you look at Riplinger's image and the one online, they have some unique features that match. It is as if Job 4:6 was the only text replaced on the page. Compare the strange way the first "t" was printed in the word "little" in verse 12 or the "n" of "and" in verse 11. They look identical. Nicolson's book Power and Glory can be found on Archive and on the flyleaf is a copy which includes "learned". Norton mentions 3 manuscript copies in his footnote and two of them have "learned". So I think it is wrong to make the accusation against him there.
I asked Riplinger and she said, "My PDF SHOWS the image of the actual original handwritten Rules for Translation given at Hampton Court Conference on January 14, 1604. This was determined to be THE accurate one by England's Oxford University's Bodleian Library and photographed for their official publication, entitled Manifold Greatness: The Making of the King James Bible. That library is THE authority on that subject and HOLDS the original manuscripts in question, as well as the other MSS pertaining to the making of the KJB. I give the ISBN number in the PDF, so you can purchase it and see for yourself. Any other reading is spurious, no doubt an introduction that has been widely replicated by those 'scholars' who deny the priesthood of believers. Norton's distant perch in New Zealand strains to clearly see across the 12,000 mile chasm from truth in Oxford. I observed the word "possible" and "probably" in the negative comments, which is just more "Yea, hath God said?" But we have a "sure word" in the KJBs in our laps (2 Peter1:19)."
@@christopheryetzer yes sir, i understand what you are saying, and i see the details you are referring to in the printed text on the two different pages. unfortunately there is a small sample population of 1629's available to examine additionally. very much agree on the "learned" - the the hyperbolic blame and rhetoric that exudes from her is found wanting.
@@a_hanna I asked Riplinger and she said, "My PDF SHOWS the image of the actual original handwritten Rules for Translation given at Hampton Court Conference on January 14, 1604. This was determined to be THE accurate one by England's Oxford University's Bodleian Library and photographed for their official publication, entitled Manifold Greatness: The Making of the King James Bible. That library is THE authority on that subject and HOLDS the original manuscripts in question, as well as the other MSS pertaining to the making of the KJB. I give the ISBN number in the PDF, so you can purchase it and see for yourself. Any other reading is spurious, no doubt an introduction that has been widely replicated by those 'scholars' who deny the priesthood of believers. Norton's distant perch in New Zealand strains to clearly see across the 12,000 mile chasm from truth in Oxford. I observed the word "possible" and "probably" in the negative comments, which is just more "Yea, hath God said?" But we have a "sure word" in the KJBs in our laps (2 Peter1:19)."
Very slippery slope. I remember being tempted to believe it doesn't matter about the wording, only the message. Very dangerous feeling. Like getting close to a table saw. (Unrelated: I would pay dearly to hear David O'Steen teach about Confederate history, especially a Christian history of the South.)
Question. I am a KJB man. I understand my edition is the 1769 one. 2 Tim 3:17 in the 1769 edition says: "That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." I know other KJB editions, later ones I guess, have "thoroughly" instead of "throughly." I noticed Biblegateway uses a modern edition of the KJB because it has the word "thoroughly" instead of "throughly." I definitely prefer "throughly," so I like and prefer my 1769 edition. Now, I know what folks say about the differences between "throughly" and "thoroughly." I tend to agree that there is a difference. However, some think, like Ross, that there is no difference in the definition of those words. Though I prefer "throughly," I think Ross did a good job showing that the definition of these words are the same. So, my question is, if I follow Pastor Osteen correctly that the translators were inspired, when "thoroughly" was put in 2 Tim 3:17 for "throughly," did that verse or word then, become uninspired? Or, can one still say that edition of the KJB is inspired though a word had been changed (and others)?
Exactly the point I made to Brian. I posted comment on one of his videos that he didn’t show any factual evidence from the translators of mistakes made nor any factual evidence of them stating publicly about the errors.
I find it strange,that critics of KJV Only believers, always strain at KJV " gnats" ,and at the same time swallow New Version " camels" by the train load!
It's noteworthy that Ross typically opens any teaching by going "academic" first, discussing the history & traditions before delving into the Word of God. Apostle Paul clearly abandoned his academic credentials, calling them "dung".
There has been a small battle going on about the R word and the E word. Revise and Edit (and the tenses of those words). The battle has been at the site(s) opposite here. I asked this question: The Wescott and Hort work in the 19th century was called the "Revision Committee." If the R word and E word are interchangeable, as some assert, could that 19th century work, then, have been called, "Edition Committee?" Would that have worked? Would that have sufficed? I have not gotten a response. Any thoughts here on that question/point?
Interesting point. One time conversation with Ross I said something about someone and Ross said I shouldn’t do that. But Ross attack’s riplinger. Now that’s a hypocrite.
I agree totally, the historical parts about the persecutions, history of the King James Bible did get me into KJBonlyism though all this debates, and stuff dosen't really lead anywhere. I made me focus on that instead of studying. 2 Tim 2:15.
It's been over 400 years since the inception of the AKJB God's word without error. It is a "living" book that needs no correction or update. For those who think so, please humble yourself and repent. Have a change of mind and come to the knowledge of the truth in God's word, not your (words) David Norton nor some guy named Richard Jordon added NOTHING to anyone's faith in God's perfectly preserved word without error. May we note: 1 Timothy 4:13 ??? Till I come give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. (Not Bible Correction) We in the Body of Christ church are not here to correct God's word but to edify in Truth. To those who have an unlearned bias against Gail Riplinger, my prayer is that they mature from the folly of their ways for your not fooling anyone here. It's actually quite embarrassing. Let God's perfectly preserved word be true, and every man a liar. Thank Hope Bible church for your edification in Gods Truth, not emotionalism or with a liberal mindset to this issue. As opposed to those who think an update in the AKJV is needed.
It’s a terrible thing that a believer says God spoke all things into existence but he’s not capable to provide His Flawless Words to those who Love Him and desire to get to know Him better and better!
Its amazing how they were able to get 97% or so correct when they had to print the text in type backwards and everything. Even wtih our technology, we can make typos and mistakes.
@@kwpctek9190 I've read your other comments, and I think you might want to be careful with your words lest you be giving an account at the JSoC for having a lack of charity towards a faithful brother in the Lord who is doing the right thing in addressing this heresy. Make sure it is not you, yourself, that may be trying to cause division, here.
Yes, it is a shame that there are saints in the body, who even understand Paul's gospel and doctrine, who create drama regarding those who call out (and rightfully so) heresy and error; they, of all people, should understand that Paul named those who were teaching heresy. Bryan Ross should know full well what a slippery slope he's on with what he's teaching about the ability to change words in the KJB. What's the purpose of even teaching this "verbatim identicality" nonsense if he doesn't agree with updating or changing the words? It's senseless and certainly not of God, but a work of man's flesh. He's been called out in the past over inconsistencies in his teaching on judgment seat of Christ and slandering some faithful brethren who understood the doctrine. He had to make public apology, but didn't appear to be sincere in the end, which is unfortunate. I believe these type of things will be dealt with at the JSoC, which is why we are to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. 1 Tim. 5:24 Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after. 25 Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.
Justin Johnson over at Grace Ambassadors gave a message recently called the Archaic Words of God. Fantastic. Ross and the like aught to be ashamed of themselves. It always seems to come down to this; people refuse to accept there is an authoritative book in this world complete and whole which God invested all of himself into, until the Judgement Seat of Christ. Rather than admit people have a problem with God's words being preserved and authoritative, they would rather deny this and satisfy themselves with silly arguments about why God's perfect words no longer exist. An eternal unchanging God is being made subject to time, wearing down, and decay by the opinions of man because God chose to use physical words in a physical book to record his mind? Certainly this is so foolish.
I have a bad feeling about Bryan Ross. I have tremendous respect for David Reid. From my conversations with David, I believe David feels very strongly about KJV. I suggested he distance himself from Bryan. I think David is being used by Bryan in order for Bryan to attempt to get more of a legitimate voice. Keep up the good work !! I’m with you.
They co authored the book. David Reid is an adult and stands with Bryan Ross and shares his views on this issue. He is the one who came up with with the title for the book.
Another issue people are gone into is the Greek, there is no perfect Greek, even in the TR. Not even the KJB follow the TR in every place, just trust the words.. AMEN AMEN.
It didn't surprise me to see Bryan Ross involved in this folly nor RJ Sr.'s endorsement of it , but I was shocked to see David Reid involved. I hope they all repent of this error concerning God's word before it's too late.
"This" was in Job 4:6 and in the 1611 (and 1616 I think), and not italicized. In Riplinger's 1629 KJB "this" is there in Job 4:6, and italicized. Why? Does anybody know? And "this" is also italicized in the 1638 edition and in my 1769 KJB edition.
Riplinger wrote back and said, "Geneva used Roman font (like we use today) and had italicized words. Bishops used Gothic Black letter font (fancy and not as easily readable.) It used Roman fonts as we would use italics today. So did the KJB 1611. In 1612, an octavo edition of the KJB was printed that used a small easy to read Roman font. So they had to find another font to represent the Roman font occurrences in the Bishops. So they used italics for certain words, as the Geneva had done. It is a myth that all italicized words indicate places where no 'original' word exists. This broad-brush statement is not accurate, as Scrivener listed numerous reasons in his book on the KJB as to why italics were used. 1 John 2:23 is just one of many examples. Ample manuscript evidence exists today to vindicate all of the verse, not just the first part.
@@johnlopez-qq4eh Ok, thank you. By coincidence, I heard today, if I heard correctly (I think I did), that there was no Hebrew word equivalent to "this."
QUESTION for Bryan Ross: Would you change the spellings of the names of Sheth(Seth) & Enosh(Enos) in Gen. 4 :25-26 compared to 1Ch. 1 :1 ? Or do you think GOD intended them to be spelled differently? *SHETH = SETH* *ENOSH = ENOS* Num 24 :17. shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh: there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of *👉Sheth.👈* 1Ch 1 :1. Adam, *👉Sheth,👈 👉Enosh,👈* Gen 4 :25-26 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name *👉Seth:👈* For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. And to *👉Seth,👈* to him also there was born a son; and he called his name *👉Enos:👈* then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.
Is it possible that GOD wanted the names spelled different in order to put in derision(mock) those who would try and rely on search engines to do their studying for them?
This issue is NOT the only instance of Ross & Reid challenging the veracity & purity of the KJV. Look into Reid's teachings on functional sanctification (#48) where he quotes Ross.... Just saying.
Could you be more specific, please? I checked his #48 Q&A but didn't see anything about functional sanctification. What is the title of his video where he discusses this? I'm curious because I do have an understanding of "functional" sanctification, but want to hear what he has to say and what he's quoting B. Ross about.
The word "archaic" is a word used to obfuscate the type of English the KJV uses. King's English. So... the word "King" in "King's English" has been changed to "archaic" or "old" English. The word King in King's English SETS A STANDARD. The word "archaic" changes the meaning of all that. On one hand, its okay to loosely speak scripture... not exactly word for word, in comments and conversations and so on. But on other hand, when it comes to study... it has to be what the KJV has written in it. So all so called scholarly papers should be sticking to the exact words. Please don't put ads on your videos. Is Caesar rewarding you for this truly worth it?
@@HopeBibleChurchGa Are you sure about that? John MacArthur's channel never has ads in its many years of many long videos. Not a single one, in the beginning, middle, or end. Plus his videos get more views than yours,
@@saintphoenix6723 Yes, I am sure. I don't know how they pulled that off. Maybe they pay to have an ad free channel. I don't appreciate your implication that I am lying.
@@HopeBibleChurchGa Nobody's paying anyone at RUclips to prevent ads from appearing on a video. I don't appreciate you, who stands for truth, to say such idle and empty words to me. So, yes, if you think I'm implying something, good for you you can discern. But I'm more interested in the truth of the matter than stopping at implication by sheer basic facts, and I don't appreciate you standing in the way of getting to the truth of the matter. Its best to be civil here than defensive.
@@saintphoenix6723 OK, since you know so much, tell me how to turn off the ads. When we looked into it the only way we found was that we had to first monetize the channel and then try to turn off the ads on each video. We are not monetized, nor will we be. We are not even 501c3 (like Macarthur's church).
I heard and have come to understand that a Lithuanian couple translated the KJB into the Lithuanian language. I assume they chose the words, and I also assume they had help, that had to be a huge undertaking. So, do we assume that the Holy Ghost ensured that the correct words were used in the Lithuanian translation? Is it safe to assume this Lithuanian translation are the inspired words of God? Just asking. It's just a question.
Ouch!! "And a certain woman cast a piece of a millstone upon Abimelech's [the usurper's] head, and all to brake his skull. Then he called hastily unto the young man his armourbearer, and said unto him, Draw thy sword, and slay me, that men say not of me, A woman slew him." Judges 9:53, 54 Churches have secretaries and librarians. YOU ASK for 'help' or material and they gather it up for you. YOU decide what to do with it. YOU decide how to apply it to your life, your family, and your church. Riplinger writes analectas, that is, books that 'collect' and 'collate' quotes from books and Bibles and then record them by putting ink on paper. YOU only read the citations, IF you decide to; you only apply them if you decide to. She is like a church secretary-at-large. It happened in 2 Kings 22:13. They had lost "the book" of the scriptures. When they found it, they weren't sure what it was. So they went to Huldah, "in the college" and she identified the library card for them. Deborah and Jael ditto. The original colophon at the end of the book of Romans says the book was brought by Phebe to Rome, which was 900 miles by land and 500 miles by sea from Chenchrea. God has used women to carry the word forward. YOU are still in charge and in authority. Helpmeets, they are. (copied)
@@johnlopez-qq4eh I appreciate that! I’ve never read any of her stuff and don’t know anything about her writings. Thanks for clarifying that, by no means was I trying to discredit her. Being ignorant of her writings I had a question. So funny I was just talking to preacher about that and the subject of being a helpmeet came up.
2:12 “There are no archaic words in the King James Bible.” Really? How about: 1 Thes 4:15? “ … we that are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not ‘PREVENT’ them which are asleep.” Wow, it would be horrible if someone who is still alive at the Lord’s return could PREVENT someone from rising from the dead. Yikes!
Riplinger said to tell you, "The Oxford English Dictionary online gives the following definitions as #1 'to come, arrive, or appear before; to precede. Also To act before or more quickly than. Also to act in advance. It only gives the definition to 'stop' or 'hinder' as a SECONDARY definition. The world speaks British English and is very familiar with the FIRST definition. It does not list the first and primary definition as "Arch" which is an abbreviation it would use if it considered it archaic."
@@johnlopez-qq4eh That's right, I didn't know about that but the next few verses kind of already defined it. Also, some other verses in the BIble that use that word. Some verses that use prevent would be the second defintion.
There is a lo of words in our modern language that have double meanings. Also, we are alive can't prevent them which are asleep from going up. The next verse says "For" expalining that the first will raise is the dead and then the alive, which remain.
How dare someone grow in their ability to master the English language. No one should have to use a dictionary, learn word meanings, speak more clearly, learn nuance of words and their definitions. No, the publishers should water down the King James to suit every objection until there's nothing left. *extreme sarcasm
My only exposure to Bryan Ross has been the 7-part series that he and David Reid did together titled "The Gospels Project". As far as preaching and teaching goes, I would categorize Ross as being a novice. Within the series, he contradicted himself, confused those in attendance, did not stay composed, and often deferred to Reid for answers and validation of the points he was trying to make. My general conclusion was that Ross should stick to being a Math teacher and that he was unskilled in handling the word of God. That said, after 40 years of calling myself a Christian, I will confidently state that the three best preachers and teachers of Scripture are David O'Steen, David Reid, and Justin Johnson. I am absolutely NOT one that preaches unity over doctrine, but these three men of God need to be on the same page and need to commit to communicating with each other and to go to the n'th degree of "debating" and discussing differences within what it is that they teach. David Reid should distance himself from Bryan Ross.
David Reid teaches (#48) that sanctification is positional only... Meaning that the BoC is NOT being functionally sanctified in this Age in order to become Sons, rather than just remain children. Justin Johnson teaches that there is no difference between a covenant & testament, despite the distinctions within the KJB. Thus, he further teaches that BoC has no role in the New Testament.... Concerning unity of doctrine.. what did our Lord Jesus pray for just hours before his work at the cross? Physical strength? No. Not suffering? No. He prayed for unity of belief for all those who would follow him. So why aren't you "one who preaches unity over doctrine"?
Another QUESTION for Bryan Ross: Would you change the spellings of the names of Jehoshua(Oshea) & Non(Nun) in 1Ch. 7 :27 compared to Num.13 :18 ? Or do you think GOD intended them to be spelled differently? *JOSHUA, OSHEA, JEHOSHUA ARE ALL THE SAME PERSON* *NUN = NON* Num 13: 16 These are the names of the men which Moses sent to spy out the land. And Moses called *👉Oshea👈* the son of *👉Nun👈 👉Jehoshua.👈* 1Ch 7: 27 *👉Non👈* his son, *👉Jehoshua👈* his son. Num 13: 8 Of the tribe of Ephraim, *👉Oshea👈* the son of *👉Nun.👈* Exo 17 :9. And Moses said unto *👉Joshua,👈* Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek: to morrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in mine hand.
Is it possible that GOD wanted the names spelled different in order to put in derision(mock) those who would try and rely on search engines to do their studying for them?
@@1dandandy1 I notied a lot of words spelled differently and its quite interesting. I feel like we have those still in our language to day, Shawn can be spelled Shaun and others. I think Baal, Nebucandezer, Judas, and some others are spelled differently as well. Or maybe there is something special about it... Yea, I find it interesting as well, the more I study, its very interesting and how it all connects. Not all the times its the exact phrase and its even more amazing how these pharses define themselves.
@@GodisGracious1031Ministries Yes, exactly! The bible is amazing , and we know that is the way GOD wanted it. Maybe it has something to do.with being hid in GOD and studying to show to show ourselves approved to GOD. Thank You for your comment.
Not all KJV users ate true KJV Only! For proof of this,just read the book,The Certainty of the Words " by Kyle Stephens. It's an eye opening and edifying book! Highly recommend!
@johnlopez-qq4eh Hello, you had answered me before, which I appreciated. I posted a question about 7 days ago, and perhaps you wouldn't mind taking a look at it and tell me what you think (or anyone else who cares to answer). The post I'd appreciate you or someone to consider, begins with the words, "There has been a small battle going on..." Thanks.
An edition is typically thought of as a slight revision or update of a work. On the other hand, the 1881 'Revised Version' (its official name) implies that it is a 'version' of something. In that case, it was an English 'version' of the corrupt Westcott and Hort Greek N.T. text. The word 'Revised' is sort of a misnomer. They were using it to pretend that they were revising the 'Bible', that is, the King James Bible. But in fact, it was not a 'revision' of the KJB. It pretended to be that. It was actually a new English version of a new Greek text. Lastly, the 1629 and 1638 King James Bibles were not actually, 'versions' or 'revisions.' They were what's officially called 'settings.'
@@johnlopez-qq4ehI greatly appreciate the reply. In my view, the R word and E word matter has slipped through the cracks a little bit in this ongoing discussion with the KJB and all its printings from 1611 to 1769, and at different locations, London, Cambridge and Edinburgh. The E word and R word has to be kept on the table, so believer's can be clear on this. Some, if not many, think these words are easily interchangeable. So, thanks again.
@@johnlopez-qq4ehPerhaps you missed my question. The "Settings" you said the work was called. What is that? Did that just pertain to the printing work, exclusively?
@@mcee8634 I answered twice, but it didn't post either time. Perhaps my reference to where you could get an article about 'settings' was what stopped it. AV Publications has an article.
just for some clarification, and i have read the book: posted this in another vid as well: ... no one is calling for "changing words" or updating words", not Bryan Ross or David Ried, but it gives you a lens and perspective to look at and accept the minor differences in the editions of KJBs from 1611 through 1769. (and for that matter a means to deal with the printed editions and mss through the centuries).
for someone to say that this is "dangerous" because it "opens up the door for revisions" is silly - when we say we are saved by grace through faith, sealed until the day of redemption, and are eternally secure in Jesus Christ and cannot lose it, people say that is "dangerous" and you are giving people a "license to sin"... people are going to do what they are going to do because of their fallen nature, people have been sinning regardless of eternal security and people will make revisions regardless of "the myth of verbatim identicality"
Why is it that whenever I comment to the faithful followers of Bryan that the KJB is the inspired word of GOD that I am met with their new slogan: "Which version; the 1611, the 1629, the 1637, the 1679?" And then I am promptly banned?
In my opinion it is dangerous because they are spreading an aura of deceitful distrust.
I was shocked to hear pastor O'Steen and Gail Riplinger constantly call br. Ross a liar . I hope they listened to his video in response to this video up here. He did not knew that there were 2 versions of the KJV 1629. So, when is a person lying? When can you call somebody a liar? Answer: Well, that is when the person intentionally the truth changes into a lie. Immediately wrote mrs. Riplinger that br. Ross lied and brother O'Steen took that over and also said he was lying. In other words: Ross is a liar. Quite a very serious accusation! In his video "Did I lie ...etc" it is very clear that Ross did not lie and he showed that very clear in that video.
A person can be wrong in his conviction, but that does not make him a liar. He can be very sincerely believe in something to be true while it is not true, but he does not know that. So he is ignorant unintentionally. And that is how O'Steen and Ripplinger should have talked about Ross. I think that Ross has proven to be sincerely and not only that, he also has proven that what he teached about the subject was not wrong at all. O'Steen and Ripplinger were very fast in condemning Ross. But since Ross refuted the accusations of them It is very quite on the side of O'Steen and Ripplinger. So fast as they were in condemning him so great is the silence now! I hope that they will acknowledge their wrong attitude against Ross an make their to apologizes to br. Ross in the way they (wrongly) attacked him .
I believe my KJB is the preserved and inspired words of God. Faith and conviction. All of man's research don't move me, thanks to the grace of God.
Thank you for this helpful information which affirms the fact that God's words are not to be corrected or compromised according to man's worldly wisdom. Faith is believing God's words. Anyone that says it's okay to change them is liable to overthrow the faith of some.
Touch NOT A WORD of God’s perfect BOOK!
@@kwpctek9190 You're right; we're not listening to people who live and breathe doubt.
Gail Riplinger is one of the most profound researchers on the Bible Version issue,that I have ever seen! She has spent tens of thousands of hours over a period of over 30 years, and always going to Primary Sources,rather than Secondary sources whenever possible. I have several of her books,and they are very helpful. Also,she has done a masterful job of refuting the lies and errors of James White.
How about Rodney B. David! WOW! Thanks for exposing his errors and more importantly, his attitude about it.
The words of the Lord are PURE words psalm12:6. These pure words are preserved to every generation, so we have them preserved in 2024. To say that the King James needs to be updated, is saying that God's words need to be updated, and updated to what man thinks. This is very dangerous ground to be taking. Thanks brother David for being this to our attention.
To expose and not to expose. I have an objective view on looking at things. IT IS WHAT IT IS! It's good to be informed. At the end of the day, God's word is Eternity. Thank you, sir! Grace and peace.
Ronaldo.
I’ve actually read the book, which I doubt most of you have. It appears that the purpose was to explain the five editions to the original 1611 versions. If it was improper for this to have happened then we should be only using the 1611 original, not the “updated” 1769.
@@shopnote7003 snob
Zero context changes from the 1611 and the 1769 ! ZERO!
So, Ross and Vance and Norton have not ever said, and are not presently saying, that the KJB has not ever been "revised?"
People switch their beliefs so quickly at times, just like those who seemed to be solid in the word switched over to the heresy of Rodney B. Be rooted and grounded in the Truth, and led by God's Spirit. Thank you for the study and hard work you put into this, and for your hunger for truth. Praying for you.
It’s our responsibility to correct and point out errors in doctrine. If they are not willing to correct themselves we are told to AVOID THEM!
What a blessing. A man that believes every word of God is pure!
Amen Pastor 🙏
Thank you for the info. Final Fight Bible Radio has been playing Bryan Ross' sermons on this very subject - a series he taught refuting a preacher that came after him.
I stand with those who stand on the King James bible.
Almost nobody realizes that "stand" in scripture means "to judge". Thus, to "understand" is the "stand under" (judge from below) another's authority, recognizing that Hid us testing our willingness to let Him be sovereign over us.
Something to consider
Knowing how printer errors work and what they look like, I would suggest that 2 Corinthians 4:4 "In whom the God of this world" was probably intentional. It is a popular, important, doctrinal verse and it lasted in dozens of printings and many years. That seems intentional. It is also possible that the change in the 1769 at Hebrews 10:12 was intentional. Of course I don't know what it would take to prove something like this.
There is a 1629 KJV digitized online which reads like Ross'. I would suggest that there might be a variant in that year, if her image is truly from the 1629, which I have no reason to doubt it is. It should be noted that in that year, the OT was not labeled as 1629, just the NT was. The OT doesn't have a date.
If I can I will also point out that Riplinger was wrong about "learned" men in the notes as quoted by Norton. There are at least 4 manuscript copies of the notes that include that word.
yes, i have found a digitized copy of a 1629 online as well that has "this" removed and reads exactly as Ross' image. obviously there is some sort of variation that happened during that time period.
can you explain further or provide a bit more clarity on what is meant by "the OT doesn't have a date" and how that relates to this discussion?
on the "learned men" note as well, i have seen multiple lists in multiple publications that used that phrasing, and to place the burden on Norton, though i am sure he has his faults, seems a bit preposterous.
the majority of the pdf of hers seems very unstable.
@@a_hanna Both the title page of the online copy as well as the title page of Riplinger's copy do not have a date stated. The New Testament of the online copy does have a date of 1629. All that means is that it is possible that the Old Testament could be from a different year and paired up with the NT. I don't really think that is the case though. If you look at Riplinger's image and the one online, they have some unique features that match. It is as if Job 4:6 was the only text replaced on the page. Compare the strange way the first "t" was printed in the word "little" in verse 12 or the "n" of "and" in verse 11. They look identical.
Nicolson's book Power and Glory can be found on Archive and on the flyleaf is a copy which includes "learned". Norton mentions 3 manuscript copies in his footnote and two of them have "learned". So I think it is wrong to make the accusation against him there.
I asked Riplinger and she said, "My PDF SHOWS the image of the actual original handwritten Rules for Translation given at Hampton Court Conference on January 14, 1604. This was determined to be THE accurate one by England's Oxford University's Bodleian Library and photographed for their official publication, entitled Manifold Greatness: The Making of the King James Bible. That library is THE authority on that subject and HOLDS the original manuscripts in question, as well as the other MSS pertaining to the making of the KJB. I give the ISBN number in the PDF, so you can purchase it and see for yourself. Any other reading is spurious, no doubt an introduction that has been widely replicated by those 'scholars' who deny the priesthood of believers. Norton's distant perch in New Zealand strains to clearly see across the 12,000 mile chasm from truth in Oxford. I observed the word "possible" and "probably" in the negative comments, which is just more "Yea, hath God said?" But we have a "sure word" in the KJBs in our laps (2 Peter1:19)."
@@christopheryetzer yes sir, i understand what you are saying, and i see the details you are referring to in the printed text on the two different pages.
unfortunately there is a small sample population of 1629's available to examine additionally.
very much agree on the "learned" - the the hyperbolic blame and rhetoric that exudes from her is found wanting.
@@a_hanna I asked Riplinger and she said, "My PDF SHOWS the image of the actual original handwritten Rules for Translation given at Hampton Court Conference on January 14, 1604. This was determined to be THE accurate one by England's Oxford University's Bodleian Library and photographed for their official publication, entitled Manifold Greatness: The Making of the King James Bible. That library is THE authority on that subject and HOLDS the original manuscripts in question, as well as the other MSS pertaining to the making of the KJB. I give the ISBN number in the PDF, so you can purchase it and see for yourself. Any other reading is spurious, no doubt an introduction that has been widely replicated by those 'scholars' who deny the priesthood of believers. Norton's distant perch in New Zealand strains to clearly see across the 12,000 mile chasm from truth in Oxford. I observed the word "possible" and "probably" in the negative comments, which is just more "Yea, hath God said?" But we have a "sure word" in the KJBs in our laps (2 Peter1:19)."
Much appreciation and respect for David's unwavering public stand.
Very slippery slope. I remember being tempted to believe it doesn't matter about the wording, only the message. Very dangerous feeling. Like getting close to a table saw.
(Unrelated: I would pay dearly to hear David O'Steen teach about Confederate history, especially a Christian history of the South.)
Stonewall's chaplain was very intelligent and intuitive. I've read some things he had said. I can't recall his name right now.
Question. I am a KJB man. I understand my edition is the 1769 one. 2 Tim 3:17 in the 1769 edition says: "That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." I know other KJB editions, later ones I guess, have "thoroughly" instead of "throughly." I noticed Biblegateway uses a modern edition of the KJB because it has the word "thoroughly" instead of "throughly." I definitely prefer "throughly," so I like and prefer my 1769 edition. Now, I know what folks say about the differences between "throughly" and "thoroughly." I tend to agree that there is a difference. However, some think, like Ross, that there is no difference in the definition of those words. Though I prefer "throughly," I think Ross did a good job showing that the definition of these words are the same. So, my question is, if I follow Pastor Osteen correctly that the translators were inspired, when "thoroughly" was put in 2 Tim 3:17 for "throughly," did that verse or word then, become uninspired? Or, can one still say that edition of the KJB is inspired though a word had been changed (and others)?
Exactly the point I made to Brian. I posted comment on one of his videos that he didn’t show any factual evidence from the translators of mistakes made nor any factual evidence of them stating publicly about the errors.
Anybody talking badly about Gail Riplinger and her work is ignorant. Or a tool of Satan.
I find it strange,that critics of KJV Only believers, always strain at KJV " gnats" ,and at the same time swallow New Version " camels" by the train load!
It's noteworthy that Ross typically opens any teaching by going "academic" first, discussing the history & traditions before delving into the Word of God. Apostle Paul clearly abandoned his academic credentials, calling them "dung".
There has been a small battle going on about the R word and the E word. Revise and Edit (and the tenses of those words). The battle has been at the site(s) opposite here. I asked this question: The Wescott and Hort work in the 19th century was called the "Revision Committee." If the R word and E word are interchangeable, as some assert, could that 19th century work, then, have been called, "Edition Committee?" Would that have worked? Would that have sufficed? I have not gotten a response. Any thoughts here on that question/point?
Thank you for standing firm on the word of God.
Interesting point. One time conversation with Ross I said something about someone and Ross said I shouldn’t do that. But Ross attack’s riplinger. Now that’s a hypocrite.
I believe Bryan Ross has undertaken the journey towards the new versions. So sad. I hope David Reid doesn’t follow him. It would be a real shame
Reminds me of the description for the reason the NKJV was created, to be "a bridge bible to modern versions."
Nice job. Keep up the good work. Ross tries to look humble but in my opinion he has an ego.
It all comes down to, You Believe in God and his perfection or You Don't.
Love my King James Bible. Amen
I agree totally, the historical parts about the persecutions, history of the King James Bible did get me into KJBonlyism though all this debates, and stuff dosen't really lead anywhere. I made me focus on that instead of studying. 2 Tim 2:15.
It's been over 400 years since the inception of the AKJB God's word without error.
It is a "living" book that needs no correction or update.
For those who think so, please humble yourself and repent. Have a change of mind and come to the knowledge of the truth in God's word, not your (words)
David Norton nor some guy named Richard Jordon added NOTHING to anyone's faith in God's perfectly preserved word without error. May we note: 1 Timothy 4:13 ???
Till I come give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
(Not Bible Correction)
We in the Body of Christ church are not here to correct God's word but to edify in Truth.
To those who have an unlearned bias against Gail Riplinger, my prayer is that they mature from the folly of their ways for your not fooling anyone here. It's actually quite embarrassing.
Let God's perfectly preserved word be true, and every man a liar.
Thank Hope Bible church for
your edification in Gods Truth, not emotionalism or with a liberal mindset to this issue. As opposed to those who think an update in the AKJV is needed.
It’s a terrible thing that a believer says God spoke all things into existence but he’s not capable to provide His Flawless Words to those who Love Him and desire to get to know Him better and better!
Thank you David & Gail.
Thanks for talking about this!
Its amazing how they were able to get 97% or so correct when they had to print the text in type backwards and everything. Even wtih our technology, we can make typos and mistakes.
Yes thank u. I almost got sucked into the nonsense myself.
P.S.
And a BIG amen to all that you said.👍
Do you know anything about Gail Riplingers health? I've lost contact with her website, last I heard,she was having problems. I hope she is doing well.
@@kwpctek9190 I've read your other comments, and I think you might want to be careful with your words lest you be giving an account at the JSoC for having a lack of charity towards a faithful brother in the Lord who is doing the right thing in addressing this heresy. Make sure it is not you, yourself, that may be trying to cause division, here.
Amen, do have a video on the "of the weight" thing that a GracelifeChurch did about the revisions? Thanks.
Yes, it is a shame that there are saints in the body, who even understand Paul's gospel and doctrine, who create drama regarding those who call out (and rightfully so) heresy and error; they, of all people, should understand that Paul named those who were teaching heresy. Bryan Ross should know full well what a slippery slope he's on with what he's teaching about the ability to change words in the KJB. What's the purpose of even teaching this "verbatim identicality" nonsense if he doesn't agree with updating or changing the words? It's senseless and certainly not of God, but a work of man's flesh. He's been called out in the past over inconsistencies in his teaching on judgment seat of Christ and slandering some faithful brethren who understood the doctrine. He had to make public apology, but didn't appear to be sincere in the end, which is unfortunate. I believe these type of things will be dealt with at the JSoC, which is why we are to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.
1 Tim. 5:24 Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.
25 Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.
Bryan "yea, hath God said" Ross.
It's as simple as that.
Justin Johnson over at Grace Ambassadors gave a message recently called the Archaic Words of God. Fantastic. Ross and the like aught to be ashamed of themselves.
It always seems to come down to this; people refuse to accept there is an authoritative book in this world complete and whole which God invested all of himself into, until the Judgement Seat of Christ. Rather than admit people have a problem with God's words being preserved and authoritative, they would rather deny this and satisfy themselves with silly arguments about why God's perfect words no longer exist.
An eternal unchanging God is being made subject to time, wearing down, and decay by the opinions of man because God chose to use physical words in a physical book to record his mind? Certainly this is so foolish.
I have a bad feeling about Bryan Ross. I have tremendous respect for David Reid. From my conversations with David, I believe David feels very strongly about KJV. I suggested he distance himself from Bryan. I think David is being used by Bryan in order for Bryan to attempt to get more of a legitimate voice.
Keep up the good work !! I’m with you.
They co authored the book. David Reid is an adult and stands with Bryan Ross and shares his views on this issue. He is the one who came up with with the title for the book.
You guys will just be saying anything
Another issue people are gone into is the Greek, there is no perfect Greek, even in the TR. Not even the KJB follow the TR in every place, just trust the words.. AMEN AMEN.
It didn't surprise me to see Bryan Ross involved in this folly nor RJ Sr.'s endorsement of it , but I was shocked to see David Reid involved. I hope they all repent of this error concerning God's word before it's too late.
God bless brother O'Steen
"This" was in Job 4:6 and in the 1611 (and 1616 I think), and not italicized. In Riplinger's 1629 KJB "this" is there in Job 4:6, and italicized. Why? Does anybody know? And "this" is also italicized in the 1638 edition and in my 1769 KJB edition.
Riplinger wrote back and said, "Geneva used Roman font (like we use today) and had italicized words. Bishops used Gothic Black letter font (fancy and not as easily readable.) It used Roman fonts as we would use italics today. So did the KJB 1611. In 1612, an octavo edition of the KJB was printed that used a small easy to read Roman font. So they had to find another font to represent the Roman font occurrences in the Bishops. So they used italics for certain words, as the Geneva had done. It is a myth that all italicized words indicate places where no 'original' word exists. This broad-brush statement is not accurate, as Scrivener listed numerous reasons in his book on the KJB as to why italics were used. 1 John 2:23 is just one of many examples. Ample manuscript evidence exists today to vindicate all of the verse, not just the first part.
@@johnlopez-qq4eh Ok, thank you. By coincidence, I heard today, if I heard correctly (I think I did), that there was no Hebrew word equivalent to "this."
QUESTION for Bryan Ross: Would you change the spellings of the names of Sheth(Seth) & Enosh(Enos) in Gen. 4 :25-26 compared to 1Ch. 1 :1 ? Or do you think GOD intended them to be spelled differently?
*SHETH = SETH*
*ENOSH = ENOS*
Num 24 :17. shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh: there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of *👉Sheth.👈*
1Ch 1 :1. Adam, *👉Sheth,👈 👉Enosh,👈*
Gen 4 :25-26 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name *👉Seth:👈* For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. And to *👉Seth,👈* to him also there was born a son; and he called his name *👉Enos:👈* then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.
Is it possible that GOD wanted the names spelled different in order to put in derision(mock) those who would try and rely on search engines to do their studying for them?
@@kwpctek9190 Me? You are the blocking brother. Too bad you can't block me here.
This issue is NOT the only instance of Ross & Reid challenging the veracity & purity of the KJV. Look into Reid's teachings on functional sanctification (#48) where he quotes Ross.... Just saying.
Could you be more specific, please? I checked his #48 Q&A but didn't see anything about functional sanctification. What is the title of his video where he discusses this? I'm curious because I do have an understanding of "functional" sanctification, but want to hear what he has to say and what he's quoting B. Ross about.
Anyone interested in "uping their game" regarding the KJB, check out the King James bible museum in Arizona.
The word "archaic" is a word used to obfuscate the type of English the KJV uses. King's English. So... the word "King" in "King's English" has been changed to "archaic" or "old" English. The word King in King's English SETS A STANDARD. The word "archaic" changes the meaning of all that.
On one hand, its okay to loosely speak scripture... not exactly word for word, in comments and conversations and so on. But on other hand, when it comes to study... it has to be what the KJV has written in it. So all so called scholarly papers should be sticking to the exact words.
Please don't put ads on your videos. Is Caesar rewarding you for this truly worth it?
Our channel is not monetized. RUclips now puts ads on channels without their consent. It’s a free platform.
@@HopeBibleChurchGa Are you sure about that? John MacArthur's channel never has ads in its many years of many long videos. Not a single one, in the beginning, middle, or end. Plus his videos get more views than yours,
@@saintphoenix6723 Yes, I am sure. I don't know how they pulled that off. Maybe they pay to have an ad free channel. I don't appreciate your implication that I am lying.
@@HopeBibleChurchGa Nobody's paying anyone at RUclips to prevent ads from appearing on a video. I don't appreciate you, who stands for truth, to say such idle and empty words to me. So, yes, if you think I'm implying something, good for you you can discern. But I'm more interested in the truth of the matter than stopping at implication by sheer basic facts, and I don't appreciate you standing in the way of getting to the truth of the matter. Its best to be civil here than defensive.
@@saintphoenix6723 OK, since you know so much, tell me how to turn off the ads. When we looked into it the only way we found was that we had to first monetize the channel and then try to turn off the ads on each video. We are not monetized, nor will we be. We are not even 501c3 (like Macarthur's church).
I heard and have come to understand that a Lithuanian couple translated the KJB into the Lithuanian language. I assume they chose the words, and I also assume they had help, that had to be a huge undertaking. So, do we assume that the Holy Ghost ensured that the correct words were used in the Lithuanian translation? Is it safe to assume this Lithuanian translation are the inspired words of God? Just asking. It's just a question.
Amen.
Doesn’t the Bible teach us not to take biblical authority from a woman?
Ouch!! "And a certain woman cast a piece of a millstone upon Abimelech's [the usurper's] head, and all to brake his skull. Then he called hastily unto the young man his armourbearer, and said unto him, Draw thy sword, and slay me, that men say not of me, A woman slew him." Judges 9:53, 54
Churches have secretaries and librarians. YOU ASK for 'help' or material and they gather it up for you. YOU decide what to do with it. YOU decide how to apply it to your life, your family, and your church. Riplinger writes analectas, that is, books that 'collect' and 'collate' quotes from books and Bibles and then record them by putting ink on paper. YOU only read the citations, IF you decide to; you only apply them if you decide to.
She is like a church secretary-at-large. It happened in 2 Kings 22:13. They had lost "the book" of the scriptures. When they found it, they weren't sure what it was. So they went to Huldah, "in the college" and she identified the library card for them. Deborah and Jael ditto.
The original colophon at the end of the book of Romans says the book was brought by Phebe to Rome, which was 900 miles by land and 500 miles by sea from Chenchrea. God has used women to carry the word forward. YOU are still in charge and in authority. Helpmeets, they are. (copied)
@@johnlopez-qq4eh I appreciate that! I’ve never read any of her stuff and don’t know anything about her writings. Thanks for clarifying that, by no means was I trying to discredit her. Being ignorant of her writings I had a question. So funny I was just talking to preacher about that and the subject of being a helpmeet came up.
2:12 “There are no archaic words in the King James Bible.”
Really? How about: 1 Thes 4:15? “ … we that are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not ‘PREVENT’ them which are asleep.”
Wow, it would be horrible if someone who is still alive at the Lord’s return could PREVENT someone from rising from the dead. Yikes!
Riplinger said to tell you, "The Oxford English Dictionary online gives the following definitions as #1 'to come, arrive, or appear before; to precede. Also To act before or more quickly than. Also to act in advance. It only gives the definition to 'stop' or 'hinder' as a SECONDARY definition. The world speaks British English and is very familiar with the FIRST definition. It does not list the first and primary definition as "Arch" which is an abbreviation it would use if it considered it archaic."
@@johnlopez-qq4eh That's right, I didn't know about that but the next few verses kind of already defined it. Also, some other verses in the BIble that use that word. Some verses that use prevent would be the second defintion.
There is a lo of words in our modern language that have double meanings. Also, we are alive can't prevent them which are asleep from going up. The next verse says "For" expalining that the first will raise is the dead and then the alive, which remain.
How dare someone grow in their ability to master the English language. No one should have to use a dictionary, learn word meanings, speak more clearly, learn nuance of words and their definitions. No, the publishers should water down the King James to suit every objection until there's nothing left. *extreme sarcasm
@@exothermal.sprocket The KJB is perfect.
My only exposure to Bryan Ross has been the 7-part series that he and David Reid did together titled "The Gospels Project". As far as preaching and teaching goes, I would categorize Ross as being a novice. Within the series, he contradicted himself, confused those in attendance, did not stay composed, and often deferred to Reid for answers and validation of the points he was trying to make. My general conclusion was that Ross should stick to being a Math teacher and that he was unskilled in handling the word of God. That said, after 40 years of calling myself a Christian, I will confidently state that the three best preachers and teachers of Scripture are David O'Steen, David Reid, and Justin Johnson. I am absolutely NOT one that preaches unity over doctrine, but these three men of God need to be on the same page and need to commit to communicating with each other and to go to the n'th degree of "debating" and discussing differences within what it is that they teach. David Reid should distance himself from Bryan Ross.
David Reid teaches (#48) that sanctification is positional only... Meaning that the BoC is NOT being functionally sanctified in this Age in order to become Sons, rather than just remain children.
Justin Johnson teaches that there is no difference between a covenant & testament, despite the distinctions within the KJB. Thus, he further teaches that BoC has no role in the New Testament....
Concerning unity of doctrine.. what did our Lord Jesus pray for just hours before his work at the cross? Physical strength? No. Not suffering? No. He prayed for unity of belief for all those who would follow him.
So why aren't you "one who preaches unity over doctrine"?
Another QUESTION for Bryan Ross: Would you change the spellings of the names of Jehoshua(Oshea) & Non(Nun) in 1Ch. 7 :27 compared to Num.13 :18 ? Or do you think GOD intended them to be spelled differently?
*JOSHUA, OSHEA, JEHOSHUA ARE ALL THE SAME PERSON*
*NUN = NON*
Num 13: 16 These are the names of the men which Moses sent to
spy out the land. And Moses called *👉Oshea👈* the son of *👉Nun👈 👉Jehoshua.👈*
1Ch 7: 27 *👉Non👈* his son, *👉Jehoshua👈* his son.
Num 13: 8 Of the tribe of Ephraim, *👉Oshea👈* the son of *👉Nun.👈*
Exo 17 :9. And Moses said unto *👉Joshua,👈* Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek: to morrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in mine hand.
Is it possible that GOD wanted the names spelled different in order to put in derision(mock) those who would try and rely on search engines to do their studying for them?
@@1dandandy1 I notied a lot of words spelled differently and its quite interesting. I feel like we have those still in our language to day, Shawn can be spelled Shaun and others. I think Baal, Nebucandezer, Judas, and some others are spelled differently as well. Or maybe there is something special about it... Yea, I find it interesting as well, the more I study, its very interesting and how it all connects. Not all the times its the exact phrase and its even more amazing how these pharses define themselves.
@@GodisGracious1031Ministries Yes, exactly! The bible is amazing , and we know that is the way GOD wanted it. Maybe it has something to do.with being hid in GOD and studying to show to show ourselves approved to GOD. Thank You for your comment.
@@1dandandy1 Oh, and I am not sure if this ever be discovered as a numeric things but ever seen a video channel called Truth is Christ?
@@GodisGracious1031Ministries I haven't seen it.
👍🔥🕊️🙏
Theres nothing wrong with sharing those emails. If you lie in private you risk the person you lied to telling everyone and thats the way it should be.
Not all KJV users ate true KJV Only! For proof of this,just read the book,The Certainty of the Words " by Kyle Stephens. It's an eye opening and edifying book! Highly recommend!
@johnlopez-qq4eh Hello, you had answered me before, which I appreciated. I posted a question about 7 days ago, and perhaps you wouldn't mind taking a look at it and tell me what you think (or anyone else who cares to answer). The post I'd appreciate you or someone to consider, begins with the words, "There has been a small battle going on..." Thanks.
An edition is typically thought of as a slight revision or update of a work. On the other hand, the 1881 'Revised Version' (its official name) implies that it is a 'version' of something. In that case, it was an English 'version' of the corrupt Westcott and Hort Greek N.T. text. The word 'Revised' is sort of a misnomer. They were using it to pretend that they were revising the 'Bible', that is, the King James Bible. But in fact, it was not a 'revision' of the KJB. It pretended to be that. It was actually a new English version of a new Greek text. Lastly, the 1629 and 1638 King James Bibles were not actually, 'versions' or 'revisions.' They were what's officially called 'settings.'
@@johnlopez-qq4ehI greatly appreciate the reply. In my view, the R word and E word matter has slipped through the cracks a little bit in this ongoing discussion with the KJB and all its printings from 1611 to 1769, and at different locations, London, Cambridge and Edinburgh. The E word and R word has to be kept on the table, so believer's can be clear on this. Some, if not many, think these words are easily interchangeable. So, thanks again.
@@johnlopez-qq4eh I should have already asked, but what is this thing called, "settings?" Does it pertain, exclusively, to the printing work?
@@johnlopez-qq4ehPerhaps you missed my question. The "Settings" you said the work was called. What is that? Did that just pertain to the printing work, exclusively?
@@mcee8634 I answered twice, but it didn't post either time. Perhaps my reference to where you could get an article about 'settings' was what stopped it. AV Publications has an article.