The KJV captured me at age 19 with it's "holy sounding" Elizabethan English. And even decades later, I still love KJV for it's obviously inspired beauty. Even with more accurate translations now in the 21st century, it was THE Book for It's time. Generations grew up *Learning To Read* from it as their primary reader!🤗 The King James Bible created Western civilization.😌🙏❤
Greetings! Elizabethan refers specifically to the period during Queen Elizabeth I’s reign (1558-1603). This falls within the larger phase of Early Modern English. Jacobean refers to the time of King James I’s reign (1603-1625), which follows Elizabethan English. It also falls within the Early Modern English period. Early Modern English covers both the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods and stretches from the late 15th century to the early 17th century. Elizabethan and Jacobean are specific periods within the broader category of Early Modern English. But the Authorized 1611 KJB is considered to be Early Modern English linguistically, and Jacobean historically, but not Elizabethan. Until Christ is fully formed in us all, -james
I appreciate your channel brother, you've shed a lot of light on certain topics on your channel that helped me. And your response to criticism is Spirit filled with gentleness and meekness.
When ever i read kjv i get the feel i am reading Gods word and grace of rest upon it but whenever i try to read ESV i feel i am reading some mans literature work i doesn't give me the experience that i am reading the Bible
Because the KJB translation is alive, which means it is inspired, the Spirit communicates with your spirit that truth (Heb 4:12, 1Pet 1:23, Rom 8:16). Inspiration is about giving life (Job 32:8, 33:4). Many like to confuse Inspiration with perfection or preservation to mud the waters. The truth is some translations are inspired, such as Geneva or the KJB. Others like the NIV and such are totally dead, no inspiration at all.
Very respectful video sir. Cannot remember watching a video on this topic with out a lot of mud throwing. Thank you for keeping it civil for God's word
The Bible study thing is one of the justifications I myself use to promote "standardization" on the KJV (even though I do frequently use other translations outside of the church and outside of my religious work). Keep everyone on the same page, and there will be no confusion.
I appreciate your gracious attitude about this issue, Pastor Steve. However, I find the attitude by many KJV Only believers to be very self-righteous and condemning of others who do not adhere to their position. They often resort to name-calling and accusations that are a big turn-off. I studied Greek in Bible College, and preferred the NASB then, as it was closest to the Greek text we were using. However, I do have the KJV, and many other translations. I'm currently favoring the NKJV, which still has 1 John 5:7, and Matthew 18:11. Take care, and God bless.
Mike Oxley It is irrelevant if those one side or the other on this issue is self righteous (there’s plenty on both sides); what matters is what is being said true or not.
I've said, with supporters like Ruckman, Chick and Riplinger, who needs the devil? Some of us, myself included, are able to promote continuing use of the KJV without bashing people who don't or questioning their salvation (I was "saved" with the NRSV).
I am certainly KJV primary. When I quote scripture it's what comes out. So it is the word written on my heart and in my mind that the Lord promised. However, I will certainly say I enjoy reading and referring to the NASB. I teach from it alongside the KJV. Also, a translation I enjoy is the TLV it has brought in the Hebraic word usages in the bible such as Messiah and Rauch Ha Kodesh. Marvelous read. God bless!
Pronouncing Hebrew and Greek words to a people that don’t know Heb/Greek can hardly benefit them. I sit under this kind of teaching. It just gives folks in the congregation a sense of confidence (falsely) that their preacher knows a lot and can give us deeper meaning when in reality it’s petty superficial. Preachers used to correct the people from the KJV, but now use the pulpit to correct the KJV. Dear preachers, were starving from empty readings from modern versions and subjective Heb/Greek Lexicons (“what this word REALLY means”). Please give us the the pure KJV. Each word is correctly defined in the context. The KJV is not and never has been deficient. It doesn’t need any help at all! God bless you.
I’ve noticed many on here use the KJV but supplement it with other versions. That’s assuming the other versions are giving better clarification. The base texts of all the other versions are fraudulent. If one was to study the letters written between Westcott and Hort after they finished their translation it will be recognized that they were deliberately trying to very subtly change the meaning of the text, including the deity of Christ, along with Darwinian thought, which was challenging the Christian world at the time. This is the text which all the other versions are based. A note on understanding His Word, any time we have difficulty understanding a verse, God said He will lead and guide us into all truth. Read Luke 24:13-32 But especially notice this verse: Luke 24:32 KJV And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? Notice, they did not understand, but Jesus enlightened them and gave them understanding. Study (and pray) that God will open up the Scripures to us. The more we read from this best text, the easier it will become. These ancient rabbis have spent a lifetime studying the text to understand it, they would not rewrite it to seemingly make it easier to understand because it would change what God had written. Can you imagine them trying to “Amplify” the Torah given to them on Mt Sinai? In other words, God could not give them something they could understand so they would have to simplify it? God will open up the Scriptures to us. Put your trust in what God can do. There are so many versions that people are losing trust in the Word of God. That is what happened to Bart Eardman, a scholar of these “older texts.” You can also see what is happening to all these older denominations, leaving the doctrines of God and receiving the doctrines of devils. Jesus warned us that even some of the elect will be deceived. How does that happen? This is one reason. I will not trust a faulty text.
Tyndale is very early Early Modern English. The glaring issue with the KJV-Only debate is not necessarily the KJV; but the ignorance of many KJV-Only advocates about how the KJV was created. The KJV borrowed extensively from Catholic Latin sources (Latin Vulgate, Complutensian Polyglot, 1582 Rheims NT); yet KJV-Only advocates immediately object to the mere mention of any Catholic a/k/a Vatican based modern English Bibles; but they do not follow that same judgement to the KJV. KJV-Only advocates need to acknowledge the KJV's Catholic heritage while demonstrating that no Catholic doctrine entered the KJV.
I have been studying this topic for about 3 years now and I have never heard one of the anti Nicene fathers post Nicene fathers ecumenical council or any respected biblical scholar say we lost the Bible for around 1500 years and are now piecing it back together you are the first person and only person I have ever heard say that in all my studies
@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa What Parable are you referring to that is different in the NIV??? Also. The jot and tittle and other references aren't referring to the KJV specifically. That refers to the original languages. All modern translations have those same verses in them.
@@mjc32991 The NLT is a good "paraphrase" bible...meaning thought for thought; not word for word. The ESV is a solid translation as well, although no translation is perfect let no one tell you differently. Use the NLT for daily devotional readings and your ESV for deep study. Common sense will tell us, the best bible is one we can understand. The NIV is exceptable as well but it is also a paraphrase bible.
The scripture doesn't say that God exalted the word above his name. While the preposition there can mean above, it would mean above as in upon, as in Isaac being put upon the wood that Abraham laid out. But most of the time it is, in the concrete, a term of being beside, near, close to touching, or touching. Abstractly, it would mean near as in concerning. But there is no way that God exalted his word above above his name. The word is the unveiling of his name so the word was exalted to beside his name.
Don’t trust any scholarly thought written after the German age of reason and the development of higher criticism, nor can you argue/reason with those who do. They are far too brilliant to talk sense to them.
I got a new NIV Schuyler bible for Christmas. Its an amazing bible...I really love it, I like the NIV or I should say I'm open to "liking" the NIV because Gordon Fee was involved in making it, I have a lot of respect for Gordon Fee, and he says its the best "translation" a person can get. However, the KJV debate matters because it makes me aware that the NIV is more of an interpretation than an exact translation of Hebrew and Greek words. That's where the KJV falls short especially in the OT...I can read pages out the KJV in the OT and not know what its talking about...then pick up a modern version...read those same pages and gain understanding that reading the KJV a hundred times would not have given. God is not the author of confusion. But I will forever love the KJV and use it as the final authority on any given subject. Paragraphs matter...and translation has to involve interpretation or its not a translation at all...because it leaves the reader not knowing anything.
I totally agree with you brother .Your on the right track .You should also check out the "New international commentary "edited by Gordon Fee .It's one of the best on the market !!!
www.christianbook.com/new-international-commentary-the-testament-volume/pd/445526?item_code=WW&event=CART These are the best commentaries money can buy ,edited by Gordon Fee
I try so hard to keep an open mind. So many in my church read the whatever versions. I think of it like Guns. 1611 KJV = 1911 Colt 45 heart stopping knock down power/proven NKJV = 45 revolver reliable not as smooth ESV = 9 mm practicable/common/boring. reads like a manual to assemble a swing set. CSV = .380 same as ESV except less of it NAS = 38 special more than likely miss what you pointing at NIV = pea shooter that misfires and may explode in your face. I have never been able to finish reading that one either. it doesn’t feel right in my hand.
@@treybarnes5549 …"it doesn't "feel" right in my hand"...I guess some people read the bible and gauge it by whether they get a spiritual "feeling" or not. For me personally I like getting that spiritual high but if my knowledge of the bible feels stunted then that spiritual feeling isn't worth it all the time.
shawn stephens haha Guess you tote the greek. the whole reason for all of these versions is personal preference. that’s why there are 300 types of churches 3000 genre of songs and 300 versions of bibles. It would be a pleaser to see someone toting an NIV with enough faith to read it, show up to church, and sing praises to God. I’ve seen it happen. But the saying is. “80% of the people who read the bible daily, read the KJV “
I read the KJV and threw it down, because it was heretical. Calling the Holy Spirit an "it" four times denying his deity. Agreeing with the Jehovah Witnesses. The NIV corrects this gross error.
In order to take up the kjb only position, one must hold to Divine manual dictation and that the kjb was translated word for word from the correct variation subject to that manual dictation. I'm not saying God can't do it....but that would leave noone with a Bible until 1611.
Professor Waldron, In regards to the doctrine of inspiration, which would you feel closer to correct, some have combined aspects of these. I know Dictation is abandoned by most, however, in tandem with another theory some principles may be used to support your kjb position. 1) Intuition Theory 2) Illumination Theory 3) Conceptual Inspiration 4) Mechanical Dictation 5) Degree Inspiration 6) Partial Inspiration I think in the kjb only debate, establishing the capatability of the position with a student's findings on the inspiration question helps the student determine if the kjb only position can vibe with their basic beliefs about the Bible. If one is to teach the kjb only position in any official capacity, and i am not saying you are here sir, they should begin with this simple exercise by rights.
I actually start with Jesus view of Scripture. Then expand outward. I realize that can be construed as circular reasoning, but it has informed my understanding greatly. Also, historically like what Josephus said. Gaussens book is amazing on this, as well as others.
Some believe kjv is more inspired than the textus receptus which is not a peculiar belief since majority of catholics used to believe that the vulgate latin translation was inspired. As the vulgate latin translation lost popularity, my guess is kjv popular support will also wane with time.
colonyofcells iamamachine2 KJV is translated from hundreds of TR sources. TR is not a single manuscript. What has been lately published as the Textus Receptus and is used to show differences, limitations, deficiencies in the KJV is a red herring used by KJV detractors to PROOVE the KJV is inaccurate. Yet...modern bible versions are based on mostly TWO out of five manuscripts, which, because they are supposedly oldest they MUST be the best. That idea is a modern scholar hypothesis (a guess) that older copies are the least corrupted. These scholars believe the Bible came down to us by the work of man, not God. People scrutinize the KJV without reservation, but don’t scrutinize claims by modern scholars. By what standard do they get a pass on almost every claim they make about the Bible? People need to realize they possess NO special knowledge.
@@brianhaley4719 I heard kjv translators also used old translations so some of the kjv translations cannot be traced to hebrew and greek. For modern critical texts, my guess is older manuscripts are good explanations on how the manuscripts have changed over time.
Thank you Pastor Waldron for your balanced approach to this topic. I like the way you still choose to love those who disagree with you. The key is the truth is there for those who explore it. However so many scholarly Christian voices this day speak against the Textus Receptus only crowd. Most however just follow their leaders who tell them it doesn't matter, just like I used to. If one takes time to search it out the truth of this is pretty easy to see, it just takes time; and it's overcoming the cognitive dissonance. Some 8000 changes in the Westcott and Hort Greek text that follow the gnostic texts from Alexandria. The Codex Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus don't even agree with each other and as D. A. Waite points out the changes follow that of blacking out what the Gnostics didn't agree with. The things blacked out change doctrine.
@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa The same argument you make regarding the NIV not being the word of God can be made with 1 John 3:9 (KJV) ‘cannot sin’ and 1 John 5:18 (KJV) ‘sinneth not’. The word of God is so rich you are doing yourself injustice by super imposing one single version over all the others combined.
@@scottgrogan4349 That’s not in anyway comparing apples with apples. And your saying the Bible is so rich it contains errors and blatant contradictions?
@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGaComparing apples with apples? Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't comparing the verses with one another, but with different versions. The KJV translation of these verses is extremely poor; the amplified version is more accurate. Not errors and blatant contradictions, but taking all versions into consideration to fully grasp the complete meaning.
Most Christian Bibles fail to translate Psalm 2:12 correctly. There is no Hebrew word for son in the Masoretic text. The word BAR in Hebrew means purity and not son. Even the Geneva, Bishops, and KJV get this wrong. BAR means son in Aramaic but the context of the rest of the text in the psalm is written in Hebrew. However the King James is a beautiful English translation in early modern English. Poetic and powerful it has not been surpassed in the English language by any other version. At least so far.
James White is not erudite. He is my brother in the Lord, but I don't respect him as an honest teacher, nor do I respect him in light of his heretical doctrines. But he certainly is not erudite, could not imagine being at the level of an RC Sproul or a D James Kennedy, etc.
kjv, nkjv and mev are all translated from the textus receptus so probably a good idea to compare all 3 translations. The archaic english of kjv just is not that great at communicating any more just as everyone has to read archaic shakespeare with helps. The archaic english of the kjv can also easily mislead people (can even lead to schisms and founding of new sects and new cults) bec of misunderstanding.
@Samson Many people probably do not realize that suffer=allow, let=prevent, peculiar people does not mean strange people, allege=prove, meat=any food (meat offering is actually flour offering), college=double, conversation=behavior, mufflers=veils, prevent=precede, communicate=share, etc.
@Samson People who are familiar with 1611 archaic english such as people who love to read shakespeare plays can probably easily read the kjv, altho some footnotes will probably still be needed, and it is much easier to use the nkjv and or mev instead. The 1611 archaic english can probably also be taught to young kids by parents and pastors just as young muslims can be taught to read the koran in the original language.
@Samson Most of the 1611 archaic english is still easy to understand altho more modern translations like nkjv and mev are much easier. My impression is many who like the kjv have already switched to the nkjv and or mev. I do understand why fundamentalists would mistrust the nkjv and mev which are done not by fundamentalists but by evangelicals. It is probably sort of like asking a muslim to use a koran translation done by the atheist communist party of china.
Great video as always. My primary Bible is the KJV. I supplement the KJV with the MEV and HCSB to assist in clarification/understanding.
The KJV captured me at age 19 with it's "holy sounding" Elizabethan English.
And even decades later, I still love KJV for it's obviously inspired beauty.
Even with more accurate translations now in the 21st century, it was THE Book for It's time.
Generations grew up *Learning To Read* from it as their primary reader!🤗
The King James Bible created Western civilization.😌🙏❤
Greetings!
Elizabethan refers specifically to the period during Queen Elizabeth I’s reign (1558-1603). This falls within the larger phase of Early Modern English.
Jacobean refers to the time of King James I’s reign (1603-1625), which follows Elizabethan English. It also falls within the Early Modern English period.
Early Modern English covers both the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods and stretches from the late 15th century to the early 17th century.
Elizabethan and Jacobean are specific periods within the broader category of Early Modern English. But the Authorized 1611 KJB is considered to be Early Modern English linguistically, and Jacobean historically, but not Elizabethan.
Until Christ is fully formed in us all,
-james
I appreciate your channel brother, you've shed a lot of light on certain topics on your channel that helped me. And your response to criticism is Spirit filled with gentleness and meekness.
When ever i read kjv i get the feel i am reading Gods word and grace of rest upon it but whenever i try to read ESV i feel i am reading some mans literature work i doesn't give me the experience that i am reading the Bible
Because the KJB translation is alive, which means it is inspired, the Spirit communicates with your spirit that truth (Heb 4:12, 1Pet 1:23, Rom 8:16). Inspiration is about giving life (Job 32:8, 33:4).
Many like to confuse Inspiration with perfection or preservation to mud the waters. The truth is some translations are inspired, such as Geneva or the KJB. Others like the NIV and such are totally dead, no inspiration at all.
Very respectful video sir. Cannot remember watching a video on this topic with out a lot of mud throwing. Thank you for keeping it civil for God's word
The Bible study thing is one of the justifications I myself use to promote "standardization" on the KJV (even though I do frequently use other translations outside of the church and outside of my religious work). Keep everyone on the same page, and there will be no confusion.
I appreciate your gracious attitude about this issue, Pastor Steve. However, I find the attitude by many KJV Only believers to be very self-righteous and condemning of others who do not adhere to their position. They often resort to name-calling and accusations that are a big turn-off. I studied Greek in Bible College, and preferred the NASB then, as it was closest to the Greek text we were using. However, I do have the KJV, and many other translations. I'm currently favoring the NKJV, which still has 1 John 5:7, and Matthew 18:11. Take care, and God bless.
God bless you!
Mike Oxley It is irrelevant if those one side or the other on this issue is self righteous (there’s plenty on both sides); what matters is what is being said true or not.
I've said, with supporters like Ruckman, Chick and Riplinger, who needs the devil? Some of us, myself included, are able to promote continuing use of the KJV without bashing people who don't or questioning their salvation (I was "saved" with the NRSV).
I am certainly KJV primary. When I quote scripture it's what comes out. So it is the word written on my heart and in my mind that the Lord promised. However, I will certainly say I enjoy reading and referring to the NASB. I teach from it alongside the KJV. Also, a translation I enjoy is the TLV it has brought in the Hebraic word usages in the bible such as Messiah and Rauch Ha Kodesh. Marvelous read. God bless!
Pronouncing Hebrew and Greek words to a people that don’t know Heb/Greek can hardly benefit them. I sit under this kind of teaching. It just gives folks in the congregation a sense of confidence (falsely) that their preacher knows a lot and can give us deeper meaning when in reality it’s petty superficial. Preachers used to correct the people from the KJV, but now use the pulpit to correct the KJV. Dear preachers, were starving from empty readings from modern versions and subjective Heb/Greek Lexicons (“what this word REALLY means”). Please give us the the pure KJV. Each word is correctly defined in the context. The KJV is not and never has been deficient. It doesn’t need any help at all! God bless you.
Amen, and Merry Christ-mass brethren.
Amen!
Thank you. Very nice discussion.
Glad you enjoyed it!
I’ve noticed many on here use the KJV but supplement it with other versions. That’s assuming the other versions are giving better clarification. The base texts of all the other versions are fraudulent. If one was to study the letters written between Westcott and Hort after they finished their translation it will be recognized that they were deliberately trying to very subtly change the meaning of the text, including the deity of Christ, along with Darwinian thought, which was challenging the Christian world at the time.
This is the text which all the other versions are based.
A note on understanding His Word, any time we have difficulty understanding a verse, God said He will lead and guide us into all truth.
Read Luke 24:13-32
But especially notice this verse:
Luke 24:32 KJV
And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
Notice, they did not understand, but Jesus enlightened them and gave them understanding.
Study (and pray) that God will open up the Scripures to us. The more we read from this best text, the easier it will become. These ancient rabbis have spent a lifetime studying the text to understand it, they would not rewrite it to seemingly make it easier to understand because it would change what God had written. Can you imagine them trying to “Amplify” the Torah given to them on Mt Sinai? In other words, God could not give them something they could understand so they would have to simplify it?
God will open up the Scriptures to us. Put your trust in what God can do.
There are so many versions that people are losing trust in the Word of God.
That is what happened to Bart Eardman, a scholar of these “older texts.”
You can also see what is happening to all these older denominations, leaving the doctrines of God and receiving the doctrines of devils.
Jesus warned us that even some of the elect will be deceived. How does that happen? This is one reason.
I will not trust a faulty text.
Agree 100%
Tyndale is very early Early Modern English.
The glaring issue with the KJV-Only debate is not necessarily the KJV; but the ignorance of many KJV-Only advocates about how the KJV was created.
The KJV borrowed extensively from Catholic Latin sources (Latin Vulgate, Complutensian Polyglot, 1582 Rheims NT); yet KJV-Only advocates immediately object to the mere mention of any Catholic a/k/a Vatican based modern English Bibles; but they do not follow that same judgement to the KJV.
KJV-Only advocates need to acknowledge the KJV's Catholic heritage while demonstrating that no Catholic doctrine entered the KJV.
If the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul...then it should be good enough for us today.
I have been studying this topic for about 3 years now and I have never heard one of the anti Nicene fathers post Nicene fathers ecumenical council or any respected biblical scholar say we lost the Bible for around 1500 years and are now piecing it back together you are the first person and only person I have ever heard say that in all my studies
Don’t study much?
I do believe liberal Christians would say something like that along with a whole bunch of other heresies
@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa What Parable are you referring to that is different in the NIV??? Also. The jot and tittle and other references aren't referring to the KJV specifically. That refers to the original languages. All modern translations have those same verses in them.
@@kevinjodrey7664 while I agree with you on the direction you are going I have to make a correction every jot and Tittle is referring to the law
@@randywheeler3914 Yes. All of God's Word will be fulfilled. The OT and the NT.
Pastor, any interest on your part in having one or more guest scholars in a video on this subject? Thanks & Merry Christmas
Like?
“Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”
- John 17:17 (KJV)
This was really good. Do have any in depth videos about the history of it or links that really go in depth to this subject?
I’ve got several videos. David Cloud at O Timothy has some really good resources.
Thank you!
I just bought myself a NLT. Should I really be reading the kjv? Will I be led astray?
KJV is more accurate.
The NLT is a good bible for you if that is the one you can understand. You just need to realize that the NLT is a paraphrase and not word for word.
@@Crow44195 I actually started my walk with an niv then went to esv. I struggle with esv that’s why I made a change. Considering going back to the niv
@@mjc32991 The NLT is a good "paraphrase" bible...meaning thought for thought; not word for word. The ESV is a solid translation as well, although no translation is perfect let no one tell you differently. Use the NLT for daily devotional readings and your ESV for deep study. Common sense will tell us, the best bible is one we can understand. The NIV is exceptable as well but it is also a paraphrase bible.
I like both the KJV and some modern translations. Merry Christmas.
What do think from the NLT for reading?
I wouldn’t as my primary Bible per se. possibly ok to clear up ambiguities at time.
@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa primary I use KJV NIV ESV thank you so much
Merry Christmas to you and your family!
The scripture doesn't say that God exalted the word above his name. While the preposition there can mean above, it would mean above as in upon, as in Isaac being put upon the wood that Abraham laid out. But most of the time it is, in the concrete, a term of being beside, near, close to touching, or touching. Abstractly, it would mean near as in concerning. But there is no way that God exalted his word above above his name. The word is the unveiling of his name so the word was exalted to beside his name.
Don’t trust any scholarly thought written after the German age of reason and the development of higher criticism, nor can you argue/reason with those who do. They are far too brilliant to talk sense to them.
I love and use the KJV, and supplement it with the NIV and ESV.
I got a new NIV Schuyler bible for Christmas. Its an amazing bible...I really love it, I like the NIV or I should say I'm open to "liking" the NIV because Gordon Fee was involved in making it, I have a lot of respect for Gordon Fee, and he says its the best "translation" a person can get. However, the KJV debate matters because it makes me aware that the NIV is more of an interpretation than an exact translation of Hebrew and Greek words. That's where the KJV falls short especially in the OT...I can read pages out the KJV in the OT and not know what its talking about...then pick up a modern version...read those same pages and gain understanding that reading the KJV a hundred times would not have given. God is not the author of confusion. But I will forever love the KJV and use it as the final authority on any given subject. Paragraphs matter...and translation has to involve interpretation or its not a translation at all...because it leaves the reader not knowing anything.
I totally agree with you brother .Your on the right track .You should also check out the "New international commentary "edited by Gordon Fee .It's one of the best on the market !!!
www.christianbook.com/new-international-commentary-the-testament-volume/pd/445526?item_code=WW&event=CART These are the best commentaries money can buy ,edited by Gordon Fee
I try so hard to keep an open mind. So many in my church read the whatever versions. I think of it like Guns.
1611 KJV = 1911 Colt 45
heart stopping knock down power/proven
NKJV = 45 revolver
reliable not as smooth
ESV = 9 mm
practicable/common/boring. reads like a manual to assemble a swing set.
CSV = .380
same as ESV except less of it
NAS = 38 special
more than likely miss what you pointing at
NIV = pea shooter that misfires and may explode in your face. I have never been able to finish reading that one either. it doesn’t feel right in my hand.
@@treybarnes5549 …"it doesn't "feel" right in my hand"...I guess some people read the bible and gauge it by whether they get a spiritual "feeling" or not. For me personally I like getting that spiritual high but if my knowledge of the bible feels stunted then that spiritual feeling isn't worth it all the time.
shawn stephens haha Guess you tote the greek. the whole reason for all of these versions is personal preference. that’s why there are 300 types of churches 3000 genre of songs and 300 versions of bibles. It would be a pleaser to see someone toting an NIV with enough faith to read it, show up to church, and sing praises to God. I’ve seen it happen.
But the saying is. “80% of the people who read the bible daily, read the KJV “
There was/is also a Douay-Rheams only movement
Elder Waldron,
You read thru NIV and threw it down cause it was heretical. I am interested what verses made you do that?
Ephesians 4:6 is the only one I remember specifically where it was.
I read the KJV and threw it down, because it was heretical. Calling the Holy Spirit an "it" four times denying his deity. Agreeing with the Jehovah Witnesses. The NIV corrects this gross error.
In order to take up the kjb only position, one must hold to Divine manual dictation and that the kjb was translated word for word from the correct variation subject to that manual dictation.
I'm not saying God can't do it....but that would leave noone with a Bible until 1611.
Professor Waldron,
In regards to the doctrine of inspiration, which would you feel closer to correct, some have combined aspects of these. I know Dictation is abandoned by most, however, in tandem with another theory some principles may be used to support your kjb position.
1) Intuition Theory
2) Illumination Theory
3) Conceptual Inspiration
4) Mechanical Dictation
5) Degree Inspiration
6) Partial Inspiration
I think in the kjb only debate, establishing the capatability of the position with a student's findings on the inspiration question helps the student determine if the kjb only position can vibe with their basic beliefs about the Bible.
If one is to teach the kjb only position in any official capacity, and i am not saying you are here sir, they should begin with this simple exercise by rights.
I actually start with Jesus view of Scripture. Then expand outward. I realize that can be construed as circular reasoning, but it has informed my understanding greatly. Also, historically like what Josephus said. Gaussens book is amazing on this, as well as others.
Also, I’ve done a couple of dozen videos on this, showing things you, among others, may not have considered properly. God bless you!
If the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul then it should be good enough for us today.
Some believe kjv is more inspired than the textus receptus which is not a peculiar belief since majority of catholics used to believe that the vulgate latin translation was inspired. As the vulgate latin translation lost popularity, my guess is kjv popular support will also wane with time.
colonyofcells iamamachine2
KJV is translated from hundreds of TR sources. TR is not a single manuscript. What has been lately published as the Textus Receptus and is used to show differences, limitations, deficiencies in the KJV is a red herring used by KJV detractors to PROOVE the KJV is inaccurate.
Yet...modern bible versions are based on mostly TWO out of five manuscripts, which, because they are supposedly oldest they MUST be the best. That idea is a modern scholar hypothesis (a guess) that older copies are the least corrupted. These scholars believe the Bible came down to us by the work of man, not God.
People scrutinize the KJV without reservation, but don’t scrutinize claims by modern scholars. By what standard do they get a pass on almost every claim they make about the Bible? People need to realize they possess NO special knowledge.
@@brianhaley4719 I heard kjv translators also used old translations so some of the kjv translations cannot be traced to hebrew and greek. For modern critical texts, my guess is older manuscripts are good explanations on how the manuscripts have changed over time.
@Samson The old popularity of the latin vulgate translation lasted more than 400 years.
@Samson The popularity of the kjv will probably die out with the old people who prefer the kjv.
Thank you Pastor Waldron for your balanced approach to this topic. I like the way you still choose to love those who disagree with you. The key is the truth is there for those who explore it. However so many scholarly Christian voices this day speak against the Textus Receptus only crowd. Most however just follow their leaders who tell them it doesn't matter, just like I used to.
If one takes time to search it out the truth of this is pretty easy to see, it just takes time; and it's overcoming the cognitive dissonance. Some 8000 changes in the Westcott and Hort Greek text that follow the gnostic texts from Alexandria. The Codex Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus don't even agree with each other and as D. A. Waite points out the changes follow that of blacking out what the Gnostics didn't agree with. The things blacked out change doctrine.
What would the Russia or Asian speaking people do if they didn’t have the KJV. Are they damed?
Of course not. Does God have a Bible in every language? Has He had through the millennia? Of course not.
@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa The same argument you make regarding the NIV not being the word of God can be made with 1 John 3:9 (KJV) ‘cannot sin’ and 1 John 5:18 (KJV) ‘sinneth not’. The word of God is so rich you are doing yourself injustice by super imposing one single version over all the others combined.
@@scottgrogan4349 That’s not in anyway comparing apples with apples. And your saying the Bible is so rich it contains errors and blatant contradictions?
@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGaComparing apples with apples? Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't comparing the verses with one another, but with different versions. The KJV translation of these verses is extremely poor; the amplified version is more accurate. Not errors and blatant contradictions, but taking all versions into consideration to fully grasp the complete meaning.
The Saracens are using this topic of debate
Most Christian Bibles fail to translate Psalm 2:12 correctly. There is no Hebrew word for son in the Masoretic text. The word BAR in Hebrew means purity and not son. Even the Geneva, Bishops, and KJV get this wrong. BAR means son in Aramaic but the context of the rest of the text in the psalm is written in Hebrew.
However the King James is a beautiful English translation in early modern English. Poetic and powerful it has not been surpassed in the English language by any other version. At least so far.
James White is not erudite. He is my brother in the Lord, but I don't respect him as an honest teacher, nor do I respect him in light of his heretical doctrines. But he certainly is not erudite, could not imagine being at the level of an RC Sproul or a D James Kennedy, etc.
He has a way of presenting that causes people to believe him.
kjv, nkjv and mev are all translated from the textus receptus so probably a good idea to compare all 3 translations. The archaic english of kjv just is not that great at communicating any more just as everyone has to read archaic shakespeare with helps. The archaic english of the kjv can also easily mislead people (can even lead to schisms and founding of new sects and new cults) bec of misunderstanding.
@Samson Many people probably do not realize that suffer=allow, let=prevent, peculiar people does not mean strange people, allege=prove, meat=any food (meat offering is actually flour offering), college=double, conversation=behavior, mufflers=veils, prevent=precede, communicate=share, etc.
@Samson If the word looks familiar, people will not know that they need to use a dictionary.
@Samson People who are familiar with 1611 archaic english such as people who love to read shakespeare plays can probably easily read the kjv, altho some footnotes will probably still be needed, and it is much easier to use the nkjv and or mev instead. The 1611 archaic english can probably also be taught to young kids by parents and pastors just as young muslims can be taught to read the koran in the original language.
@Samson 1611 archaic english is probably easier to learn than greek and hebrew altho much easier to use nkjv and or mev.
@Samson Most of the 1611 archaic english is still easy to understand altho more modern translations like nkjv and mev are much easier. My impression is many who like the kjv have already switched to the nkjv and or mev. I do understand why fundamentalists would mistrust the nkjv and mev which are done not by fundamentalists but by evangelicals. It is probably sort of like asking a muslim to use a koran translation done by the atheist communist party of china.