Part 2: Answering King James Only w/ @WesHuff | Cultish

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 23 янв 2025

Комментарии • 766

  • @ApologiaStudios
    @ApologiaStudios  9 дней назад +12

    Cultish is 100% crowd funded by listeners like you. Partner with us and be part of the mission to change lives: donorbox.org/cultish

    • @BulykrynVancho
      @BulykrynVancho 9 дней назад +3

      Please restock the “Bad Theology Hurts People” hat. I need three in my life now!

    • @TheCultishShow
      @TheCultishShow 9 дней назад +2

      @@BulykrynVancho hey thanks for the suggestion we’re gonna do what we can to get those hats in stock as soon as possible! 🤝

    • @vashmatrix5769
      @vashmatrix5769 9 дней назад +3

      Good job making division by being against the only real English Bible. Guess that's to be expected for God's word.

    • @TopPriorityMinistries
      @TopPriorityMinistries 6 дней назад

      @@ApologiaStudios when are you guys going to take a break attacking God's word and cover the occult that is calvinism?

    • @joshuajohansen1210
      @joshuajohansen1210 5 дней назад +3

      @@vashmatrix5769 I 100% support them calling out the cultish KJV-only people. There are not against the KJV, just KJV-onlyism.

  • @EricCare1
    @EricCare1 6 дней назад +4

    This is so good I'm so thankful for Wes and for apologia studio and for cultish for getting this amazing truth out there

  • @jennifernelson2795
    @jennifernelson2795 9 дней назад +23

    Disagreeing with a KJ onlyist is an exercise in futility. In my experience, talking about the reliability of scripture with a hardcore atheist is often more civil.

    • @Username-ff6ir
      @Username-ff6ir 8 дней назад +1

      @@randombutrelevant huh?

    • @JustinHonaker
      @JustinHonaker 8 дней назад

      @@randombutrelevantYou’re not making any sense, bud.

    • @ChristisLord2023
      @ChristisLord2023 8 дней назад +5

      ​@@JustinHonakershe was actually very clear, stubborn Athiests show more respect in disagreement than most of the KJVO crowd.

    • @jonathanchaney5896
      @jonathanchaney5896 8 дней назад +4

      You are not wrong! Atheists can disagree respectfully. A KJVO will demean and ridicule a fellow believer who is not KJVO in a second.

    • @JustinHonaker
      @JustinHonaker 8 дней назад +1

      @@ChristisLord2023 I wasn’t replying to Jennifer. Notice the @ tag at the beginning of my comment. I agree with Jennifer’s statement.

  • @Fenton2611
    @Fenton2611 8 дней назад +7

    Being listening to Wes Huff lately and is in awe of his wonderful skill in explaining his views which I’m beginning to open my mind t

  • @FabledNarrative
    @FabledNarrative 9 дней назад +18

    Thank you for platforming Wes Huff.

  • @aaronvienot
    @aaronvienot 9 дней назад +30

    A quick reminder that James R. White has written "King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations?" which documents, in everyday language, the differences Wes is talking about in the video.

    • @TheCultishShow
      @TheCultishShow 9 дней назад +6

      That’s a great book, thanks for the heads up 😉

    • @KJBonly
      @KJBonly 9 дней назад +6

      Peter s Ruckman wrote a book that debunks every single claim that’s made in James R Whites book. I recommend anyone interested in James whites book to also purchase dr Ruckman a book titled “the scholarship only controversy”. James R white is also Jesuit educated and his book is endorsed by known Jesuits. That should set off some big red flags that he is an enemy of faith

    • @michaelporter43
      @michaelporter43 9 дней назад +10

      @KJBonly the James White book is based on facts and truth; facts and truth can not be debunked js 🤷🏽

    • @weiyishen
      @weiyishen 9 дней назад +2

      James White's view on preservation amounts to a position of faith, just like the view he criticizes. At least, so far as I can tell.

    • @KJBonly
      @KJBonly 9 дней назад +2

      @ have you even read his book?? His arguments are absolutely ridiculous

  • @Mike_W78
    @Mike_W78 9 дней назад +19

    I had a black Hebrew Israelite that quoted the KJV claiming it was saying Hebrew people were black and when I looked at the passage it was talking about sorrow but used black. It confused him that words didnt mean the same. Of course that has something to do with his ignorance and that the KJV uses words that just are not the same today.

    • @MattH-nd9qk
      @MattH-nd9qk 9 дней назад +4

      So many people do not understand how language evolves, it boggles my mind. The answer i always get is "then why did they use that word if thats not what it means". It goes with the idea that the KJV is inspired.

    • @joshuamelton9148
      @joshuamelton9148 8 дней назад

      Yup. I even have them tell make that King James was black.
      My favorite story is when they tell me that they rule over Europe which is why it was called the Dark Ages. I kid you not.

    • @joshuamelton9148
      @joshuamelton9148 8 дней назад

      Oh Hebrew Israelites love the King James 1611 Bible because they believe that King James was a Black Hebrew Israelite.

    • @Yesica1993
      @Yesica1993 8 дней назад

      ​@@MattH-nd9qk
      There's several layers to the whole KJVO thing. Yes, the language has changed greatly. I agree. But let's face it. We've got people these days who think something like the ESV is "too hard." I got saved with the NIV 84. I am not positive on where I heard this, but I do remember hearing it was written at a 7th grade reading level. (7th grade at that time, in the late 80s.) People can barely handle THAT, these days.
      We have to be honest about the fact that many people are functionally illiterate these days. They don't have the reading comprehension you should have even in grammar school. I know that because I do transcription for a living. I listen to how people speak and respond and I have to type it out, word for word. It's horrifying. People cannot follow or even comprehend the most basic instructions. They cannot follow or speaking/think in a logical train of thought. How can people like this read/understand a book like Romans?
      This is something no one wants to admit or address. We don't want to hurt people's feelings. But we have to come to terms with how stupid people are becoming.

    • @Dan123TheStarman
      @Dan123TheStarman 6 дней назад

      That's the kind of group of words that Mark Ward would call a "false friends"... that is, words that you think you understand, but may have had a completely different meaning than it does today! Those are, of course, even more difficult to handle when interpreting Scripture in the KJV than those which make no sense at all to us today and would cause us to look them up in some kind of KJV dictionary!

  • @joshuamelton9148
    @joshuamelton9148 6 дней назад +7

    When people say that KJV onlyist display cult-like behavior, all you have to do is look at the comment section unfortunately.

  • @shogiwar
    @shogiwar 8 дней назад +4

    "If the King James version was good enough for John the Baptist then it's good enough for me." lyrics from a parody song [I forgot the band's name]

  • @rickrivera-n4h
    @rickrivera-n4h 9 дней назад +9

    After ordering the 1611 King Bible and reading the preamble. It seems that the authors editors actually say this is a work in progress and that they could be mistaken on how they interpret things of course it’s very difficult to even read the preamble of the 1611 King King’s Bible, but does anybody else see that?

    • @vashmatrix5769
      @vashmatrix5769 9 дней назад +1

      Ever fellow real Bible (KJV) reader I know is familiar with what they wrote. We (KJV only) don't say to use that version. We use the Authorized Version King James Bible.

    • @Username-ff6ir
      @Username-ff6ir 8 дней назад +3

      @@vashmatrix5769 u don’t read the true kjv.. u read a heavily revised edited version

    • @vashmatrix5769
      @vashmatrix5769 8 дней назад +2

      @@Username-ff6ir "Heavily revised" - No, it's not. The meaning didn't change. If you actually learned our position, you'd understand why we picked the 1769 Authorized Version King James Bible.

    • @ChristisLord2023
      @ChristisLord2023 8 дней назад +4

      Which one and how do you know? Did God come down in 1769 and tell someone this or is it just the easiest one for everyone to get? Was everyone before 1769 simply in error? ​

    • @paulperez6167
      @paulperez6167 8 дней назад +1

      @@rickrivera-n4h yep. It's a good-faith translation by brilliant men who could recognize the limitations of the material they had to work with.

  • @battletier
    @battletier 8 дней назад +7

    I think what people miss is that when they are talking about KJV only they are talking about specific people who believe that kjv is literally the only inspired word of God and every other english version is wrong.
    You can prefer to read KJV because its what you grew up with which is fine. But the claim that KJV is the only version you can read is definitely not true.

    • @billjohnson1111
      @billjohnson1111 7 дней назад

      Do you think that Acts 8:37 is part of God’s word or not?

    • @battletier
      @battletier 7 дней назад +2

      @billjohnson1111 There are a few verses that are still good theology even if there is no evidence of them being in the original manuscripts. So either way I'm fine if KJV has additional verses but even then the translators would leave notes anyway saying it so it's not like the KJV translators have some secret agenda. All the additional verses don't mess with the original context and they are still good theology.

    • @jonathanchaney5896
      @jonathanchaney5896 6 дней назад

      @@billjohnson1111 many of the so-called “missing verses” are duplicates of other verses. So yes I believe they are part of God’s Word, just maybe in a different place.

    • @billjohnson1111
      @billjohnson1111 6 дней назад

      @@jonathanchaney5896 that line of reasoning may make sense for the four gospels, but Acts 8:37 is a totally unique verse. It’s also extremely important to prove that you have to be a believer before you can get baptized. It’s no surprise that an old manuscript found at the Vatican does not contain such a crucial verse.

    • @jonathanchaney5896
      @jonathanchaney5896 6 дней назад

      @ but verse 35 tells that that Philip preached the gospel to him and the previous verses tell us that the Spirit was already working in his heart and sent Philip there. This verse is not in quote a few earlier manuscripts.

  • @rachpie6559
    @rachpie6559 7 дней назад

    There are “Right Fighters”and “Truth Seekers.” We all know which ones we are. Wes is one of the best example of a Truth Seeker I have yet seen. I deduced this by what I have seen so far. I know this-It is almost impossible for mankind to keep ego out of their hearts and minds once they have reached this level of knowledge and expertise. It’s nearly impossible to hide their pride and ego when trying to convey or impart knowledge. You see this happening in speeches and lectures. We know them by their fruits. Wes is very humble and gracious, freely and patiently sharing his knowledge-specifically to podcasters who are clearly far below his level of knowledge and expertise. I do not say that in a spirit of meanness or to imply that they are bad people. It’s just my observation after listening to many podcasts with Wes as a guest speaker. I believe his long suffering (because I believe my ears) comes from a desire to benefit the followers (and viewers). This is evident by his humbleness, grace and patients, while sharing his knowledge. He is “one” of a few of the most level-headed, impartial men I have ever heard.

    • @karlbro7287
      @karlbro7287 6 дней назад

      He's not a truth seeker, he's a truth hider. He was presented the mathematical truth about the King James Bible and rejected the truth. The kid is spiritually blind if he's even saved, the jury is out on that one. Wesley Huff and Puff is not very humble when you speak to him and point out his errors, he's very angry then, I've screenshotted several of his very arrogant answers, not a very pleasant person when exposed.

  • @christopherbradford193
    @christopherbradford193 9 дней назад +17

    The original editors/creators of the KJV said that it WAS NOT perfect or inspired. That one simple fact destroys the KJV only arguments of perfection. I guess fanatics don't know what they don't know 🤷

    • @rickrivera-n4h
      @rickrivera-n4h 9 дней назад

      Yes, that’s what I was saying about. It seems like that’s what they’re saying in the little introduction preamble they write about how they came to translate the KJV.

    • @Yesica1993
      @Yesica1993 9 дней назад

      Even if you tell them, they ignore it. This cult is horrifying. It really is. I had no idea this was even a thing!

    • @vashmatrix5769
      @vashmatrix5769 9 дней назад +4

      😆 🤣 Well, that settles it then. God can't preserve his word because they said so. 🤭

    • @billjohnson1111
      @billjohnson1111 7 дней назад +2

      When ppl asked John the Baptist if he was Elijah he said “no”…but Jesus later clarified that he was indeed Elijah. The King James translators were humble so they didn’t want to give themselves too much praise.
      In 1611 there were only about 5 million English speakers in the whole world…today it is the Lingua Franca and is spoken by billions of ppl. This is not an accident!

    • @jonathanchaney5896
      @jonathanchaney5896 6 дней назад

      @@awaken7684 it’s in the Preface to the Reader for the 1611 KJV. You should check it out if you haven’t. It’s all over online. They also say any mean translation that seeks to be faithful to the originals is the Word of God. They saw earlier translations as the Word of God and even the Septuagint, which they admit had issues with some of the translation. But no apostle looked down on it, instead they quoted it, and so they didn’t put it down either. This is a view most KJVO don’t have either.

  • @eclipsesonic
    @eclipsesonic 9 дней назад +7

    To add on to Wes' point about 1 John 3:1 having a missing phrase in the KJV that is found in the ESV, here are three other examples. I'm curious if any KJV-Only people have any response to these:
    Acts 4:25:
    KJV - "who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?"
    ESV - "who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said BY THE HOLY SPIRIT, Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples plot in vain?"
    Jude 1:25:
    KJV - "to the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen."
    ESV - "to the only God, our Saviour, "THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD", be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, BEFORE ALL TIME and now and for ever. Amen."
    Revelation 14:1:
    KJV - "And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads."
    ESV - "Then I looked, and behold, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him 144,000 who had HIS NAME AND his Father's name written on their foreheads."
    Regarding the point the guy brought up about the NKJV missing various words, check out Pastor Scott Ingram's channel, where he has a video about the NKJV supposedly removing, Lord, Jehovah, etc. Arthur Farstad, the general editor for the NKJV, has responded to this charge.

    • @jenwilding
      @jenwilding 9 дней назад +1

      KJV preferred gal here: all these ESV additions are designed to add nuance to support a split, versus unified, Trinity. Tell me that’s not a doctrinal difference there. 🤔
      Witches cast spell using words and know the power of their subtleties.

    • @vashmatrix5769
      @vashmatrix5769 9 дней назад +3

      They're translations of completely different source texts.

    • @josephkearns3999
      @josephkearns3999 8 дней назад +2

      @@jenwilding I highly doubt that. Most textual differences (around 98%) are due to innocent human error due to the nature of manuscript copying traditions. There is no grand conspiracy to destroy Christian doctrines in modern, faithful translations of the Bible like ESV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, etc. Don't read into things based on a confirmation bias.
      Prime example is 1 John 5:7. 1 John 5:7 was ADDED by Erasmus in the 16th century in his third edition of the Textus Receptus. It's not in any manuscripts before then. It was in the Latin Vulgate and Erasmus added it back in to his third edition after he drew criticism for removing it. However, Erasmus added a note in the margin pointing out that 1 John 5:7 was not in any of the Greek manuscripts that he used to translate the TR.

    • @jonathanchaney5896
      @jonathanchaney5896 8 дней назад +2

      Not to mention Jesus saying "ask me" in John 14:14 in the ESV. The KJV reduces Jesus deity.

    • @jenwilding
      @jenwilding 8 дней назад

      @ Interesting. We're not even talking about intention here, but that presumption you hold about intentions may have contributed to a blind spot. So, no doctrinal differences you can see going on here? Apples to apples here?

  • @rebeccamclaughlin3384
    @rebeccamclaughlin3384 8 дней назад +3

    My nephew is KJV only. He sometimes gets downright ornery, when talking about it. It got to the point where I had to tell him I would hang up if he brings it up. Sadly, because of the way things are worded in Genesis, he has now decided he believes in the gap theory. I've never heard of the gap theory, before he told me, but I tried talking him into looking at the Hebraic text and compare. He refuses, saying he doesn't need to learn that stuff, KJV is sufficient.

    • @joshuajohansen1210
      @joshuajohansen1210 7 дней назад +3

      Yah...the KJV can be more easily twisted to support a "gap theory" in Gen. He probably doesn't understand the older English he is reading. Gen. 1:28 says to "replenish" the earth. That sounds like it was already populated beforehand, but in 1611 "replenish" could mean to "fill abundantly" instead of "fill again". I would ask him to consult the Oxford English Dictionary which tells you what the English word meant back then. And yes, the Hebrew word מלא does not mean to "fill again".

    • @DrakonPhD
      @DrakonPhD 6 дней назад

      Believing in the gap theory is way better then brings KJVO though lol, especially given it predates young earth creationism.

    • @karlbro7287
      @karlbro7287 6 дней назад

      @@joshuajohansen1210 and modern translations are easy to teach works salvation. Potato Potatoe, both are heresies. You're both wrong.

    • @joshuajohansen1210
      @joshuajohansen1210 6 дней назад

      @karlbro7287 Who is both wrong? And what are we wrong about?

  • @MarinaGarrison
    @MarinaGarrison 8 дней назад +1

    The KJV translators also had specific instructions from the government and King to resolve some of the issues that had arisen from Catholic to Protestant translations. The translation itself was commissioned to “settle” some of the issues between Catholics and Protestants as the country had flipped Catholic->Prot->Cath->Prot by the time James arrived.

    • @billjohnson1111
      @billjohnson1111 7 дней назад

      Proverbs 21:1 - The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.

  • @joshuajohansen1210
    @joshuajohansen1210 4 часа назад +1

    @vashmatrix5769 um...Google AI says the NKJV uses the Textus Receptus. You can go to the Wikipedia page for the same answer or read the preface to the NKJV that the translators made themselves. Compare any of the major variants (Matt. 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mk. 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; 16:9-20 Jn. 5:3-4; 7:53-8:11; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:6-8; 28:29; Rom. 16:24; 1 Jn. 5:7-8 - and I could list 1,000s more) and NKJV matches the Greek text of the KJV. I have looked for myself (and I just provided you with evidence), you haven't. You have made false claims that the NKJV is actually based upon Alexandrian manuscripts without providing a single piece of evidence. If you keep making those false claims without providing any proof, then yes, you are a liar; and no, I am not.

  • @AnsweringLDS
    @AnsweringLDS 9 дней назад +77

    KJV only is that flat earth society of Christianity

    • @taylorlawrencehatty
      @taylorlawrencehatty 9 дней назад +3

      The earth takes form like clay under a seal

    • @Tango_Yankee7
      @Tango_Yankee7 9 дней назад

      You must be from the church of the ignorant brethren

    • @Yesica1993
      @Yesica1993 9 дней назад +6

      Ha! That's a good way to put it!

    • @AnsweringLDS
      @AnsweringLDS 9 дней назад +8

      @ would it kill you to take poetry as actual poetry?

    • @michaelporter43
      @michaelporter43 9 дней назад +2

      Same type of mindset, not necessarily the same people

  • @jtalks5
    @jtalks5 4 дня назад

    Im kjv preferred, mostly because i go to a mild kjo church and bible college. I dont hate anyone who uses a different bible. I actively use the nkjv and the esv alongside my kjv.

  • @markspittal886
    @markspittal886 8 дней назад +1

    For the King James onlists out there and I know you're watching, did you know that there's 30 versions of the Textus Receptus

    • @billjohnson1111
      @billjohnson1111 7 дней назад

      Yes and the KJB translators did their best to choose which readings they thought were the most accurate. No one has a problem with that.
      The problem with the modern versions of that their dramatic changes (like removing Acts 8:37) are from Siniaticus which was lost to history for 1700 years. Was the true scripture lost for nearly 2 centuries? God said he would preserve his words for every generation.

  • @thomasraichart2367
    @thomasraichart2367 8 дней назад

    Great stuff gentlemen!

  • @awaken7684
    @awaken7684 9 дней назад +8

    Proverbs 26:12
    "Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him."

    • @JamesSmith-gk8sz
      @JamesSmith-gk8sz 8 дней назад

      Most pertinent comment I've read concerning cults in general in many years. Well spoken.

    • @awaken7684
      @awaken7684 8 дней назад +1

      @JamesSmith-gk8sz if so God is not to be mocked.
      That verse was refering to Wes and others of similarly.

    • @shadosnake
      @shadosnake 5 дней назад

      @@awaken7684 There are six things the Lord hates,
      seven that are detestable to him:
      17
      haughty eyes,
      a lying tongue,
      hands that shed innocent blood,
      18
      a heart that devises wicked schemes,
      feet that are quick to rush into evil,
      19
      a false witness who pours out lies
      and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.

  • @christinasetzer2880
    @christinasetzer2880 8 дней назад +6

    A lot of people seem to be upset by this topic. It's important to be covered because kjvo is very nasty to others who read other versions. My own mom thinks I am no longer saved because I read the esv, and she takes every chance to tell me, and it's sad. I didn't read other versions for the longest time because of fear. Then I started reading one chapter a day, but in 4 different translations, now im starting to look into the greek and hebrew. I don't think a lot of kjvo understand that the bible is in greek and hebrew and scholars translate that into english the best they can. They didn't take the kjv and then just rewrite it to their liking and leave out what they didn't like. And with todays technology, kjvo can look at the greek and hebrew for themselves to see what it means and what words the kjv tranlators decided to use. Like romans 5: 2,3,11. Paul uses the same word that means exult/rejoice, but the kjv translators used 2,rejoice, 3, glory, 11, joy. Now, why would they take liberties with the bible and use different englsih words each time? I was always told "change the word, chamge the meaning," and it looks like kjv translators changed the words? But the point isn't to pull you away from or make you doubt but to get you off your condemning horse.

    • @Yesica1993
      @Yesica1993 8 дней назад

      Good for you for being reasonable! Maybe just do your own thing and not get into a discussion with her about it? (Unless she wants to discuss it, and in a civil manner.) You don't want to be fighting with your mother all the time. That's not good either.

    • @ronkelley1490
      @ronkelley1490 7 дней назад

      I am sorry that your mom is acting legalistic and denying your salvation because of the ESV.
      I am a KJV IFB and I do not at all agree with the extreme cult-like mentality and nastiness of many.
      Please know we are not all the angry, hateful bunch that some people make us out to be.
      Unfortunately in this issue, the loudest voices tend to be the most ignorant.
      I am KJV Only but I do not hold to double-inspirational views nor do I think someone’s salvation hinges upon what translation they read. I do believe there are serious issues, but they should and must be addressed in civility. It is sad that many times, they devolve into hatefulness among brethren.

    • @awaken7684
      @awaken7684 6 дней назад

      @@christinasetzer2880 how does one get saved (what is the way to get saved)? And do you think some sins always need repeated asking for forgiveness?

    • @christinasetzer2880
      @christinasetzer2880 6 дней назад

      Yes I never do want to argue with her. I avoid talking about a lot of subjects with her. It's just a sad place to be. Stuck in anger and hate towards others over silly things.

  • @modelingmotherhood
    @modelingmotherhood 9 дней назад

    Very interesting points. Thank you !

    • @vashmatrix5769
      @vashmatrix5769 9 дней назад

      Only they're full of it & turning people from God's preserved word.

  • @craigchambers4183
    @craigchambers4183 8 дней назад +1

    Great discussion. The only thing I would question is what is implied by criticism is not (ever?) nefarious. Meaning, the assertion of 'no nefarious intent' is an absolute rule of all textual criticism goes too far since there can be such intent, even if there is in place through criticism the apparatus that will correct certain negations or additions to the text. When someone not born from above stands in judgment of a text his intent is not to the glory of God.
    There are questionable men in the science of criticism that certainly appear not to believe the Word of God (Westcott and Hort might be examples) whose choices were tainted. Certainly some their assumptions have been abundantly questioned by a slew of scholars. I think of Dr. Harry A. Sturz and the list he provides in "The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textural Criticism". Neither he nor they being KJO or holding the BT as the more accurate, but ought to be included as one of the witness in the examination of the extant manuscripts. He himself was a participant on the International Greek New Testament project on the Luke portion along with Kurt Aland.
    I am saying that there are likely those who are not believing the Word that work in textual criticism who are looking to give support to readings that erode confidence and certainly give downstream translators wide open doors to provide us with the English (or other language) words that meaningfully oppose what the original text would affirm. This is why we need those who love the Lord of the Word who know textual criticism that are looking to achieve as best as possible what was written by the author/Author and can refute additions or subtractions that might crop up.

  • @estimatingonediscoveringthree
    @estimatingonediscoveringthree 8 дней назад

    we need teaching on how we got our bible

  • @MrElectricBeach
    @MrElectricBeach 8 дней назад

    What are your thoughts on JND Bible?

  • @RevolutionDebates
    @RevolutionDebates 9 дней назад +7

    I challenge any of them to debate on any part of scripture in the KJV.

    • @vashmatrix5769
      @vashmatrix5769 9 дней назад

      I'd love to see them defend their attacks on the real Bible at Standing For Truth ministries.

    • @RevolutionDebates
      @RevolutionDebates 9 дней назад +1

      Amen. I used to debate there, I found they were a bit Andersonitish for my liking so I left. I can do debates on my own channel now.

    • @vashmatrix5769
      @vashmatrix5769 8 дней назад

      @@RevolutionDebates Andersonitish?

    • @RevolutionDebates
      @RevolutionDebates 8 дней назад +1

      ⁠people who behave like Steven Anderson.

    • @vashmatrix5769
      @vashmatrix5769 8 дней назад

      @@RevolutionDebates How is Donny, the host, like him? Because they use the KJV? Just make your point.

  • @gracereece2097
    @gracereece2097 8 дней назад +3

    Speaking to other KJO Christians in this comment section. Please don't criticize Wes's character for his beliefs on this subject. None of us are perfect. We can disagree with him respectfully. Attacking his character accomplishes nothing, and reflects poorly on all KJO Christians. Perhaps it would be better to respectfully and kindly explain why we disagree with his premise that the Alexandrian texts are equal to or better than the Antiochian texts and why we believe that the King James is still the best preserved Word of God for English speaking people, although it admittedly has its share of scribal errors. We ought to be prepared to defend our position, AND we ought to do it with a heart position of speaking truth in love.

    • @hopeinchrist3243
      @hopeinchrist3243 8 дней назад +5

      This is honestly the most reasonable and respectful comment from a KJO Christian that I’ve ever laid eyes on. The group at large is notorious for being nasty, which is just sad.

    • @gracereece2097
      @gracereece2097 8 дней назад +2

      @ I don't think that it's necessarily true that the majority of KJO "Christians" are nasty. I just think that the nastiest, most extreme ones get the most amount of attention because of their outlandish claims. I can agree with what someone says without agreeing with their attitude/tone in saying it. One of the things that impresses me the most about Wes (although I disagree with him on the King James issue), is that his attitude and spirit is kind, thoughtful, and becoming of a Christian. Unfortunately, many of the more "famous" KJO believers are prone to behavior that is extremely unbecoming for a Christian. In my opinion, the Bible translation issue is a secondary doctrinal problem, not a primary one.

    • @jonathanchaney5896
      @jonathanchaney5896 8 дней назад +2

      thank you for your graciousness. this is one of the wisest comments I've seen from someone on that side.

    • @eclipsesonic
      @eclipsesonic 8 дней назад +2

      More KJV-Only people need to show more grace and humility, just like you have. 👍🙏

    • @gracereece2097
      @gracereece2097 8 дней назад +1

      @@jonathanchaney5896
      I appreciate your reply. I think that it's not wise to refuse to fellowship with or listen to people who don't agree with me solely based on my disagreement with their beliefs. All of us are prone to error and it is important to consider other perspectives in order to draw the best conclusions for ourselves. I'm KJO in that I attend a Church that only refers to and uses the KJV, and I primarily read and study the KJV, but I do enjoy comparing and contrasting with other translations in my personal study sometimes, especially when I come across a passage that I'm struggling to understand, then I will check out how other translations translate that passage and compare all of them to the Greek/Hebrew dictionary definition translations. I don't know either of the Biblical languages or I would solely refer to the original languages rather than using other English translations, but sometimes even after I look at a dictionary translation of a word, I can't understand, so that's when I will compare and contrast with a different translation of the Bible as well (I prefer the ESV when I use a different translation because it's the most similar to the KJV imo).

  • @ronkelley1490
    @ronkelley1490 7 дней назад +4

    I am KJV IFB. I appreciate the gracious attitude Wes brought to this discussion. At the same time, Gene Kim is a bit nutty and doesn’t represent us all as KJV Onlyists. Unfortunately some of the loudest voices are the most ignorant. I would have liked more to have seen them address someone more scholarly in our camp, as Dr. Phil Stringer perhaps.
    Not all of us are the hateful, angry bunch we are made out to be although sadly, those do exist. There are serious variances, but they should be discussed with grace. And no, we don’t all believe those who read other bibles are heretics or unsaved.

    • @jonathanchaney5896
      @jonathanchaney5896 7 дней назад +2

      Thank you for this. Unfortunately that version of KJVO are the loudest and very widespread.

    • @ronkelley1490
      @ronkelley1490 7 дней назад +1

      @@jonathanchaney5896 agreed my friend

    • @Matthew-307
      @Matthew-307 7 дней назад +1

      Dr Jeff Riddle is excellent. Prob the best of the KJVO advocates.

    • @jonathanchaney5896
      @jonathanchaney5896 7 дней назад +1

      @@Matthew-307 He is one of the more reasonable ones. However, the debate with James White still revealed an inconsistency in that view. In the end, it's not about evidence but rather an a priori belief.

    • @rachpie6559
      @rachpie6559 7 дней назад +1

      Beautiful and respectful comment. I agree with you 1000%
      He clearly practices long suffering to those less educated. Wes is such a good example of Jesus’s attributes: A kind, loving person chooses to impart his knowledge freely. He seemly does this to not only educate them, but their followers as well.

  • @joshuamelton9148
    @joshuamelton9148 8 дней назад +1

    Very Informative and a worthwhile discussion that needs to be had.
    The king James bible that many read today is the 1769 King James bible and not the 1611 King James Bible.
    If people read the KJV as their translation of choice no issue no problem. However, if you advocate for KJV to be the only bible of choice and then tell other that if you read a translation like the ESV, CSB, NIV, NASB etc. Then you are a heretic, this is where red flags need to be thrown.
    To be blunt, KJV Onlyist display all the tall tale signs of Cult-like behavior. The B.I.T.E model is a good indicator to look for
    Behavior control
    Information Control
    Thought Control
    Emotional Control
    There are also fringe movements like Britain Anglo Israelism and Hebrew Israelism that believe that King James was actually an Israelite, and thus is the only bible that should be read and all other translations are false.

  • @cotajamesmusic
    @cotajamesmusic 8 дней назад

    I use a new King James Version. I do wonder if there is a better translation out there maybe one that’s in a clearer form of English. I’ve gotten use to mine but I do wonder which one I could switch to

    • @markspittal886
      @markspittal886 8 дней назад +1

      The Modern English Version just make sure you pick up the 2024 Edition as it corrects for some typos found in the first one

  • @modelingmotherhood
    @modelingmotherhood 9 дней назад

    Please make donations available through Paypal !

  • @AlexanderosD
    @AlexanderosD 8 дней назад +2

    KJV authors: cool we made a pretty decent rendition of Scripture for our modern day....hope folks in the future do the same...
    KJV only goofballs: This is the ONLY Bible that God loves! The word of God straight from heaven itself!!! 😂

  • @d.d.7287
    @d.d.7287 6 дней назад +1

    The cognitive disonance in the comments section is strong...

  • @christine_fernandez
    @christine_fernandez 8 дней назад

    The first 10 minutes: are you saying that the fact that there are so few manuscripts early on is because they were worn out from being read and used, so they would be copied, which would make it later, but more preserved and continued to be passed down to the next generation of Christian?

    • @jonathanchaney5896
      @jonathanchaney5896 7 дней назад

      that's possible, which is what CBGM is analyzing, to find the connections between later and earlier manuscripts. But what they do see is that later manuscripts become "fuller" meaning they have readings that could be from earlier family, but things have been added, for whatever reason.

    • @christine_fernandez
      @christine_fernandez 7 дней назад

      @jonathanchaney5896 ok, thanks for the reply! Wes just sounds so smart and I can't follow well when he talks about this part of the subject. I know he's breaking it down, too. It could be the Canadian vocabulary as well:)

    • @jonathanchaney5896
      @jonathanchaney5896 7 дней назад

      @@christine_fernandez Yes, it's definitely getting in the weeds and it seems he's having trouble keeping it on a layman's level. I'm familiar with what he's talking about, so I'm able to follow for the most part. But I can understand why it would be difficult if this is new info.

    • @christine_fernandez
      @christine_fernandez 7 дней назад

      @jonathanchaney5896 I actually was part of the KJV only group for a while. I have dear friends still adamant about it. This was how I was pursuaded to the KJV: There was a lady who shared a video about the KJV version alongside other versions, and the verses literally say different things. And of course, we don't want to be misled and read from a poorly translated version or a version that has been tainted by an agenda. (Though I do think the KJV was spoken in a way to make us to be subserviant to Kings and religious leaders). I do love the KJV even with the fact that I have had to look up words to know what they mean. Even the simple word believe was so good for me to know the meaning of: to trust, to rely on, to hope. There are still sections in scripture that I don't know what God is talking about, in the KJV. I'll sometimes look up that same section in other versions to get the gist. I know God is not mad at me for doing this, but my KJV friends would be alarmed. Also, looking things up in the Greek and Hebrew is very much mocked in the KJV group that is near me. The pastor was trained in Pensacola, Florida, and Peter Ruckman is the preacher they follow. He has some wicked doctrines on "race," and it literally divides the Body of Christ... like don't mix the Shem, Japheth, and Ham race. Ham's descendants are under his curse, so black people are supposed to be slaves. If you get born again and you are black, great, but go to the church building across the street where all the other black believers are. Very southern twisted teaching of scripture, race, and slavery. I hate it because it's not God, but His word is being twisted. This doctrine affects the Body of Christ. My friends don't agree with all of Peter Ruckman's teaching, but I wouldn't follow him at all. He is missing the heart of God towards His Bride, and that is not someone to follow, but someone that needs corrected and needs to repent. I'm a bit alarmed of cult likeness. It's so prevelant in "churches," but sounds so right when you are in it.

    • @jonathanchaney5896
      @jonathanchaney5896 7 дней назад

      @@christine_fernandez people can be deceived in many different ways. It's why we have to be on guard and discerning. That kind of teaching is vile and wicked and does not honor God. It is sad that so many are in that and yet do not listen to wise and loving correction like this, all because they have been blinded by lies but with God's name attached. I pray for them and thankful that you see the error of that.

  • @Notweiry-j9r
    @Notweiry-j9r 8 дней назад

    Wes's quote from James at minute 3 was not KJ AV . Wes what was that you were quoting?.

    • @Notweiry-j9r
      @Notweiry-j9r 8 дней назад

      James 1.21
      ¶Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and RECEIVE with meekness the ENGRAFTED word, which is able to save your souls.

  • @ThHolyTrinity
    @ThHolyTrinity 8 дней назад +1

    If one holds to the doctrine of KJVonlyism, there has to be a level of hypocrisy when addressing the other versions and it just gives KJV version a bad showing, cos KJV is actually good but not 100%

  • @BrentBeauford
    @BrentBeauford 8 дней назад +1

    When are you going to put Calvinism on your cultish program? Let’s be fair. There are some real unbiblical beliefs. Like are some unborn babies elect and others are not?
    Like does God degree, predetermine, predestine, what soever comes to pass including sins people. RC Sproul says there are no rogue molecules in the universe, but are there any rogue people? If so , there are 42 million protein molecules in one cell and around 1 trillion cell in one human body , that’s a lot of rogue molecules.
    As for this podcast with Mr Huff, a lot of things said , but as for helping KJV readers , I don’t think this was very helpful.
    I am a KJV reader and a pastor , I regularly compare the text I am teaching or preaching on with mainly the ESV, all three NASB ‘s, LSB, RV, ASV, NIV sometimes about 50 other versions.
    I will now focus on the ESV, the differences i find are :
    1. Different underlying Greek text and there are many.
    Sometimes there are words in TR and the CT and the ESV just ignores them.
    2. The ESV translators just translate it different.
    Have you considered Gen 3:16 God degrees the woman will be contrary to her husband instead of her desire will be to her husband.
    Is that saying the same thing? Do you guys know where that translation came from? Her name is Susan Foh, as far as I kind find she was tha first to come up with the idea. You do a podcast on her history and associates.
    There places in the ESV where things are removed from the only place it’s found in scripture.
    As for strange words found in the ESV , do you know what these are? satraps, prefects ?
    Here’s a sad change , especially in our times. ESV 1 Peter 2:9 “but you are a chosen race”. So there you have it ESV is a racist translation .
    2 Tim 2:15 “study” is changed to “do your best”. ?????
    Question: which is best , Paul to Timothy “ Timothy my son “ or Timothy my child” .
    The Greek word can be translated- son , daughter, child , or children. So what was Timothy? To Paul son or daughter? Context, context, context. So how do your grown men want your father to address you ? Son or child. Yes there are gender neutral terms being used in the ESV. I good go on and on, what’s different is not the same. Let’s us all receive a love for truth, yes me and you all.
    There is much more to the Bible version issue than you have touch on in this podcast.
    Here’s something to ponder : will people read a Bible they don’t trust?
    America is more biblical illiterate than ever , even after these modern bibles.
    Which Bible version is read the most?
    KJV 54%
    NIV 19%
    The rest 10% or less
    Why? May submit it is because they believe there bibles.
    By many the Bible is just the another religious book.
    What are people going to do when after being told there is no difference in modern versions enough to matter and they find out there ARE!

  • @chaogam
    @chaogam 9 дней назад

    Please can you do one of these on the Cooneites/ two by twos!! Please

  • @tjbr50
    @tjbr50 9 дней назад +7

    I've only been a serious Christian again for a few months and I could tell that Dr Kim was way off right away.

  • @GGGotcha
    @GGGotcha 7 дней назад

    @42:00 to @43:00 nails it!

  • @jarrettalyssaneville1122
    @jarrettalyssaneville1122 9 дней назад

    Which is able to Save your soul, not sue your soul, you must be reading a 1611 in the Gothic font where the v's are written with u's and s's with f's, etc.

    • @vashmatrix5769
      @vashmatrix5769 9 дней назад +1

      Which is a complete strawman. We do t even use the 1611. We use updated Authorized Version King James Bible.

    • @Username-ff6ir
      @Username-ff6ir 8 дней назад +1

      @@vashmatrix5769 so what’s the difference between the new kjv and a esv?

    • @vashmatrix5769
      @vashmatrix5769 8 дней назад +1

      @@Username-ff6ir The source texts.

  • @Dan123TheStarman
    @Dan123TheStarman 6 дней назад

    For those of you who were trying to find this in your Bible: At 49:00, Wes said (I listened multiple times) "Matthew 21:31" BUT THAT IS actually in chapter "22" (Mt. 22:31 ff.). The section begins at verse 23 when the Sadducees began asking Jesus questions.

  • @sojourning_soldier9888
    @sojourning_soldier9888 6 дней назад

    Why argue over KJV or other translations? It's creates division and strife among brothers. If I were to stick to my KJV, am I unsaved? No. If someone else were to read a translation other than KJV, are they then unsaved? No. Everyone just needs to focus on the main message of the Bible and quit quarreling with one another.
    Yes, I enjoy sticking with the KJV, and that's my choice. I do believe that other KJVO people should not push it on others. Also, people who do not subscribe to KJVO, need to quit berating those who are KJVO.
    Maybe if KJVO people would quit forcing it on others, then maybe none KJVO people would also stop. Or, maybe it would still continue regardless. Who knows. 🤷‍♂️.
    EVERYONE JUST STICK TO THE MAIN MESSAGE OF THE BIBLE AND GO OUT THERE AND SAVE SOME LOST SOULS! 🙏

    • @karlbro7287
      @karlbro7287 6 дней назад +1

      Who is forcing? KJVO says their piece, you believe or you don't. The arrogant people in all this are people like Wes Huff&Puff.

    • @sojourning_soldier9888
      @sojourning_soldier9888 6 дней назад +1

      @karlbro7287 Some KJVO people say if it's not KJV, you're not reading the truth and are being decieved. Which will start fights.

    • @joshuajohansen1210
      @joshuajohansen1210 6 дней назад +1

      @karlbro7287 The most extreme of the KJVO crowd really are cultish. Saying you can only be saved from the KJV, burning Bibles, saying English is more inspired than Hebrew/Greek.

  • @PraiseYahforHeisHoly
    @PraiseYahforHeisHoly 8 дней назад

    Christ's body is made up of all kids of people. I know we all have different levels of maturity, knowledge, faith, etc. It seems a very difficult process, and one we must toil over to ensure we discern properly, to know who is a baby Christian and who is maliciously taking the name of God in vain. The entire body needs to work harder at humility, I think.

  • @Dan123TheStarman
    @Dan123TheStarman 6 дней назад +1

    At about 17:00 min. into video, Andrew asked whether the KJV scholars did any kind of textual criticism. Apart from the translation notes that Wes referred to and what we can read in their original "Preface to the Readers," there are a number of places in the 1611 KJV where you can find marginal notes such as this one next to Luke 17:36: "This 36. verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." So as Wes said, they were already doing whatever they could, with the evidence they had available at that time, to try to ascertain what the original Greek manuscript reading were; not getting some kind revelation from God to create some kind of 'perfect' Bible.

  • @weiyishen
    @weiyishen 7 дней назад

    24:30 doesn't the comma appear in the Latin tradition, as well as in citations by the Roman Fathers?

    • @jonathanchaney5896
      @jonathanchaney5896 6 дней назад +1

      Yes but no Greek manuscripts until like the 16th century. Erasmus couldn’t find it in any and didn’t include it in his first 2 editions. This would show it’s something added as no biblical author wrote in Latin.

    • @weiyishen
      @weiyishen 5 дней назад

      @jonathanchaney5896 are you saying that no early witness bears weight unless it's a Greek early witness?

    • @jonathanchaney5896
      @jonathanchaney5896 5 дней назад

      @ if there’s no early Greek evidence, I would say that’s a pretty big piece of evidence as the epistle was originally in Greek. And it was copied in Greek. If it shows up in other languages first, then that’s a pretty good indicator that someone added later.

    • @weiyishen
      @weiyishen 5 дней назад

      @@jonathanchaney5896 Is antiquity your chief consideration? I would defer to John Burgon's seven tests of truth:
      1. Antiquity, or Primitiveness;
      2. Consent of Witnesses, or Number;
      3. Variety of Evidence, or Catholicity;
      4. Respectability of Witnesses, or Weight;
      5. Continuity, or Unbroken Tradition;
      6. Evidence of the Entire Passage, or Context;
      7. Internal Considerations, or Reasonableness
      Just in case you aren't familiar with his arguments here, I'll post the details for each one below, from his 1896 book, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established.

    • @weiyishen
      @weiyishen 5 дней назад

      @@jonathanchaney5896
      1. Antiquity as a Test of Truth
      "The more ancient testimony is probably the better testimony. That it is not by any means always so is a familiar fact. To quote the known dictum of a competent judge [Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener]: ‘It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed; that Irenaeus and the African Fathers and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syriac Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephen, thirteen centuries after, when moulding the Textus Receptus.' Therefore Antiquity alone affords no security that the manuscript in our hands is not infected with the corruption which sprang up largely in the first and second centuries."

  • @kellymika4208
    @kellymika4208 9 дней назад +5

    There are early church fathers that quoted 1 John 5:7 in the 3rd and 4th centuries. So obviously they read it in early manuscripts

    • @awaken7684
      @awaken7684 9 дней назад +2

      He's hitting a curve ball on this one! He's making a stance and claim that John 100% didn't write that.

    • @JustinHonaker
      @JustinHonaker 8 дней назад +2

      Sources?

    • @nullCyborgNinja
      @nullCyborgNinja 8 дней назад

      @@awaken7684 yes its very dishonest. He uses words like probably then goes on to making it a definitive knowledge what John wrote

    • @joshuajohansen1210
      @joshuajohansen1210 8 дней назад +1

      Or they allegorized the spirit, water, and blood...

    • @WhiteDove73-888
      @WhiteDove73-888 8 дней назад

      @@JustinHonakerwe’ve all read it bro so get to it

  • @Jacobah156
    @Jacobah156 4 дня назад

    @WesHuff could you explain how you determine what was in the original writings? You said you don't necessarily believe that oldest is always best however you repeatedly said in this video that we know such and such was added later because we don't see it in the older manuscripts or until much later in history which would mean that you are assuming that the older manuscripts are more likely to be like the originals correct? Since we don't actually have any of the original documents to compare them to only copies of the originals you have to determine both sides have to make an assumption as to which text is more accurate and most kjvo guys I know would say that the older manuscripts such as the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus are not reliable because for among many reasons they were found in a trash heap getting ready to be burned and yes they may be older but the reason for that is because they were never used because they contained errors and the manuscripts that were accurate were used and therefore did not hold up as long.
    Just wanted to know your thoughts on that since I haven't heard you explain what's your method for determining/believing that a scribe added it in.
    I like your work by the way really has made me have to think through a lot of things.
    Oh also yes I know that the vaticanus was not found in the trash it was found in the Vatican library however kjvo would still argue it is unreliable since the Vatican and the Catholic Church as a whole throughout history has been a church who taught false doctrine and even killed true Christians who challenged there teachings.

  • @bryanhodge3978
    @bryanhodge3978 7 дней назад

    Did the apostles constantly go about asking for money from the public? And selling merchandise? Or were they supported by various churches?

  • @chrislucastheprotestantview
    @chrislucastheprotestantview 9 дней назад

    ruclips.net/user/live21CdkdHRUw0?si=T9CScSHwDtUtnJQ3 this is a video I did that shows a very obvious error in Translation in the King James bible. And there's no way of getting around it because the grammar makes it obvious

  • @weiyishen
    @weiyishen 7 дней назад

    25:41 Like James White, how does Wes know that we have 110% of Scripture? Is this not a position of faith?

    • @bryceferguson9762
      @bryceferguson9762 6 дней назад +1

      No, this is a position of looking at all the manuscripts in the world. No faith is required to see copies with and without multiple verses. It is the job of the textual critic to determine if the verse was originally there or added later, similar to us writing in the margins of our Bible. In all we have around 10% that was added later. No faith. Only observation.

    • @weiyishen
      @weiyishen 6 дней назад

      @bryceferguson9762 How do you, or Wes, or James White "know" that we have 110% of the words of Scripture? How do you "know" that entire epistles and books were not lost, leaving us with something less than 100%? You don't know, and you can't know - nobody can. If we claim to have 100% of God's words, we do it by faith.

    • @bryceferguson9762
      @bryceferguson9762 6 дней назад

      @weiyishen I have faith that Matthew 24:35 is true in that God's Word will not pass away. At least 100% has survived. Our English translations contain at least 100%, most experts (to which I would allow to speak) estimate 10% that was added later.

    • @weiyishen
      @weiyishen 5 дней назад

      @bryceferguson9762 Thank you. You recognise, then, that your position on preservation is a position of faith. I also hold - by faith - that God preserved his word.

  • @silverbullet11202
    @silverbullet11202 6 дней назад

    24:25 I guess my question here is, do we have manuscript evidence that scribes inserted notes that ended up in later manuscripts, or are scholars just making assumptions here. Maybe Wes brings this up elsewhere and I just missed it, so if someone could point that out, I'd appreciate it.
    The way I look at it though, 1John 5:7 makes it absolutely clear what John is talking about in that passage. We can argue whether the majority text was wrong and that what the KJV translators found in those few Greek and Latin manuscripts better represented what was in the original. Because without it I'm left with verse 8 thinking, what am I supposed to do with this?

    • @joshuajohansen1210
      @joshuajohansen1210 6 дней назад

      Wow, that is a really good question! It caused me to look it up and I found that miniscule 3 including in text something that was obviously a marginal note. In 2 Cor. 8:5 it says, "in many manuscript copies appears the following".

  • @TopPriorityMinistries
    @TopPriorityMinistries 8 дней назад +1

    Calvinist talking about "levelhead" responses😂

  • @DrewWahnon
    @DrewWahnon 8 дней назад +3

    I’m a KJO advocate. Gene Kim is a Ruckmanite. A lot of these guys say a lot of heretical things such as “one can only be saved hearing a KJ Bible”. I don’t subscribe to that. I do subscribe to the KJ to be the best we have. An issue that helps me to be so is Mark 1:2. It says Isaiah wrote something that Isaiah never wrote. In the King James it says that the prophets wrote.
    I also acknowledge that there are Christian’s that love Jesus more than I do who do not carry a KJB.

    • @jonathanchaney5896
      @jonathanchaney5896 8 дней назад +2

      Mark 1:2-3 is a conflate quotation. It's Malachi and Isaiah. If you have an issue with that, then you must recognize the KJV has the same issue in Matthew 27:9-10. It says Jeremiah said but the quote is actually from Zechariah and Jeremiah. So if this issue for Mark 1:2-3 affects your view on modern translations, then Matthew 27:9-10 should impact your view on the KJV. I would encourage you to look it up if you don't believe me.

    • @DrewWahnon
      @DrewWahnon 8 дней назад +2

      @ No sir, the issue with that argument is Mark says as it is written. Matthew says as it was spoken. Jeremiah could have said that but he never wrote it down. I dealt with that a couple months ago when I stumbled across it. I try to read the gospels monthly.

    • @jonathanchaney5896
      @jonathanchaney5896 8 дней назад

      @ I have several questions, but I'll take them one at a time. Are you saying that Matthew uses "spoken" because it wasn't written?

    • @DrewWahnon
      @DrewWahnon 8 дней назад +1

      @ Yes sir, that’s correct. The claim is Jeremiah spoke, not that Jeremiah wrote.

    • @jonathanchaney5896
      @jonathanchaney5896 8 дней назад +1

      ​@@DrewWahnon Matthew often uses spoken when referencing what the prophets had written. "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not." - Matthew 2:17-18 KJV
      Direct quotation of Jeremiah 31:15
      Also, just another random one: "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up." - Matthew 4:14-16 KJV
      Direction quotation of Isaiah 9:1-2
      But even beyond that, Jesus doesn't distinguish between what is written and what is spoken. Look at this again in the book of Matthew: "But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not READ that which was SPOKEN unto you by God, saying," - Matthew 22:31 KJV. So Jesus doesn't see written and spoken as anything different.
      Lastly, you still have a great problem because Matthew 27:10 is from Zechariah, not Jeremiah. But the KJV says nothing about the minor prophet. Just like Mark 1:2-3 which doesn't name Malachi (minor prophet) but does name the major prophet Isaiah. So you can try the technicality of "spoken" (which I think I've already shown doesn't really mean anything from Matthew), but you still haven't addressed that Zechariah is quoted but not named.

  • @johannaholliday9415
    @johannaholliday9415 8 дней назад +1

    My introduction to KJO was a book written by G.A. Riplinger- New Age Bible Versions, while attending a IFB church. It was very convincing in the early 90’s.

    • @jonathanchaney5896
      @jonathanchaney5896 8 дней назад +2

      Have you listened to her debate with James White here on RUclips? It went so bad for her that it was the last time that she actually debated anyone on her own view.

    • @johannaholliday9415
      @johannaholliday9415 8 дней назад

      I haven’t. Thank you!

  • @drummerhq2263
    @drummerhq2263 7 дней назад

    8:53 that just doesn’t seem right brother Wes. The older, the manuscript the better.

    • @jonathanchaney5896
      @jonathanchaney5896 7 дней назад

      the older, the closest it is to the original. So theoretically, it's closer to the source material. That is why the text seems to get fuller through the years as people add clarification/harmonization to it.

    • @billjohnson1111
      @billjohnson1111 7 дней назад

      2 Corinthians 2:17 - For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
      Even in Paul’s day there were false prophets trying to change what God’s word actually said. Older means nothing.

    • @jonathanchaney5896
      @jonathanchaney5896 7 дней назад

      @ that is the Greek word καπηλεύω which has the meaning of peddler, huckster, to seek sordid gain. So it’s not exactly what you think it means as in “corrupting” the text.

    • @LightMatrix7
      @LightMatrix7 7 дней назад

      The oldest report of Trump getting hit on stage was that he wasn't hit & just fell. Just another example of older stories from bad sources being wrong.

  • @BruceAndrews-h8d
    @BruceAndrews-h8d 8 дней назад

    Do you think some newer translations lean towards a "works" salvation?

    • @billjohnson1111
      @billjohnson1111 7 дней назад

      They don’t have Acts 8:37…that’s a pretty clear verse about salvation!
      Acts 8:37 - And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

  • @jarrettalyssaneville1122
    @jarrettalyssaneville1122 8 дней назад +1

    110% is an extraordinary amount of added material, is this Mr. Huff being "hyperbolic " again?

  • @weiyishen
    @weiyishen 7 дней назад

    27:04 Don't all those who favor the critical text have to make this argument? That the word of God was lost for centuries, until Sinaiticus and Vaticanus hit the scene in the late 1800s? And even then, this only began the process of scholarly reconstruction, which many scholars came to call misguided and impossible.

    • @jonathanchaney5896
      @jonathanchaney5896 6 дней назад +1

      No, because the CT proponents don’t argue what KJVO argues about “perfection” and “pure”. CT proponents see the whole picture of evidence.

    • @karlbro7287
      @karlbro7287 6 дней назад

      @@jonathanchaney5896 no, you guys just deny the power of God.

    • @jonathanchaney5896
      @jonathanchaney5896 6 дней назад +1

      @karlbro7287 no sir, I don’t.

    • @weiyishen
      @weiyishen 5 дней назад

      @@jonathanchaney5896 So far as I can tell, if one is going to hold up aleph and B - which apparently spent most of their lives unused and unread - as corrective of the traditional text, then this amounts to claiming that the correct biblical text was lost for centuries. That sounds to me like much the same appeal to impossibility that Wes made.

    • @jonathanchaney5896
      @jonathanchaney5896 5 дней назад

      @@weiyishen if you want to argue that, then keep the same standard for the KJV. If you believe it’s the perfect Word of God, yet does not perfectly match any manuscript or earlier English translation. Then that means the perfect word of God didn’t exist until 1611. Or maybe 1769? Because there were printing and spelling errors for decades after 1611. So if you’re going to argue that for aleph and B, then you must also argue it for the KJV.

  • @jarrettalyssaneville1122
    @jarrettalyssaneville1122 8 дней назад +1

    Difficult words in the NIV:
    calamus, colonnades, cors, gadfly, hoopoe, offal, porphyry, mina, rue, sachet, satraps, sated, just name a few

    • @jonathanchaney5896
      @jonathanchaney5896 8 дней назад

      I don't think anyone is arguing about difficult words. Anything from a different culture may have words that we're not used to or have to research to understand. But the bigger issue is there are words that literally mean something different (maybe even the opposite) now than they did in 1611. So people don't know that they are understanding them incorrectly.

    • @jarrettalyssaneville1122
      @jarrettalyssaneville1122 8 дней назад

      @jonathanchaney5896 Well, Mr. Huff was talking about difficult words also, not just false friends.

    • @jonathanchaney5896
      @jonathanchaney5896 8 дней назад

      @@jarrettalyssaneville1122 Will check on that. I have't finished listening to it yet.

    • @karlbro7287
      @karlbro7287 6 дней назад

      @@jonathanchaney5896 Wes Huff&Puffs biggest argument is the Mark Ward argument about "difficult words". You need to watch more of your new golden boys stuff.

  • @gotenks38
    @gotenks38 4 дня назад

    I'm not KJV only, but at least I'm not a Calvinist. Yeesh.

  • @CoolPigeon98
    @CoolPigeon98 9 дней назад +6

    stop deleting our bibles Wes

    • @brad32443
      @brad32443 7 дней назад

      You capitalize "Wes" but not "Bibles"?

  • @weiyishen
    @weiyishen 7 дней назад +1

    You guys should investigate John Burgon's 7 Tests of Truth.

  • @user-px7je1xs3n
    @user-px7je1xs3n 7 дней назад

    The expansion of piety argument is complete nonsense. It really makes no sense at all. It’s such a twisted and convoluted way to think about what may have been in the minds of historical scribes. I think it’s fair to say that The scribes were probably faithful people. I mean, is that not reasonable? These people who spent their lifetime copying the scriptures and reading the word of God were most likely faithful. Why would faithful scribes purposefully corrupt the scriptures? Furthermore, they apparently did so because of their zeal and love for God? It’s as if these scribes were absolutely clueless that sinning against God could possibly please him? The expansion of piety theory is essentially saying that exact thing. Well, that’s modern textual criticism for you. A
    Big pile of hot garbage logic.

    • @jonathanchaney5896
      @jonathanchaney5896 7 дней назад

      "they apparently did so because of their zeal and love for God" - Yes. But they didn't see it as "corruption" and just because you say it is, doesn't make it so. But I would understand why you take that approach, because you understand that, if this is true, then the fuller manuscripts actually have words that were not inspired by God.

    • @user-px7je1xs3n
      @user-px7je1xs3n 7 дней назад

      Assuming they added anything, and taking into account the doctrine of bibliology. Any purposeful addition or subtraction from the known word of God is certainly sin. I just don’t think they were that ignorant of doctrine or careless to make such blunders.

    • @jonathanchaney5896
      @jonathanchaney5896 7 дней назад

      @@user-px7je1xs3n then how do you explain the variation, especially in that way? Do you think it’s all nefarious?

    • @user-px7je1xs3n
      @user-px7je1xs3n 3 дня назад

      I would say the theory was a poor attempt to explain why codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus don’t have the words. It can’t really be proven, the expansion of piety theory, because of the methodological gap (200 years of history without extant manuscripts). As far as nefarious? There are endless speculations, but I’m just trying to make a point that the logic behind it is seriously flawed.

  • @TannerAdams1611
    @TannerAdams1611 5 дней назад

    They failed to explain why a lot of readings in the NA28 have 0% manuscript support. But they are only concerned about what the originals say right?

  • @dat1beats
    @dat1beats 8 дней назад +1

    You’re not even reading the 1611. You’re reading the 1998.

  • @weiyishen
    @weiyishen 7 дней назад

    Nice to hear him point out that older is not necessarily more accurate.

  • @KJBonly
    @KJBonly 9 дней назад +8

    Wes Huf is wrong. He quotes books against the KJV that are written by Jesuits. He has spent too much time hearing and believing what the university’s teach. He has been fooled like many other teachers that the “oldest manuscripts” are the most accurate, but he ignores the fact that age has nothing to do with it. The best manuscripts are the ones recorded by actual Christian’s in Antioch (where followers were first called Christian’s in Acts). The only translation that’s actually translated from Antioch manuscripts are the KJB, all the other ones including nkjv use Syrian Egyptian manuscripts (the origin of Gnosticism)

    • @KJBonly
      @KJBonly 9 дней назад +3

      His pride has blinded him to the facts. And he takes Jesuit lies at face value and neglects to research the other perspective. All of his claims about the KJB have been debunked by much more Knowledgeable scholars than himself

    • @TheCultishShow
      @TheCultishShow 9 дней назад +14

      @@KJBonly you lost us at Jesuits…

    • @jeremystrickland348
      @jeremystrickland348 9 дней назад +9

      I'm detecting a large dose of Sam Gipp in this comment.

    • @4486johnboy
      @4486johnboy 9 дней назад +10

      Did you know the people that translated the king James prayed that later on they would be a more accurate translation than they published. Did you know when the pilgrims first settled to America they studied out of the Geneva translation. Did you know that the NASB is statistically 98% accurate according to the original text. I love the King James Version but they are better translations and you can understand them
      better

    • @KJBonly
      @KJBonly 9 дней назад

      @ I don’t even know who Sam Gipp is… everyone who is Born again should be against the Jesuits. they have their hand in everything Antichrist… that just goes to show you can’t trust this channel for anything, the defend Jesuits… unbelievable

  • @weiyishen
    @weiyishen 7 дней назад

    17:09 There are two camps of textual criticism.

  • @TopPriorityMinistries
    @TopPriorityMinistries 8 дней назад

    Matthew 22:29-32
    [29]Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
    [30]For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
    [31]But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
    [32]I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

  • @CommonSense858
    @CommonSense858 8 дней назад

    I don’t care for how the cultish crew views the KJV folks. Almost mockingly. Wes Huff is much more professional and not demeaning toward them. Many are just like Wes said toward the end of part 1. KJV only folks… “they don’t know what they don’t know. Many times they are simply repeating what they have heard. If u ever want KJV to grew up, maybe the approach should be different. To reach them. Gene Kim isn’t your typical KJV preacher anyway. He is part of the extreme KJV folks. Influenced by Peter Ruckman/PBI

    • @karlbro7287
      @karlbro7287 6 дней назад

      You haven't seen Wes Huff on his own channel, very disparaging guy, he's good at faking humility though, surprised such a detective guy like yourself didn't see Wes real character, go look at the comments Wes does is in his video "Why I don't recommend the King James Bible" his own comments are basically at the start of that video so you will have to scroll for a while as there's 4400 comments to find the ones he did 3 years ago, very eye opening.

    • @joshuajohansen1210
      @joshuajohansen1210 5 дней назад

      @karlbro7287 yah...you haven't sounded very humble in any of the comment you have made. And you haven't made a single Biblical argument for the KJV from the Biblical languages that God gave us. If you really care about God's Word you would do a little bit of "study to shew thyself approved" instead of just ridiculing other Christians when you have no idea what you are talking about.

  • @tsgtr
    @tsgtr 9 дней назад +4

    These are the same arguments James White has. James White inspired Jeff Durbin with his book "The King James Only Controversy" which was the first book on the bible Durbin ever read. Durbin started Apologia Studios. Apologia Studios started "Cultish". James White's argument was wholly demolished in "The Scholarship Only Controversy" by Peter Ruckman. These guys have taken the exact line that James took in his book and have advanced the argument no further. Literally everything they bring up against the KJV is wrong. And they're constantly "paying homage" to the KJV by saying they "like it" and it's a "nice translation", but those are just flowery ways of saying that it's WRONG. It's their word against God's word. KJV is the only, perfect word of God and the evidence bears this out.

    • @Username-ff6ir
      @Username-ff6ir 8 дней назад +3

      U can’t even understand the actual “kjv” u read and edited revised copy …

    • @tsgtr
      @tsgtr 6 дней назад

      @@Username-ff6ir I can't "read the KJV" when I read it every single day. You're a clown. Name me one perfect bible, I know you can't, your master from Genesis 3 forces you to say "there are none".

    • @tsgtr
      @tsgtr 6 дней назад

      @@Username-ff6ir I see you've left lots of comments on this video and you have a deep hatred for God's word. You're a reprobate. Can you understand that word? Am I using it right? Idk you tell me, but that's what you are, I think.

    • @karlbro7287
      @karlbro7287 6 дней назад

      Well Wes Huff&Puffs biggest inspirations are Mark Ward and James White. He even recommends Whites book, that's how weak Wes Huff&Puff is on this subject.

  • @user-px7je1xs3n
    @user-px7je1xs3n 7 дней назад

    The truth is no one really know how many sources Erasmus had access too. When people say he only used 7 or ten or whatever, that number is complete guesswork. It’s annoying that same myth about Erasmus continually gets repeated. Same with the “rush to print” , “wager” etc. All sounds good, but all pure fiction.

    • @jonathanchaney5896
      @jonathanchaney5896 7 дней назад

      do you have sources to back all of that up?

    • @joshuajohansen1210
      @joshuajohansen1210 7 дней назад

      The "wager" is likely based upon socio-political pressure.

    • @user-px7je1xs3n
      @user-px7je1xs3n 7 дней назад

      Yes. Dr. H.J. De Jonge is an Erasmian scholar who has disproved many myths about Erasmus that I mentioned.

  • @lod766
    @lod766 8 дней назад +1

    Making the case against KJV onlyism is a defensive strategy. It is seeking to make people trust what modern techniques have been employed and to not trust their senses to guide them to do actual research to figure out what is actually going on. “Trust the expert” as we have seen is not a guarantee of truth but a maintaining of the established order.

    • @karlbro7287
      @karlbro7287 6 дней назад

      "Trust the experts, don't trust God" "God is powerless" these are all Bible atheists.

  • @JaydenLolagne
    @JaydenLolagne 6 дней назад

    Why do people hate the King James bible so much 😆 you want me to read the NIV?

    • @joshuajohansen1210
      @joshuajohansen1210 6 дней назад +3

      People hate the KJV-Only movement, not the KJV itself.

    • @JaydenLolagne
      @JaydenLolagne 6 дней назад +1

      @joshuajohansen1210 that's fair, they don't gotta be so hard headed. But it's the truth

    • @jonathanchaney5896
      @jonathanchaney5896 6 дней назад

      @@joshuajohansen1210💯

  • @Matthew-307
    @Matthew-307 7 дней назад

    Anyone who’s listened to James White regarding textual criticism can see that Wes is literally just a carbon copy of James White. He doesn’t even change the phrasing of his pithy little sayings. Just another James White.
    Its sad that scholars don’t place what scripture says about its own preservation as the highest principle for textual criticism. “older is better” is fundamentally flawed when you realize that the scripture says that the new testament was already being corrupted in the lifetime of the apostles!!

    • @jonathanchaney5896
      @jonathanchaney5896 7 дней назад

      But it still seems like a leap to say what is in aleph and B (and the papyri that agrees with one or both in many places) is the corruption. Its like looking at Chris Tomlin's new chorus in Amazing Grace and then saying a hymnal that doesn't have the chorus must have been corrupted. Why do you believe God can preserve His Word but then say, but only in these manuscripts, but not those?

    • @joshuajohansen1210
      @joshuajohansen1210 7 дней назад +2

      What do you mean, "the scripture says that the new testament was already being corrupted"? Where does it say that? What does "scripture says about its own preservation"? I don't think Wes just follows an "older is better" principle. That is just 1 piece of many things that textual scholars consider.

  • @vashmatrix5769
    @vashmatrix5769 9 дней назад +3

    😂 You can't say "different Bible translation" when you're not even translating the same thing. Amazing you believe people didn't have the real Bible for hundreds of years.

    • @JMoneyUSA
      @JMoneyUSA 8 дней назад

      Please explain?

    • @vashmatrix5769
      @vashmatrix5769 8 дней назад +1

      @@JMoneyUSA KJV comes from the line of text that was preserved & passed down. All the other modern ones are taken from different source texts that may be older but were not passed down.

    • @Username-ff6ir
      @Username-ff6ir 8 дней назад +2

      @@vashmatrix5769 by ur logic u should be reading the Greek and Hebrew… everything else is fake 🫡

    • @JadDragon
      @JadDragon 8 дней назад

      Do you think it is a sin to add to the Bible?

    • @vashmatrix5769
      @vashmatrix5769 8 дней назад +1

      @@JadDragon Deuteronomy 4:2 & Revelation 22: 19, et al.

  • @permafrost7781
    @permafrost7781 7 дней назад +1

    Nothing like a King James Bible to clean up a college education. And these idiots, lol.

  • @simonhailes6580
    @simonhailes6580 7 дней назад

    ruclips.net/video/yLGTS6Q82kE/видео.html&lc=UgzkD7pqxF5frdIMIlx4AaABAg&si=J4wSOVs5kChHfiRm

  • @Dan123TheStarman
    @Dan123TheStarman 6 дней назад

    In the whole section of the discussion of verses being left out of the NT Gospels, recall what Wes discussed elsewhere about how the Jews copying the Hebrew Scriptures would only be allowed to do so if they were considered qualified to do so! They had strict rules about keeping the words exactly as they found them; even keeping as accurate as possible the count of the number of words and having to go through and count them up after doing a section of copying (maybe having more than one person doing that as well). YET, when it came to copying the NT, there were rarely any rules about how to copy the Gospels and Letters, etc. versus wanting to spread them as much as they possibly could. THUS, a number of additions, like Wes discussed about the added words in 1 John 5 concerning the Trinity, some readings in the Gospel manuscripts might just be similar to the "cross reference" notes you may see in a modern Bible which ended up being copied into the main text by a later scribe. ONE OF THE VERY FIRST things I did after becoming a Christian was to look at ALL of the verses in the Gospels that weren't in modern Bibles, like the NASB, and you can find all of them in one of the other Gospels!

  • @KJBonly
    @KJBonly 9 дней назад +8

    I can’t even believe he will defend the NIV and the legacy Bible… People! This guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about!!! Those translations are chalked full of contradictions and lies. This guy couldn’t be more wrong and he’s doing a serious disservice to everyone who listens to this and believes him

    • @awaken7684
      @awaken7684 9 дней назад +3

      💯 Just bc of the Billy thing now people are just thinking he's right about everything. It verges idolizing him. There are many scriptures that I have seen with my own eyes that are twisted. He is doing a great disservice. This is wisdom of men going on here in conceit.

    • @vashmatrix5769
      @vashmatrix5769 9 дней назад +2

      I want to give them the benefit of the doubt. "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

    • @simonhailes6580
      @simonhailes6580 9 дней назад +1

      If they are defending corrupt bibles they are deceived and ignorant of real bible criticism. They need to read Burgon and hills.

    • @Username-ff6ir
      @Username-ff6ir 8 дней назад

      @@vashmatrix5769 out of context. Keep reading that kjb tho seems likes it’s doing u good 🫠🙄

    • @vashmatrix5769
      @vashmatrix5769 8 дней назад +2

      @@Username-ff6ir The quote marks are to intentionally tell people it's a lifted quote. The context of use is the same. These guys are sinful & harming people & I hope it's out of ignorance & not malous.

  • @simonhailes6580
    @simonhailes6580 9 дней назад +1

    The word of God existed in many versions, from the early church to medieval times.
    Many of those versions were fairly accurate translations, just like many of the reformation bibles.
    The bible mainly existed in Europe, in the notably corrupt Latin vulgate and even translations of that were surpressed.
    God revived and purified the text through the renaissance and classical learning, most notably Erasmus, which led to a period that had the highest level of knowledge and fluency in the biblical languages and the purification of the Greek NT text.
    The reformation and printing led to an obsession with getting out accurate translations of the original text, which the reformers considered to be the inspired word of God.
    The KJV was the high point of this movement and it was confirmed as the best, most accurate and final authority of the word of God; by Gods unsurpassed usage of it.
    The enlargement of Japheth was occurring during this period and the English nation was the last to get in on it, by a couple of centuries; but became the predominant nation, through the blessing of God and their adherence to spreading the gospel.
    God gave the final authority in the international language of the end times.
    Other versions ‘contain’ the words of God where they match the KJV. Where they don’t they are corrupt, by accident; or satanic interference.

  • @MrMann-gt1eh
    @MrMann-gt1eh 9 дней назад +2

    I think the KJV is the inspired word of God in the English language. I don’t care what someone else reads anymore than I care what music they like or drink they like. It’s literally their soul, not mine. I’m not saying if they aren’t KJV they aren’t saved. …just that they’re missing verses and words have literally been changed, more than the “false friends” that it takes literally 2 seconds to decipher with a smart phone on Google. Why would someone want less? Read whatever you want. I have other translations also. They just don’t get used much.

    • @Username-ff6ir
      @Username-ff6ir 8 дней назад +1

      U don’t read the kjb.. u read a heavily revised and edited version by ur logic ur a unsaved heretic 🫢

    • @MrMann-gt1eh
      @MrMann-gt1eh 8 дней назад

      @ I was taught by it. Funny enough, I’ve been a Christian for over 30 years and never picked up a KJV until this past year. You can hate and doubt all you want. Like I said, I don’t care what you read anymore than I care what music you like or drinks you like. I DO NOT CARE what you do or think pal. I know that book is God-breathed for English speakers. Every word in it.

    • @paulperez6167
      @paulperez6167 8 дней назад

      The Bible is the inspired word of God. KJV is a fine translation of it, but nowhere near the best.

    • @markspittal886
      @markspittal886 8 дней назад

      There's 30 versions of the Textus Receptus

    • @MrMann-gt1eh
      @MrMann-gt1eh 8 дней назад

      @ I disagree. It is the best in the English language. Punctuations, sentence structures etc. If one speaks English, there’s no better Bible imo. If one speaks Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew then sure.

  • @RoccoStefanell-nc7dv
    @RoccoStefanell-nc7dv 9 дней назад +5

    Great job dividing Christians cultish! Making people feel like they’re a lunatic fringe if they believe in the use of one Bible. Not sure why y’all felt like you had to do this. But thanks for making me doubt scripture

    • @JadDragon
      @JadDragon 9 дней назад +7

      Great job uniting Christians Rocco! Oh wait.

    • @RoccoStefanell-nc7dv
      @RoccoStefanell-nc7dv 9 дней назад +1

      @ not sure I understand

    • @RoccoStefanell-nc7dv
      @RoccoStefanell-nc7dv 9 дней назад +1

      @ they had to know that this subject is a point of contention?

    • @RoccoStefanell-nc7dv
      @RoccoStefanell-nc7dv 9 дней назад +1

      @ why make people feel they’re crazy for reading one Bible?

    • @JadDragon
      @JadDragon 9 дней назад +1

      @RoccoStefanell-nc7dv pot kettle. If you're feeling that way I'd suggest that's a you problem and listen to their arguments.
      Think about which side is _really_ causing division.

  • @kylebruner2132
    @kylebruner2132 7 дней назад

    The moon is flat

  • @happyjoy338
    @happyjoy338 9 дней назад +2

    So I thought Wes was too busy to do all these interviews??😂 That dude needs to go away.

    • @vashmatrix5769
      @vashmatrix5769 9 дней назад +2

      They needed him for their echo chamber.

    • @TopPriorityMinistries
      @TopPriorityMinistries 8 дней назад +1

      😂😂😂 funny how his buddy ward went off the scenes and in came Wes out of nowhere.

    • @karlbro7287
      @karlbro7287 6 дней назад +1

      @@TopPriorityMinistries Huff is a proselyte of Ward & White besides Wescott, Hort and the German Textual Critics (Liberal Theology), he recommend his and Whites stuff in his "Why I don't recommend the King James Bible" on his own channel. His new status as golden calf makes him shiny and draws people to him.

    • @TopPriorityMinistries
      @TopPriorityMinistries 6 дней назад

      @karlbro7287 when I found out @weshuff was a calvinist dung god worshipper and he asked @joerogan, "what do you think about Jesus?" without disclosing what he actually believes about Jesus, that let me know that he is dishonest and can't be trust. A new son of these recent mornings, appearing as an angel of light...

    • @joshuajohansen1210
      @joshuajohansen1210 5 дней назад

      @karlbro7287 Yah... you are just bearing false witness. Name one place where Ward & White accept liberal theology.

  • @michaelseay9783
    @michaelseay9783 8 дней назад

    Huff = Dr. Seuss Green Eggs & Ham apologist

  • @tsgtr
    @tsgtr 9 дней назад +2

    I'm very glad to briefly scroll through the comments and see lots of KJV-defending brothers and sisters. You've failed your mission, James White.

    • @Username-ff6ir
      @Username-ff6ir 8 дней назад +1

      U don’t read the kjb. U have a heavily revised edited copy.. repent go back to the original

    • @vashmatrix5769
      @vashmatrix5769 8 дней назад +1

      @@Username-ff6ir No, it's not. These are like spelling changes. I doubt you even use either.

    • @vashmatrix5769
      @vashmatrix5769 8 дней назад +1

      @@tsgtr Right. That heretic has extinguished the faith of so many.

    • @Username-ff6ir
      @Username-ff6ir 8 дней назад +1

      @@vashmatrix5769 no it isn’t like spelling changes…

    • @Username-ff6ir
      @Username-ff6ir 8 дней назад +1

      Words don’t mean the same. Sentence structure is different.. get outta here spelling changes

  • @c0dy02
    @c0dy02 8 дней назад

    New Age Bible Versions 2022 by G.A. Riplinger

  • @drumsaway84
    @drumsaway84 9 дней назад +1

    😂😂😂This is the guy that pretended to understand what Mormons believe in the Joe Rogan show. Funniest party was when he tried to make the comparison of confidence and competence after showing everyone how incompetent he is on the subject! 😂 Thou shalt not bear false witness boy!

  • @TopPriorityMinistries
    @TopPriorityMinistries 7 дней назад

    Turretin on 1 John 5:7
    ruclips.net/user/clipUgkxdnGxPaTiC9Kqm9255HEGbASJRVy6ziSD?si=BYOVQfvbkj-yW6Xm

  • @BrentBeauford
    @BrentBeauford 8 дней назад

    When are you going to put Calvinism on your cultish program? Let’s be fair. There are some real unbiblical beliefs. Like are some unborn babies elect and others are not?
    Like does God degree, predetermine, predestine, what soever comes to pass including sins people. RC Sproul says there are no rogue molecules in the universe, but are there any rogue people? If so , there are 42 million protein molecules in one cell and around 1 trillion cell in one human body , that’s a lot of rogue molecules.
    As for this podcast with Mr Huff, a lot of things said , but as for helping KJV readers , I don’t think this was very helpful.
    I am a KJV reader and a pastor , I regularly compare the text I am teaching or preaching on with mainly the ESV, all three NASB ‘s, LSB, RV, ASV, NIV sometimes about 50 other versions.
    I will now focus on the ESV, the differences i find are :
    1. Different underlying Greek text and there are many.
    Sometimes there are words in TR and the CT and the ESV just ignores them.
    2. The ESV translators just translate it different.
    Have you considered Gen 3:16 God degrees the woman will be contrary to her husband instead of her desire will be to her husband.
    Is that saying the same thing? Do you guys know where that translation came from? Her name is Susan Foh, as far as I kind find she was tha first to come up with the idea. You do a podcast on her history and associates.
    There places in the ESV where things are removed from the only place it’s found in scripture.
    As for strange words found in the ESV , do you know what these are? satraps, prefects ?
    Here’s a sad change , especially in our times. ESV 1 Peter 2:9 “but you are a chosen race”. So there you have it ESV is a racist translation .
    2 Tim 2:15 “study” is changed to “do your best”. ?????
    Question: which is best , Paul to Timothy “ Timothy my son “ or Timothy my child” .
    The Greek word can be translated- son , daughter, child , or children. So what was Timothy? To Paul son or daughter? Context, context, context. So how do your grown men want your father to address you ? Son or child. Yes there are gender neutral terms being used in the ESV. I good go on and on, what’s different is not the same. Let’s us all receive a love for truth, yes me and you all.
    There is much more to the Bible version issue than you have touch on in this podcast.
    Here’s something to ponder : will people read a Bible they don’t trust?
    America is more biblical illiterate than ever , even after these modern bibles.
    Which Bible version is read the most?
    KJV 54%
    NIV 19%
    The rest 10% or less
    Why? May submit it is because they believe there bibles.
    By many the Bible is just the another religious book.
    What are people going to do when after being told there is no difference in modern versions enough to matter and they find out there ARE!
    Sorry misspellings

    • @jonathanchaney5896
      @jonathanchaney5896 7 дней назад

      For 2 Timothy 2:15 - the underlying Greek word spoudazo is the same. It means to put in effort or to be dilligent. Other uses of it in the KJV are translated just that way. Look up the Strongs for it. It doesn't mean study as in acquire information. This is a false friend in the KJV.
      As for 2 Timothy 1:2, the word is tekno, which is neuter not masculine, so child would be a proper translation. If you don't like that, that's between you and God who inspired Paul to write that.

  • @simonhailes6580
    @simonhailes6580 7 дней назад

    ruclips.net/video/yLGTS6Q82kE/видео.html&lc=UgzkD7pqxF5frdIMIlx4AaABAg&si=J4wSOVs5kChHfiRm

  • @simonhailes6580
    @simonhailes6580 9 дней назад +1

    The word of God existed in many versions, from the early church to medieval times.
    Many of those versions were fairly accurate translations, just like many of the reformation bibles.
    The bible mainly existed in Europe, in the notably corrupt Latin vulgate and even translations of that were surpressed.
    God revived and purified the text through the renaissance and classical learning, most notably Erasmus, which led to a period that had the highest level of knowledge and fluency in the biblical languages and the purification of the Greek NT text.
    The reformation and printing led to an obsession with getting out accurate translations of the original text, which the reformers considered to be the inspired word of God.
    The KJV was the high point of this movement and it was confirmed as the best, most accurate and final authority of the word of God; by Gods unsurpassed usage of it.
    The enlargement of Japheth was occurring during this period and the English nation was the last to get in on it, by a couple of centuries; but became the predominant nation, through the blessing of God and their adherence to spreading the gospel.
    God gave the final authority in the international language of the end times.
    Other versions ‘contain’ the words of God where they match the KJV. Where they don’t they are corrupt, by accident; or satanic interference.

    • @Username-ff6ir
      @Username-ff6ir 8 дней назад +4

      U don’t read the kjb u read a revised edited copy..

    • @simonhailes6580
      @simonhailes6580 8 дней назад +1

      @@Username-ff6ir nonsense

    • @simonhailes6580
      @simonhailes6580 8 дней назад

      @@Username-ff6ir another lying rabbit trail by the bible agnostics.