Don't you just love it when your preacher is reciting a verse and there's 20 people shaking their heads in the pews because they all have variant readings? I think this is the biggest issue, we do need a standard.
Wescott and Hort were both Jesuit's posing as Protestants to get the versions accepted...The Sea Beast will go to extraordinary lengths to destroy Protestantism and corrupt the Word with false doctrines...See the documentaries by Walter Veith, "Battle of the Bibles"
there is only one god and one truth one holy spirit who teaches us all 5 christians who go to heaven 5 who dont the oil in the lamps is truth people you are devided one has the truth of the spirit and will enter the rest and the other will not there is only one word of god
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
Along with all the signs and wonders of the false gospels come the fact that their deceit leads or lets them continue on in unrighteousness. They will continue to sin against the Lord, whether it will be sins of pleasure or sins of religion where they make up their own rules and reject the teachings of the Lord. delusion is newbibles
I DIDNT KNOW THAT GAIL R. IS SUCH HATE MONGER TO SPREAD LIES ABOUT WESTCOTT/HORT-IN THE MEDIAVAL AGE WE WOULD HAVE PUT SUCH PEOPLE ON THE STAKE. TO ACCUSE MEN FALSELY OF SPRIRITISM IS WORTH PUTING SUCH A WITCH ON THE STAKE.
"This can be seen in the agreement of 95% of GK MSS, The discovery of the dead sea scrolls, the waldensian Bible, the Erasmus Text and finally, in the Bibles of the Reformation."
The purity of Greek manuscripts is more like 98%. And if you're talking about Greek manuscripts, this is not addressed by the Dead Sea Scrolls which do not contain any New Testament material. I could go on but responding to KJVonlyists peddling the same ignorance they always have gets so very tiresome.
That is a misreading of the text which I'm sure you well know and have been corrected on before. You know better, yet you continue to peddle this failed argument. Yet even if we took this argument at face value, even with textual variants the text of scripture has been preserved with a purity *greater* than that of pure refined silver. This argument, so often repeated by KJVonlyists, fails on every level.
You are unqualified to judge the Westcott & Hort text, as are your sources of information. Furthermore, nobody uses Westcott & Hort, and nobody has done so for a very, very long time. Textual criticism has moved on quite a bit since the 1900's, you should too.
"all that I have to choose from are irreverent concoctions of degenerate english"
What exactly do you mean by "degenerate" English? Because I don't know anyone in their right mind who might describe the literary quality of the ESV for example as "degenerate" English. And what is "irreverent" about a translation like the ESV?
"If someone could produce an acceptable modern translation then perhaps I would not be so fond of my 1611"
What constitutes an "acceptable" modern translation in the view of someone like yourself who has obviously bought into the conspiracy theories, misrepresentations and flat out lies of the Gail Riplingers of this world?
@metanoeo1 Yes, I use a 1611 facsimile as well as the revised 1611. I also use the 1599 Geneva and Tyndales' NT. All of these reformation era translations are in perfectly understandable english so long as one is willing to expand his vocabulary.
@samuelamos1 I challenge you to make a video reading the 1611 facsimile rendering of John chapters 1-3. Not an internet version but from a physical copy. Will you?
@KeithTruth No, thank you.Reading from the 1611 is within the ability of almost anyone, given some practice. I do not believe that you would request this unless there was an ulterior motive. Perhaps some variant reading between the 1611 and later editions that you would like to point out. Furthermore I don't know what it would prove in any case because the Gothic type and spelling were revised long ago and have no bearing on the present issues.
@samuelamos1 There is most definitely different readings of every chapter of the Bible in respect to the 1611 facsimile, 1599 Geneva Bible and Tydale's, of course. But that was not my motive. I just want to see if you could actually read it since it is very difficult as you said without some (I would say quite a bit) of practice. I feel you may be trying to save face since someone pointed out the varying editions of the 1611 which KJV Onlyists don't often consider when arguing for their position
@KeithTruth I apologize for my harsh initial reaction. I am able to read a true 1611. I can't say that I do not stumble on the occasional word, but it's not a different language. As for being a KJonlyist, I don't think I've ever labeled myself one. As a general rule I don't trust much of anything translated after the mid 1800's.I've considered all of the arguments.Many assertions on both sides are false. My reasons for supporting the KJV really can't be expressed in 500 letters. cont.
But to summarize, I would say that I do not trust the Alexandrian text. That is a tremendous oversimplification but it's difficult to discuss anything in depth in this forum.On a lighter note, Iv'e seen a few of your documentaries and I must say that I agree with you completely concerning the direction our world is headed.I am an Army veteran who signed up to fight terrorism. What a joke. People need to wake up. Christians need to wake up. I believe we are witnessing 2Thess.2:11
@KeithTruth I would also like to clarify something. In answering a previous post I said that I used a 1611. While this is true, my primary Bible is a revised, commonly available, 1611. I Own and read a few reformation era translations for comparison. I'm sorry if I confused anyone. Perhaps that is why you challenged me. No hard feelings:+]
@samuelamos1 I've contemplated whether or not to respond to this and I believe I will. The idea that "all of these reformation era translations are in perfectly understandable english so long as one is willing to expand his vocabulary" flies in the face of the original text. The NT was written in koine Greek, which was common, everyday Greek not some lofty, "spiritual" sounding language. The idea seems to have been that ANYONE who could read the COMMON LANGUAGE could benefit.
@metanoeo1 After the NT was penned in Greek it was then translated into many languages such as Latin,Gothic,Coptic,Syriac,ect. Still,few people had a complete Bible and very few people had one of their own.Once the RRC declared unlawful all translation work into the vernacular,Europe entered spiritual darkness;if you wanted to read the scriptures you had to learn Latin. This all changed in the 1500's w/the Erasmus Greek Text, and godly men willing to translate it. Cont.
@metanoeo1 Tyndale translated the NT into English.Future English translations relied heavily on his trans.In 1611 the English of the Bible was already antiquated;the "thees&thous"signifying the difference between the singular and plural "you".Because of this unique grammar,and because the translators used the TR vs the CT of modern versions, the AV is the most accurate Christ honoring Bible that you can own in English. And that is reason enough for me to expand my vocabulary. Cont.
@metanoeo1Christians have not always had the luxury of having a Bible in their own language. We are fortunate as English speakers to have such an accurate one in the KJV. If someone has difficulty adjusting to the classical English they can use an updated King James 2000. This is a far better alternative to using an Alexandrian corruption.
@samuelamos1 I love how KJV onlyists speak of an "Alexandrian corruption" with no proof that anything was corrupted. It just doesn't fit their idea, so they assume the Alexandrian texts must have been corrupted. Even though the Alexandrian texts have been proven to be earlier than most of what was used for the KJV translation. Facts, reality and truth have little to do with the KJV only argument. Conjecture, myth and postulation are huge parts of the KJV only argument.
After spouting nothing but pure KJVonlyist garbage for several posts he'll then waste your time with something completely inane and stupid like, "Who said I was a King James Onlyist?". He's not worth responding to.
I am what you would call a "KJV Onlyist" ("isms" ugly cousin). I definitely prefer the KJV, but I dont shun or alienate people who read other Bibles. And i'm not going to study any Greek. I believe that the Word of God is supposed to be accessible. You shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get a full understanding of anything.
And if anyone is doing the shunning it is definitely those who believe the opposite of what I just said.
I am so sick and tired of the "isms" in Christianity. Why is it something widely regarded as truth doesn't have an "ism"? Torturism is widely popular.
What is "Torturism"? It is a term I coined for the false doctrine of Eternal Torment. What about Rapturism?
These are nothing but falsities that need to be abandoned.
@JudgeEden Torturism is the term for a supposed false doctrine of eternal torment? Actually that is the orthodox view the church has always taught. The alternative, universalism, or annihilationism, is later and heretical, unbiblical and based on emotionalism. Don't be hypocritical and hold to all these isms in your denial of the doctrine of hell. Pick up Dr. Morey's book "Death and the Afterlife" the finest scholarly work on this subject. Case for eternal hell and rebuttal of alternative views.
The King James Bible possesses numerous drawbacks and shortcomings, being an antiquated 400-year-old Anglican translation which utilizes Elizabethan prose and is completely disconnected from contemporary English-speaking laypeople, incorporating multitudinous Medieval-period archaisms, translational errata, archaic phraseology, translational inconsistencies, and unjustifiable omissions. Its Shakespearean-like constructions and terminologies are outdated, cumbersome, and unforgivable.
Through my research I have come to believe that the Greek manuscripts are translated from the Aramaic peshitta. Not just the four gospels but also the epitles. And so I don not believe the NT was written in Greek at all. Unfortunately not many people study the Aramaic texts, which I think would end all this quarrel about the Greek variations. For those interested, av good book about this is ''Ruach Qadim'' by Andrew Gabriel Roth. But beware of his heretical theology, use discernment.
don't they have to significantly change things enough form the originals in order to copyright them in the first place? Whatever stand you take with bibles the fact is on the pages the newer translations have verses left out and words
Does not scripture state that the spirit of G-d will guide you into all truth? If we are not led by the spirit & given understanding by HIM, then we are practicing dead religion. 2 Cor 3:6 There is no life in dead religion for from Gen-Rev it is all about Relationship. We are to avoid foolish, ignorant arguments that breed quarrels & cause division. 2 Tim 2:23
That stated, thank you for the post. There are "errors" in all the texts, but the biggest errors comes from our personal bias & pride
It's virtually impossible to trace back how the Bible was compiled, since there are way too many manuscripts. There are good translations and some are not so good. If an honest person seeks for God, he will find God, no matter if it's the NIV, ESV, RSV, KJV or whatever.
Personally I recommend the KJV or NKJV, because of it's language and accuracy. But I don't have problems reading other Bible versions.
@SolaScriptura21 Many Christians are too deep in a sleep to know why in 2011, many are speaking not "only for KJV", but against specific bibles like the NIV or NKJV. There may be tons of correct versions, but there are new versions that are heretic, blasphemous, misleading, and anti-christ. We are living in a time where you can no longer trust a bible just because it says "bible" on the cover. I wish that it were not so, but what better way to kill a Christian, than with their own book?
@Cookie4XO -----Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The unique God, who is close to the Father's side, has revealed him. <-----so you consider this a heretical to say, since, you claim the bibles are heretical
@SolaScriptura21 I'm not sure what you mean or what that has to do with some bibles changing the words and turning the verse into a heretic verses. I didn't see ALL the verses were heretic? but regardless, I'm not sure if that's where you were going.
@Cookie4XO i kinda figured that would happen since i did not fully explain, ok, i ASSUME you are KJV onlyist, well, as you saw in the "heretical" versions as you say, in john 1:18 it reads as calling Christ GOD, flat out, BUT in the KJV it DOES NOT call Him God, but rather the son of God in Verse 18, so whats a better reading, and, by your defenition, the reading of John 1:18 taht calls Christ God is HERETICAL.
@SolaScriptura21 I'm no KJVO nor KJV scholar. What I know, is that the NIV and NKJV, rather cover or certain verses, contain occult symbolism. That's all, and that is what I have researched. I have no argument for/against the KJV. one "accurate" scripture in NIV/NKJV is not going to make me read a bible that has occult symbols and Aleister Crowley phrases. i dont believe every verse is wrong in them. U cant fool people if you tell 100% lies, 99%truth/1% lie is much easier.
@Cookie4XO i never said the NIV is 100% accurate, but verses like i have shown are translated better other versions, what exactly dont you like about them? details.
@SolaScriptura21 the NIV is purposely wrong, not just 100% not accurate. I'm not talking about misinterpretations, I'm talking about what looks more like purposeful deceit if you know the one world religion plan of satan to usher in the anti christ. anyway, google "av1611 NIV" "av1611 NKJV" and "jesus is savior niv why" to start. the first results have a lot of the info without me bogging down the comments because I already have like 20 posts here saying why they are meant to mislead.
@SolaScriptura21 also look up the "triquetra" found on the cover of the NKJV how it's used by satanists n occultists to draw demonic spirits. they wear it on shirts, jewelry and tattoos. certain "Christians" claim it's a trinity symbol, but since when does satan share ANY symbol with the Heavenly father? That should not make sense to any Christian or pagan. It's not like the NEW KJV printers didn't know that beforehand so why put it on God's word? its NEW! might as well be a baphomet.
@Cookie4XO I have a nkjv and it does not have that on it, symbolism is interesting, occultists, pagans have taken every symbol, and every shape and turned the meaning into something dark, the rose for example is used, animals are used.
@SolaScriptura21 but a rose is a rose regardless of what it symbolizes for someone, it's still a flower. A triquetra has no place in Christ, it is a confusing symbol at the least so why use it on a bible cover when satanists love it? A satanist standing next to a Christian should not have such commonalities. You should educate yourself on esoteric symbols, they carry spiritual power. Christians who have no problem with it? That's on them and their children. May God have mercy on the ignorant.
@Cookie4XO you said "a rose is a rose regardless of it symbolizes" and i say the same to you, this triquetra is simply some shapes, circles, triangles ovals, etc. My God is above some simple shapes, they do not scare me at all, i am away of esoteric meanins of shapes, but regardless, THEY ARE JUST SHAPES, and will only harm you IF you let them, you focus to much on the "satanic" meaning of things, they give a satanic meaning to roses as i said, are we affraid of them now?
@SolaScriptura21 It's obvious you know nothing of demonic connections with signs, symbols, and objects, and I'm at a loss for words. Objects, signs, people, even music can have demons attached to them, a Christian who doesn't know this is like a soldier who doesn't know they need armor on before a war. Unfortunately this high level of ignorance of demonic power and association is why the Christian church is a mockery today. It's sheep have no idea the wolf is already in the house.
@Cookie4XO i am actually well aware of all you mentioned, but my statement STILL stands against you, my God is much greater then a triangle and some circles, maybe you need to have more faith in Christ instead of having so much fear for that which can only destroy the body.
@SolaScriptura21 God is definitely greater, but that is off topic and not worth addressing. The most ignorant Christian with the greatest faith and beliefs, can still have an object in his/her possession that opens up a window for demonic forces to negatively effect their life. being educated is not being fearful. Example? signs/symbols on Ouja boards r used to summon demons. Any well meaning unafraid, believing Christian that has one, can have a demonic window opened. I have seen it happen.
@Cookie4XO it doesn't mean that God's power is not greater and can't cast it out , because it can, or that Christians being aware of demonic attachment to a certain item/activity is fear. It is not. However, just because one is God loving, that doesn't close all the doors to demonic activity. You can keep casting them out, but if there is a demon attached to something you don't want to get rid of (object/activity) they will keep coming back and this doesn't negate God's infinite power.
@Cookie4XO Oh, i see, you are saying that since there is a triangle and some oval shapes on a bible, this means that Christians are summoning demons with these shapes into the bible or into themselves?
@SolaScriptura21 I dont know of any triangle or oval shapes on any bible. and if you want to know what a symbol means to someone using it, like a satanist, all you have to do is google it. the satanists will tell you what the symbol means, what demonic spirits are drawn to it, etc., don't ask me because I don't have any bible with any symbol on it anymore.
@SolaScriptura21 I'm saying that if the door to something has a sign on it, that's a pretty good idea whats inside. The cover of a book is the same as a door. we can both think of many Christian symbols that aren't used by the occult, that people don't have to look up the meaning, that could've been used or no weird symbol at all. even if some think it means something holy, since satanists are using it why not just avoid confusion? at the least it is confusing, God is not the author of that.
@Cookie4XO First assumption and your weakness, you believe that God does not have power over this triangle with oval shapes, second, you assume that God would allow His Word to have demons abide in it due to some shapes, your weakness, is your lake of faith and trust in God, i do not promote the use of symbols, but i KNOW i can pick up a nkjv with a triangle and ovals on it and NOT become demon posessed, YHWH protects me, i have HIS armor on. Name 1 Christian symble-------------cont.
@SolaScriptura21 Possessed? I never said that, you're exaggerating. if u ask pastors who cast out demons, rather becoming saved, simply prevents the demons from coming back if they still have these things that attract demons in their lives, they will all tell you no. look at the YT vid on Roger Morneau, former Illuminati, that is what happened to him. he had literature/pamphlets in his home after studying the Bible and being saved that still allowed demons an open window to attack him.
@SolaScriptura21 no christian symbols are used exactly the same way as in the occult. for example, if the occult used a cross, they would turn it upside down or add things to it or around it, you don't see satanist's wearing a plain cross as found on bibles. but anyway, staying focused on the triquetra. i never said people become possessed by picking up bibles with symbols.
@SolaScriptura21 But anyway, you're just repeating yourself you say: God is bigger than demonic signs and symbols (me: yes) and Christians can have them in their possession and nothing will happen to them no matter what as long as they believe in God and pray (me: no) and that anyone who doesn't believe this is scared and faithless (me:no). We can just agree to disagree I'm not going to bog down this vid w more comments than necessary.
@Cookie4XO on a side note, aramaicnt . com is an awesome website, if you enjoy it, also check out aent . org. Ok, here is a question, if i draw certain shapes, and it resembles a demonic symbol, will the object i have drawn on automatically be filled with demons? Also, i said, Gods elect, he WILL protect no matter what, so if they have in their hands a paper, a book, w/e it is and it has some shapes drawn on it, i HAVE FAITH that God will not let this symbol harm me in any way.---------cont
@Cookie4XO -------cont. I have never said anyone that does NOT believe this is scared, and FAITHLESS, but i believe they LACK faith in God, what can harm US if we adorn the armor of God? Maybe if you forgot partts of your armor you ahve reason to worry? I also prefer to NOT have symbols on my bibles, but i think we become a little to fanatical when we start saying that a bible that has asymbols on it is a demonic bible.
The real argument on this issue is wether we can trust manuscripts that originate from the school of Alexandria, at the time the occult centre of the world. That can only be the place where this argument starts.
@Amarx00 I don't see any evidence of occultism bleeding into the alexandrian Christian texts. The Greek for the newer translations is not even based only on Alexandrian texts. Plus the great Trinitarian defender of the Trinity who stood against the Bishop of Rome when he sided with arianism, Athenasius (4th century) was Bishop of Alexandria Egypt. He was not evil but was a solid Christian who sided with Scripture against Rome. I think its unfair to say because something is from Egypt it is evil
@KeithTruth Kent Hovind commented on the Alexandrian texts. I only remember that he strongly denounced them and he compared them to Jehovah's Witnesses.
Keith, The KJV is the only version that should be trusted. NIV has a dark history. Very dark. Not to mention, when someone translates the KJV bible, they change stuff. That means, people could make it mean what they want it to mean. Learn to read a KJV bible. I learned how in 6 months. KJV was a direct translation from Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic to English.
No we trust the majority texts as they support wholey the Antioch stream... But you know out of respect for Keith I will have to look into this further, so I will be back with my findings..
Yes but that argument would work just as well for a KJV onlyist who accociates the Libary of Alexandria with the occult! Sorry im just interested in evidence. And if 98% o the recovered manuscripts support the Antioch stream, then this video and/or people like you appear to be sidestepping the issue!
@Amarx00 The number of manuscripts don't really bear much weight in my mind considering that they are younger. I understand that that argument works for the KJVO position. I was just showing tha tit works both ways. It's not a really good argument in favor of a KJVO position.
If we find older manuscripts those are probably closer to the original.
BTW, it's not called the Antioch stream. It's the Byzantine text type.
This is a strange video and I would say that these guys cannot argue the point, at 8:30 the guy describes wescott and hort as "fine christian men" and I loled as after he said it he look around like, is anyone going to say anything? But they let him get away with it. Keith with respect I am prepared to listen, but dont make this mistake of attacking Riplinger to change peoples minds, as there are alot of people out there making the actual points.
@KeithTruth wrote: "What was wrong with Westcott and Hort?"
Research here: "Dr. Burgon was contemporary with Westcott and Hort. He was an advocate of the Textus Receptus and was the nemesis of Westcott and Hort's feeble arguments against it. He believed, unlike Westcott and Hort, in basing all conclusions on the solid foundation of facts rather than the sand of theory."
Before arguing in favor of W&H one should read Dean Burgon as he was in the middle of the controversy and defending it.
Westcott and Hort were neo-Plationists. Hort was a student of F.D. Maurice,(aka, Frederick Denison) in fact, Maurice was his mentor. Maurice was a Unitarian and Univeralist. See he work by Waite, 'Heresies of Westcott and Hort'. For the historical background of the movement to get rid of the KJB and the TR (which Hort called 'vile)
see While Men Slept, A Biblical and Historical Account of the New Universal Christianty, by Kerby F. Fannin.
Keith, though I usually agree with you, this time I do not.
I wonder how you feel about the tract (by Bill Schnoebelen) you can find here: (add prefix world wide web and slashes) withoneaccord org assets images freedownloads Whatslurking
I think this message is valid and should be taken into consideration!! Please let me know your thoughts.
@fluweel2 Schnoebelen? You mean the man who claimed to be a vampire in the illuminati and who is now into messianic judaism? Don't be misled. Here is a refutation of his KJV Only arguments:
vintage (dot) aomin (dot) org / Schnoebelen (dot) html
@KeithTruth Schnoebelen's word (Regardless how crazy his life story is) Is pretty accurate with masonry and Wicca. As an apologist who focuses on the occult.
Next KJO is Very Different from KJP. KJO is the believe that every other bible is satanic and is impossible or harder to get saved. But Most people who are KJO are actually KJP(King James preferred) who say it is the best translation in modern English (Due to divine reasons from God)
I can't speak for everyone, but a lot of bibles (not kjv) were published by the same company the produced the satanic bible and that doesn't sit with me at all. Many people that don't read kjv, claim to not understand it so they go to something easier...but didnt God speak in parables? The bible is a parable within parables. Marinade on that, because if you can't understand parables, then what is going on?
@HoParoikos that's what a lot of people say/ask, but as a follower of Christ, I have utmost faith in God and His word .....not to mention that He has power over His own word and what is in it. Bash James all you may, but if God saw it fit, then so shall I. ")
@HoParoikos I'm not a KJV onlyist, however, there a myths and false claims about King James, such as James having a Homosexual lifestyle, that are totally erroneous and have been soundly put to rest by many.
@scmoG I agree with you. Rupert Murdock owns the copyright for the satanic bible as well as the niv. There is something wrong with that picture. Alot of bibles also have missing scriptures and I have a problem with that as well.
@tomopotamus If the scriptures were added, why would they be mentioned in other translations as footnotes? Why is the wording changed? Why do certain translations deny the trinity?
What about the fact that the copyright holder is the same fellow who owns Fox News and also the copyright to the Satanic Bible. I think there is more to it than meets the eye when it comes to new biblical translations and we have to beware.
@qbee2336 They're mentioned in footnotes because there are some LATE manuscripts that contain them. That way people can know. This is basic textual criticism.
The wording hasn't changed. The wording is put into modern English. You are aware that the KJV was written in English that was common at that time, right?
No translation denies the Trinity. You just heard that from some KJVO. I could even use the NWT and prove the Trinity.
@tomopotamus Rupert Murdock doesn't own the copyright to any Bible. Zondervan, who publishes the NIV, doesn't publish the Satanic Bible either. You just heard that from a KJVO and have run with it without researching.
Go to Zondervan's site and search for it. You won't find it.
Even if RM owned the copyright to the NIV, which you're implying, he doesn't own the copyright to all modern Bible translations. For example, the ESV.
@tomopotamus U r wrong. NIV is owned by Zondervan (check biblegateway site), Zondervan owned by Harper Collins, owned by Rupert Murdoch. On Amazon you'll see the last time the satanic bible was published, 1992, it was owned by Harper Collins. New Ager false prophet Rick warren is BFF/pastor of RM and publishes under Zondervan also. Anyone who thinks otherwise RESEARCH from biblegateway, Amazon, zondervan, and CNN sites. Zondervan also put out the TNIV, genderless bible. Imagine that.
@Cookie4XO I know the NIV is owned by Zondervan. Zondervan's ownership by Harper Collins doesn't mean that they own it since Zondervan is a subsidiarity of HarperCollins. That means that it's just a branch that sells specific things. Zondervan has it's own leadership and everything. Any person with half a brain would be able to see that Zondervan published the NIV BEFORE they were put under the HarperCollins umbrella.
@tomopotamus That doesn't change the facts, the Zondervan site says the NIV version changes all the time, whenever they feel like they need to update it apparently? But regardless, that doesn't have any weight on the fact that its wording has been changed to esoteric and occult wording.
@tomopotamus The wording HAS changed. I don't have to get my information from any one. I know how to read and comprehend what is being stated and the fact is, the wording is quite different in certain english translations.
@qbee2336 No, it's not. Just because different words are used doesn't mean the wording/meaning is any different. You're just buying into the neo-Gnostic KJVO propaganda.
@tomopotamus I John5:7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. (NIV) 7For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. (NASB) 7 So we have these three witnesses 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and all three agree. (NLT) 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood and these three are in agreement. (Holman)
@tomopotamus 7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. KJV
@qbee2336 he is wrong. NIV is owned by Zondervan (check biblegateway site), Zondervan owned by Harper Collins, owned by Rupert Murdoch. On Amazon you'll see the last time the satanic bible was published, 1992, it was owned by Harper Collins. New Ager false prophet Rick warren is BFF/pastor of RM and publishes under Zondervan also. Anyone who thinks otherwise RESEARCH from biblegateway, Amazon, zondervan, and CNN sites. Zondervan also put out the TNIV, genderless bible. Imagine that.
@Cookie4XO The TNIV isn't genderless. You don't know what you're talking about about. Do you even know what caused the ruckus about that translations? In the NT letters, where it says "brothers" they put "brothers and sisters" or something similar. That's what many PARAPHRASES do in order to clarify some meaning.
@tomopotamus If the roots of something are bad, that means the tree is bad, sometimes the sickness may take time to reach the branches...My heart aches for Christians that don't even ATTEMPT to think that some of these "modern" bible translations, pushed by one world religious "christians" could be misleading/deceptive on purpose. I'm no fear monger, or KJVO, but the sheep are truly asleep. The bible needed to be changed to include women bc we, women, thought God wasn't talking to us too? okay.
@tomopotamus The devil is in the details. You said they put "brothers and sisters" or something. Thats why Christians are so easily fooled they have no idea what's in these new bibles or why we need them. in the anti-christ TNIV "bible", Heb 2:6, "son of man" is changed to "human beings!". Since when was Jesus just a human being? This is blasphemy, right in someone's bible. This is new age, NWO, mystic talk. They thought Jesus was a human being, well apparently so do some Christians now. you?
@qbee2336 And you are right lol. there is more than meets the eye. I had a NKJV bible for 3 years and found out last year that it had an occult symbol on the front of it. why would someone put a "triquetra" on a bible? occultists have been using triquetra for years and even have jewelry made to look like the symbol. my soul and heart aches for people here arguing against these types of bibles. this is why the bible says even the "elect" will be fooled Matt 24:24. we must beware and be diligent
@tomopotamus Again, why would Christians be using the same symbols as the occult? I don't care what culture it came from. People in the occult, sadly, seem to be more educated on spirits than most Christians and they use amulets, symbols, signs, etc., to draw demonic spirits to them. So if someone deeply involved in the occult loves a triquetra bc it draws in demonic powers, it has no place on a bible. PERIOD. A symbol CANNOT lead you to Christ and satan. Or do you think otherwise?
@scmoG This argument that you're giving stems around the NIV. Zondervan publishes the NIV. Zondervan is a subsiderary of Harper Collins. In other words, it's a separate publishing branch under a larger umbrella. Harper Collins proper publishes the Satanic Bible. They also publish the KJV.
The KJV is Satanic I suppose?
Yes, Jesus spoke in parables. Strangely, those parables were in a language that the people could understand. Seventeenth century English isn't today's language.
@tomopotamus then explain why the NIV takes out many scripture and changed a lot of words, even to confuse people about Satan? Im sure you can look that up around here somewhere. Now, God gave us the language of english and thus made His word suitable for our language. If language was such a big deal, we would have been born speaking hebrew or greek as native tongue.
@scmoG The NIV takes out verses because they aren't original to the text. The NIV changes some words because the English language has changed. Conversation, for example, means something different today than it did in 1611.
The Greek and Hebrew are important because that's what the books were written in. If you want to catch all the nuances, then you need to read the original, just like with any translated text.
Indeed, God did have you and I born into places where English is spoken.
@tomopotamus And there are Bible translations to suit us. We shouldn't limit ourselves to a four hundred year old translation written in Old English though. The English language has evolved and changed since then. The translations that we read need to reflect that, or else our ability to understand the Scripture is hindered unless we have a KJV dictionary nearby.
Based on your logic, God has prepared translations not only for the English language, but also all others.
@tomopotamus There are also bible translations that seem to suit satan's agenda. example? I had a NKJV with a triquetra occult symbol on the front that I got from Barnes&Noble. the NIV as someone just defended says "As above, so below" if you research this term, it is a popular phrase used by high level satanist sex magician Aleister Crowley BEFORE the NIV. If you go to the av1611 org site you can see the problems with SOME of the newer versions that are hiding occult behind modernization.
@tomopotamus And don't get me wrong, I'm not here to argue or fight for with anyone for one version over another. I'm just saying I haven't seen ONE modern version that is without occult or esoteric symbolism and/or wording. I believe that this will help usher in the one world religion anti-christ agenda as people will open their "holy"bibles and find the same phrases as new age books, and then believe that maybe "we are all the same". A lil change here, a lil change there.
@tomopotamus There is nothing to say for people defending adding occult phrases/terms added to the new holy bible. If you think that's okay, well may God have mercy on your ignorance.
@scmoG One site you can use as reference is the av1611 org site that talks about errors in many newer translations including the NIV. i think that many are not aware of the enemies agenda to make Jesus just a man, and to make the world follow one religion to usher in the anti-christ which is what many of these newer bibles are helping to do. It is that 1% in the modern translations that will mislead people.
@Cookie4XO Please, please, please tell me the "errors" and differences in the modern translations.
Did it ever occur to you that the new translations are based on older texts than the KJV? (Which is based on a Greek text that had been back-translated from Latin!)
@tomopotamus I don't care WHAT they were based on. My point is once again Some new bible versions contain (1) famous occult/demonic symbols like triquetra (2) popular occult phrases coined by satanists such as Aleister Crowley "as above, so below" in reference to satan (3) make subtle changes to denounce Jesus' authority (4) use scriptures to refer to Jesus as just one of many gods, or a regular man. Whoever needs anything else, or loves these books, well you can't say someone didn't tell you.
@tomopotamus the only reason people can't understand the kjv, is more than likely due to the lack of the Holy Spirit or submission in letting It guide in reading.
@scmoG Hogwash. The KJV was translated four hundred years ago. There is a lot of archaic speech in it, including words that have changed definition. That is why people don't like it anymore.
Languages change and evolve. Thus, translations of ancient texts need to change as well.
@scmoG Thank God, you said lack of holy spirit. This is key! I am all for modernization if people are even simply not intelligent enough to understand the old versions, any of them, BUT when you have global bankers, clearly with anti-Christ agenda's controlling pretty much everything in America, do we really trust them to change our bible? Heck no. Anyway, anyone in tune w the Holy Spirit would hopefully not be here arguing for occult/new age bible/blasphemy filled bibles. *shrugs*
@tomopotamus This is a ridiculous argument as many publishers publish the KJV. Just because one, of many happens to be zondervan, that seems to just help in their deception for people fighting HARD FOR THE NIV.
What about the Tyndale translation? I never hear anyone debating this version vs. the KJV... yet in the Tyndale NT he uses congregation and assembly to describe God's Eclesia while the KJV uses church. Why does the KJV utilize church rather than assembly or congregation which is a direct translation of eclesia?
Personally, I think it's a good idea to be familiar with many different verisons of the Bible. Get familiar with words studies of Hebrew and Greek in Bible scripture. And if there is anything you are uncertain of or is confusing you, as God to make it clear.
i bought a 1611 at books a million its quite intresting. the translators even agree that they wernt infailable its one one of teh opening pages.
and most if not all dont read the 1611, they read one of the many translations that came after, the oxford 1675, cambridge 1628, which differ from there beloved 1611
@briancostello1980 Of course, they don't care what the original KJV translators said. They'd still say that they were being guided by the Spirit. If they don't, and listen to the translators, their myth falls apart.
A thing I love about this silly movement is that the adherents tend to be vehemently anti-Calvinist. As fate would have it, the KJV translators were mostly Calvinists!
The KJV Only position is silly. It shows much of their ignorance too. They will usually say that every language has a translation that God has preserved as the translation for that language. Of course, chances are they haven't taken the time to actually look at the other translations! For example, they will usually say that, for example, in German, the preserved translation is the Luther 1545; without realizing that in several places, it says something different than the 1611 KJV!
Oxford University Press Worlds Classics - The Bible; Authorised KJV with Apocrypha.
It has an introduction (and notes) by Robert Carroll and Stephen Prickett. The intro discusses some these issues and the differences between the Old Testament and the Torah, as well as the Bibles influence on Western culture / language.
what q
ray0991 1 day ago
Don't you just love it when your preacher is reciting a verse and there's 20 people shaking their heads in the pews because they all have variant readings? I think this is the biggest issue, we do need a standard.
cocoonbreach 1 day ago
Wescott and Hort were both Jesuit's posing as Protestants to get the versions accepted...The Sea Beast will go to extraordinary lengths to destroy Protestantism and corrupt the Word with false doctrines...See the documentaries by Walter Veith, "Battle of the Bibles"
phillipsos 1 month ago
Hort wrote that Eden probably never existed. Is this someone who is qualified to criticize the word of the living God?
TheChaseair 1 month ago
there is only one god and one truth one holy spirit who teaches us all 5 christians who go to heaven 5 who dont the oil in the lamps is truth people you are devided one has the truth of the spirit and will enter the rest and the other will not there is only one word of god
johninitforfun 1 month ago
2 Th 2:10 (KJB)
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
Along with all the signs and wonders of the false gospels come the fact that their deceit leads or lets them continue on in unrighteousness. They will continue to sin against the Lord, whether it will be sins of pleasure or sins of religion where they make up their own rules and reject the teachings of the Lord. delusion is newbibles
johninitforfun 1 month ago
James white looks like David cross
MrPaulwalrus 1 month ago
The moderator in this one seemed to believe in evolution in another debate. Were wescott and hort really Christians?
TheChaseair 1 month ago
@TheChaseair Read my comments at the end of the video for your answer. I don't think Ankerberg believes in evolution either.
KeithTruth 1 month ago
@TheChaseair No they were not Christians, They were Jesuit infiltrators...see the Walter Veith vid series "Battle of the Bibles"....
phillipsos 1 month ago
I DIDNT KNOW THAT GAIL R. IS SUCH HATE MONGER TO SPREAD LIES ABOUT WESTCOTT/HORT-IN THE MEDIAVAL AGE WE WOULD HAVE PUT SUCH PEOPLE ON THE STAKE. TO ACCUSE MEN FALSELY OF SPRIRITISM IS WORTH PUTING SUCH A WITCH ON THE STAKE.
Ni1234ckA 2 months ago
@samuelamos1
PS: I very much doubt your Bible is in fact a 1611 King James Bible at all. Its far more likely that your Bible is a 1769 Blaney edition.
Keruaran 4 months ago
@samuelamos1
"This can be seen in the agreement of 95% of GK MSS, The discovery of the dead sea scrolls, the waldensian Bible, the Erasmus Text and finally, in the Bibles of the Reformation."
The purity of Greek manuscripts is more like 98%. And if you're talking about Greek manuscripts, this is not addressed by the Dead Sea Scrolls which do not contain any New Testament material. I could go on but responding to KJVonlyists peddling the same ignorance they always have gets so very tiresome.
Keruaran 4 months ago
@samuelamos1
"God promised to preserve His word, Psalm12:6&7"
That is a misreading of the text which I'm sure you well know and have been corrected on before. You know better, yet you continue to peddle this failed argument. Yet even if we took this argument at face value, even with textual variants the text of scripture has been preserved with a purity *greater* than that of pure refined silver. This argument, so often repeated by KJVonlyists, fails on every level.
Keruaran 4 months ago
@Keruaran Who said I was a King James Onlyist?
samuelamos1 4 months ago
@samuelamos1
"the vile westcott/hort text"
You are unqualified to judge the Westcott & Hort text, as are your sources of information. Furthermore, nobody uses Westcott & Hort, and nobody has done so for a very, very long time. Textual criticism has moved on quite a bit since the 1900's, you should too.
Keruaran 4 months ago
@samuelamos1
"all that I have to choose from are irreverent concoctions of degenerate english"
What exactly do you mean by "degenerate" English? Because I don't know anyone in their right mind who might describe the literary quality of the ESV for example as "degenerate" English. And what is "irreverent" about a translation like the ESV?
Keruaran 4 months ago
@samuelamos1
"If someone could produce an acceptable modern translation then perhaps I would not be so fond of my 1611"
What constitutes an "acceptable" modern translation in the view of someone like yourself who has obviously bought into the conspiracy theories, misrepresentations and flat out lies of the Gail Riplingers of this world?
Keruaran 4 months ago
@samuelamos1 Do you actually use a 1611?
metanoeo1 4 months ago
@metanoeo1 Yes.
samuelamos1 4 months ago
@samuelamos1 I don't mean a revised version, I mean an authentic 1611 KJV.
metanoeo1 4 months ago
@metanoeo1 Yes, I use a 1611 facsimile as well as the revised 1611. I also use the 1599 Geneva and Tyndales' NT. All of these reformation era translations are in perfectly understandable english so long as one is willing to expand his vocabulary.
samuelamos1 4 months ago
@samuelamos1 I challenge you to make a video reading the 1611 facsimile rendering of John chapters 1-3. Not an internet version but from a physical copy. Will you?
KeithTruth 4 months ago
@KeithTruth No, thank you.Reading from the 1611 is within the ability of almost anyone, given some practice. I do not believe that you would request this unless there was an ulterior motive. Perhaps some variant reading between the 1611 and later editions that you would like to point out. Furthermore I don't know what it would prove in any case because the Gothic type and spelling were revised long ago and have no bearing on the present issues.
samuelamos1 4 months ago
@samuelamos1 There is most definitely different readings of every chapter of the Bible in respect to the 1611 facsimile, 1599 Geneva Bible and Tydale's, of course. But that was not my motive. I just want to see if you could actually read it since it is very difficult as you said without some (I would say quite a bit) of practice. I feel you may be trying to save face since someone pointed out the varying editions of the 1611 which KJV Onlyists don't often consider when arguing for their position
KeithTruth 4 months ago
@KeithTruth I apologize for my harsh initial reaction. I am able to read a true 1611. I can't say that I do not stumble on the occasional word, but it's not a different language. As for being a KJonlyist, I don't think I've ever labeled myself one. As a general rule I don't trust much of anything translated after the mid 1800's.I've considered all of the arguments.Many assertions on both sides are false. My reasons for supporting the KJV really can't be expressed in 500 letters. cont.
samuelamos1 4 months ago
But to summarize, I would say that I do not trust the Alexandrian text. That is a tremendous oversimplification but it's difficult to discuss anything in depth in this forum.On a lighter note, Iv'e seen a few of your documentaries and I must say that I agree with you completely concerning the direction our world is headed.I am an Army veteran who signed up to fight terrorism. What a joke. People need to wake up. Christians need to wake up. I believe we are witnessing 2Thess.2:11
samuelamos1 4 months ago
@samuelamos1 Well despite our differences on that issue I consider you my brother, of course. God bless you.
KeithTruth 4 months ago
@KeithTruth I would also like to clarify something. In answering a previous post I said that I used a 1611. While this is true, my primary Bible is a revised, commonly available, 1611. I Own and read a few reformation era translations for comparison. I'm sorry if I confused anyone. Perhaps that is why you challenged me. No hard feelings:+]
samuelamos1 4 months ago
@samuelamos1 I've contemplated whether or not to respond to this and I believe I will. The idea that "all of these reformation era translations are in perfectly understandable english so long as one is willing to expand his vocabulary" flies in the face of the original text. The NT was written in koine Greek, which was common, everyday Greek not some lofty, "spiritual" sounding language. The idea seems to have been that ANYONE who could read the COMMON LANGUAGE could benefit.
metanoeo1 3 months ago
@metanoeo1 After the NT was penned in Greek it was then translated into many languages such as Latin,Gothic,Coptic,Syriac,ect. Still,few people had a complete Bible and very few people had one of their own.Once the RRC declared unlawful all translation work into the vernacular,Europe entered spiritual darkness;if you wanted to read the scriptures you had to learn Latin. This all changed in the 1500's w/the Erasmus Greek Text, and godly men willing to translate it. Cont.
samuelamos1 3 months ago
@metanoeo1 Tyndale translated the NT into English.Future English translations relied heavily on his trans.In 1611 the English of the Bible was already antiquated;the "thees&thous"signifying the difference between the singular and plural "you".Because of this unique grammar,and because the translators used the TR vs the CT of modern versions, the AV is the most accurate Christ honoring Bible that you can own in English. And that is reason enough for me to expand my vocabulary. Cont.
samuelamos1 3 months ago
@metanoeo1Christians have not always had the luxury of having a Bible in their own language. We are fortunate as English speakers to have such an accurate one in the KJV. If someone has difficulty adjusting to the classical English they can use an updated King James 2000. This is a far better alternative to using an Alexandrian corruption.
samuelamos1 3 months ago
@samuelamos1 I love how KJV onlyists speak of an "Alexandrian corruption" with no proof that anything was corrupted. It just doesn't fit their idea, so they assume the Alexandrian texts must have been corrupted. Even though the Alexandrian texts have been proven to be earlier than most of what was used for the KJV translation. Facts, reality and truth have little to do with the KJV only argument. Conjecture, myth and postulation are huge parts of the KJV only argument.
metanoeo1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@metanoeo1
After spouting nothing but pure KJVonlyist garbage for several posts he'll then waste your time with something completely inane and stupid like, "Who said I was a King James Onlyist?". He's not worth responding to.
Keruaran 3 months ago
Wow! Just look at a younger James White...I almost didn't recognize him.
godswordsheal 4 months ago
Anyone sided w/ White is to be viewed skeptically. White is a religious politician & half a heretick.
filoIII 4 months ago
The writers of the King James themselves can't convince the Kings James Only people. You just can't reason with them.
patrckhh20 5 months ago
I am what you would call a "KJV Onlyist" ("isms" ugly cousin). I definitely prefer the KJV, but I dont shun or alienate people who read other Bibles. And i'm not going to study any Greek. I believe that the Word of God is supposed to be accessible. You shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get a full understanding of anything.
And if anyone is doing the shunning it is definitely those who believe the opposite of what I just said.
JudgeEden 6 months ago
I am so sick and tired of the "isms" in Christianity. Why is it something widely regarded as truth doesn't have an "ism"? Torturism is widely popular.
What is "Torturism"? It is a term I coined for the false doctrine of Eternal Torment. What about Rapturism?
These are nothing but falsities that need to be abandoned.
JudgeEden 6 months ago
@JudgeEden Torturism is the term for a supposed false doctrine of eternal torment? Actually that is the orthodox view the church has always taught. The alternative, universalism, or annihilationism, is later and heretical, unbiblical and based on emotionalism. Don't be hypocritical and hold to all these isms in your denial of the doctrine of hell. Pick up Dr. Morey's book "Death and the Afterlife" the finest scholarly work on this subject. Case for eternal hell and rebuttal of alternative views.
KeithTruth 6 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 7 months ago
Comment removed
Flaffification 9 months ago
@Flaffification
Complete red herring argument...what does that have to do with anything?
crawforda1769 8 months ago
The King James Bible possesses numerous drawbacks and shortcomings, being an antiquated 400-year-old Anglican translation which utilizes Elizabethan prose and is completely disconnected from contemporary English-speaking laypeople, incorporating multitudinous Medieval-period archaisms, translational errata, archaic phraseology, translational inconsistencies, and unjustifiable omissions. Its Shakespearean-like constructions and terminologies are outdated, cumbersome, and unforgivable.
HeroOfChristArchives 1 year ago
Through my research I have come to believe that the Greek manuscripts are translated from the Aramaic peshitta. Not just the four gospels but also the epitles. And so I don not believe the NT was written in Greek at all. Unfortunately not many people study the Aramaic texts, which I think would end all this quarrel about the Greek variations. For those interested, av good book about this is ''Ruach Qadim'' by Andrew Gabriel Roth. But beware of his heretical theology, use discernment.
selviskk 1 year ago
@selviskk very interesting, i've never heard that before I'll have to look it up. thanks for the info!
Cookie4XO 1 year ago
@Cookie4XO Make sure to also check out aramaicntDOTcom
take care friend God bless!
selviskk 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Knowledge = POWER, Power = KNOWLEDGE... Curious? Please Visit: kip6.blogspot.com
007thebold 1 year ago
don't they have to significantly change things enough form the originals in order to copyright them in the first place? Whatever stand you take with bibles the fact is on the pages the newer translations have verses left out and words
MsCread 1 year ago
what about the book of Isaiah form the dead sea scrolls which matches the 1611 KJV and no other translation?
MsCread 1 year ago
Does not scripture state that the spirit of G-d will guide you into all truth? If we are not led by the spirit & given understanding by HIM, then we are practicing dead religion. 2 Cor 3:6 There is no life in dead religion for from Gen-Rev it is all about Relationship. We are to avoid foolish, ignorant arguments that breed quarrels & cause division. 2 Tim 2:23
That stated, thank you for the post. There are "errors" in all the texts, but the biggest errors comes from our personal bias & pride
notyranny1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's virtually impossible to trace back how the Bible was compiled, since there are way too many manuscripts. There are good translations and some are not so good. If an honest person seeks for God, he will find God, no matter if it's the NIV, ESV, RSV, KJV or whatever.
Personally I recommend the KJV or NKJV, because of it's language and accuracy. But I don't have problems reading other Bible versions.
Switchblade84 1 year ago
The Word of God is not to be found in any book, text or scripture, there is no such thing! but is only to be found in Gods-Heart of your Soul.
ase010 1 year ago
@ase010 Is their a standard of morality?
notyranny1 1 year ago
KJV onlyists always seem to be very radical, way to fanatical IMO.
SolaScriptura21 1 year ago
@SolaScriptura21 I agree with you totally.
tomopotamus 1 year ago
@SolaScriptura21 Many Christians are too deep in a sleep to know why in 2011, many are speaking not "only for KJV", but against specific bibles like the NIV or NKJV. There may be tons of correct versions, but there are new versions that are heretic, blasphemous, misleading, and anti-christ. We are living in a time where you can no longer trust a bible just because it says "bible" on the cover. I wish that it were not so, but what better way to kill a Christian, than with their own book?
Cookie4XO 1 year ago
@Cookie4XO -----Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The unique God, who is close to the Father's side, has revealed him. <-----so you consider this a heretical to say, since, you claim the bibles are heretical
SolaScriptura21 1 year ago
@SolaScriptura21 I'm not sure what you mean or what that has to do with some bibles changing the words and turning the verse into a heretic verses. I didn't see ALL the verses were heretic? but regardless, I'm not sure if that's where you were going.
Cookie4XO 1 year ago
@Cookie4XO i kinda figured that would happen since i did not fully explain, ok, i ASSUME you are KJV onlyist, well, as you saw in the "heretical" versions as you say, in john 1:18 it reads as calling Christ GOD, flat out, BUT in the KJV it DOES NOT call Him God, but rather the son of God in Verse 18, so whats a better reading, and, by your defenition, the reading of John 1:18 taht calls Christ God is HERETICAL.
SolaScriptura21 1 year ago
@SolaScriptura21 I'm no KJVO nor KJV scholar. What I know, is that the NIV and NKJV, rather cover or certain verses, contain occult symbolism. That's all, and that is what I have researched. I have no argument for/against the KJV. one "accurate" scripture in NIV/NKJV is not going to make me read a bible that has occult symbols and Aleister Crowley phrases. i dont believe every verse is wrong in them. U cant fool people if you tell 100% lies, 99%truth/1% lie is much easier.
Cookie4XO 1 year ago
@Cookie4XO i never said the NIV is 100% accurate, but verses like i have shown are translated better other versions, what exactly dont you like about them? details.
SolaScriptura21 1 year ago
@SolaScriptura21 the NIV is purposely wrong, not just 100% not accurate. I'm not talking about misinterpretations, I'm talking about what looks more like purposeful deceit if you know the one world religion plan of satan to usher in the anti christ. anyway, google "av1611 NIV" "av1611 NKJV" and "jesus is savior niv why" to start. the first results have a lot of the info without me bogging down the comments because I already have like 20 posts here saying why they are meant to mislead.
Cookie4XO 1 year ago
@SolaScriptura21 also look up the "triquetra" found on the cover of the NKJV how it's used by satanists n occultists to draw demonic spirits. they wear it on shirts, jewelry and tattoos. certain "Christians" claim it's a trinity symbol, but since when does satan share ANY symbol with the Heavenly father? That should not make sense to any Christian or pagan. It's not like the NEW KJV printers didn't know that beforehand so why put it on God's word? its NEW! might as well be a baphomet.
Cookie4XO 1 year ago
@Cookie4XO I have a nkjv and it does not have that on it, symbolism is interesting, occultists, pagans have taken every symbol, and every shape and turned the meaning into something dark, the rose for example is used, animals are used.
SolaScriptura21 1 year ago
@SolaScriptura21 but a rose is a rose regardless of what it symbolizes for someone, it's still a flower. A triquetra has no place in Christ, it is a confusing symbol at the least so why use it on a bible cover when satanists love it? A satanist standing next to a Christian should not have such commonalities. You should educate yourself on esoteric symbols, they carry spiritual power. Christians who have no problem with it? That's on them and their children. May God have mercy on the ignorant.
Cookie4XO 1 year ago
@Cookie4XO you said "a rose is a rose regardless of it symbolizes" and i say the same to you, this triquetra is simply some shapes, circles, triangles ovals, etc. My God is above some simple shapes, they do not scare me at all, i am away of esoteric meanins of shapes, but regardless, THEY ARE JUST SHAPES, and will only harm you IF you let them, you focus to much on the "satanic" meaning of things, they give a satanic meaning to roses as i said, are we affraid of them now?
SolaScriptura21 1 year ago
@SolaScriptura21 It's obvious you know nothing of demonic connections with signs, symbols, and objects, and I'm at a loss for words. Objects, signs, people, even music can have demons attached to them, a Christian who doesn't know this is like a soldier who doesn't know they need armor on before a war. Unfortunately this high level of ignorance of demonic power and association is why the Christian church is a mockery today. It's sheep have no idea the wolf is already in the house.
Cookie4XO 1 year ago
@Cookie4XO i am actually well aware of all you mentioned, but my statement STILL stands against you, my God is much greater then a triangle and some circles, maybe you need to have more faith in Christ instead of having so much fear for that which can only destroy the body.
SolaScriptura21 1 year ago
@SolaScriptura21 God is definitely greater, but that is off topic and not worth addressing. The most ignorant Christian with the greatest faith and beliefs, can still have an object in his/her possession that opens up a window for demonic forces to negatively effect their life. being educated is not being fearful. Example? signs/symbols on Ouja boards r used to summon demons. Any well meaning unafraid, believing Christian that has one, can have a demonic window opened. I have seen it happen.
Cookie4XO 1 year ago
@Cookie4XO it doesn't mean that God's power is not greater and can't cast it out , because it can, or that Christians being aware of demonic attachment to a certain item/activity is fear. It is not. However, just because one is God loving, that doesn't close all the doors to demonic activity. You can keep casting them out, but if there is a demon attached to something you don't want to get rid of (object/activity) they will keep coming back and this doesn't negate God's infinite power.
Cookie4XO 1 year ago
@Cookie4XO Oh, i see, you are saying that since there is a triangle and some oval shapes on a bible, this means that Christians are summoning demons with these shapes into the bible or into themselves?
SolaScriptura21 1 year ago
@SolaScriptura21 I dont know of any triangle or oval shapes on any bible. and if you want to know what a symbol means to someone using it, like a satanist, all you have to do is google it. the satanists will tell you what the symbol means, what demonic spirits are drawn to it, etc., don't ask me because I don't have any bible with any symbol on it anymore.
Cookie4XO 1 year ago
@Cookie4XO So you are saying that satanists will buy bibles that have certain symbols on them so they can summon demons with them?
SolaScriptura21 1 year ago
@SolaScriptura21 I'm saying that if the door to something has a sign on it, that's a pretty good idea whats inside. The cover of a book is the same as a door. we can both think of many Christian symbols that aren't used by the occult, that people don't have to look up the meaning, that could've been used or no weird symbol at all. even if some think it means something holy, since satanists are using it why not just avoid confusion? at the least it is confusing, God is not the author of that.
Cookie4XO 1 year ago
@Cookie4XO First assumption and your weakness, you believe that God does not have power over this triangle with oval shapes, second, you assume that God would allow His Word to have demons abide in it due to some shapes, your weakness, is your lake of faith and trust in God, i do not promote the use of symbols, but i KNOW i can pick up a nkjv with a triangle and ovals on it and NOT become demon posessed, YHWH protects me, i have HIS armor on. Name 1 Christian symble-------------cont.
SolaScriptura21 1 year ago
@SolaScriptura21 Possessed? I never said that, you're exaggerating. if u ask pastors who cast out demons, rather becoming saved, simply prevents the demons from coming back if they still have these things that attract demons in their lives, they will all tell you no. look at the YT vid on Roger Morneau, former Illuminati, that is what happened to him. he had literature/pamphlets in his home after studying the Bible and being saved that still allowed demons an open window to attack him.
Cookie4XO 1 year ago
@SolaScriptura21 no christian symbols are used exactly the same way as in the occult. for example, if the occult used a cross, they would turn it upside down or add things to it or around it, you don't see satanist's wearing a plain cross as found on bibles. but anyway, staying focused on the triquetra. i never said people become possessed by picking up bibles with symbols.
Cookie4XO 1 year ago
@Cookie4XO ---------------cont. that is NOT used by the occult or paganism?
SolaScriptura21 1 year ago
@SolaScriptura21 But anyway, you're just repeating yourself you say: God is bigger than demonic signs and symbols (me: yes) and Christians can have them in their possession and nothing will happen to them no matter what as long as they believe in God and pray (me: no) and that anyone who doesn't believe this is scared and faithless (me:no). We can just agree to disagree I'm not going to bog down this vid w more comments than necessary.
Cookie4XO 1 year ago
@Cookie4XO on a side note, aramaicnt . com is an awesome website, if you enjoy it, also check out aent . org. Ok, here is a question, if i draw certain shapes, and it resembles a demonic symbol, will the object i have drawn on automatically be filled with demons? Also, i said, Gods elect, he WILL protect no matter what, so if they have in their hands a paper, a book, w/e it is and it has some shapes drawn on it, i HAVE FAITH that God will not let this symbol harm me in any way.---------cont
SolaScriptura21 1 year ago
@Cookie4XO -------cont. I have never said anyone that does NOT believe this is scared, and FAITHLESS, but i believe they LACK faith in God, what can harm US if we adorn the armor of God? Maybe if you forgot partts of your armor you ahve reason to worry? I also prefer to NOT have symbols on my bibles, but i think we become a little to fanatical when we start saying that a bible that has asymbols on it is a demonic bible.
SolaScriptura21 1 year ago
Not a very animated debate but I think it is appropriate, God Bless
icoson 1 year ago
Nice clip
ShalimJacob 1 year ago
The real argument on this issue is wether we can trust manuscripts that originate from the school of Alexandria, at the time the occult centre of the world. That can only be the place where this argument starts.
Amarx00 1 year ago
@Amarx00 I don't see any evidence of occultism bleeding into the alexandrian Christian texts. The Greek for the newer translations is not even based only on Alexandrian texts. Plus the great Trinitarian defender of the Trinity who stood against the Bishop of Rome when he sided with arianism, Athenasius (4th century) was Bishop of Alexandria Egypt. He was not evil but was a solid Christian who sided with Scripture against Rome. I think its unfair to say because something is from Egypt it is evil
KeithTruth 1 year ago
@KeithTruth Kent Hovind commented on the Alexandrian texts. I only remember that he strongly denounced them and he compared them to Jehovah's Witnesses.
CombatBabylon 1 year ago
@CombatBabylon There is a refutation of Hovinds arguments against those texts:
watch?v=-r7ZsUBn9nQ
KeithTruth 1 year ago
@KeithTruth
You also have to remember that the Illuminati has infiltrated the churches. NIV has occult symbolism in it.
TheIsraelite7777 1 year ago
@KeithTruth
Keith, The KJV is the only version that should be trusted. NIV has a dark history. Very dark. Not to mention, when someone translates the KJV bible, they change stuff. That means, people could make it mean what they want it to mean. Learn to read a KJV bible. I learned how in 6 months. KJV was a direct translation from Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic to English.
TheIsraelite7777 1 year ago
@Amarx00 Asia minor had many mystery schools. Should we trust the Majority Text since it came from Asia Minor?
tomopotamus 1 year ago
@tomopotamus
No we trust the majority texts as they support wholey the Antioch stream... But you know out of respect for Keith I will have to look into this further, so I will be back with my findings..
Amarx00 1 year ago
@Amarx00 You don't have to look further than the Bible to see that there were cult schools in Asia minor.
They would have been all around the Roman Empire because the major religion during those times was Greco-Roman polytheism.
tomopotamus 1 year ago
@tomopotamus
Yes but that argument would work just as well for a KJV onlyist who accociates the Libary of Alexandria with the occult! Sorry im just interested in evidence. And if 98% o the recovered manuscripts support the Antioch stream, then this video and/or people like you appear to be sidestepping the issue!
I'm looking into this right now, as I said!
Amarx00 1 year ago
@Amarx00 The number of manuscripts don't really bear much weight in my mind considering that they are younger. I understand that that argument works for the KJVO position. I was just showing tha tit works both ways. It's not a really good argument in favor of a KJVO position.
If we find older manuscripts those are probably closer to the original.
BTW, it's not called the Antioch stream. It's the Byzantine text type.
tomopotamus 1 year ago
This is a strange video and I would say that these guys cannot argue the point, at 8:30 the guy describes wescott and hort as "fine christian men" and I loled as after he said it he look around like, is anyone going to say anything? But they let him get away with it. Keith with respect I am prepared to listen, but dont make this mistake of attacking Riplinger to change peoples minds, as there are alot of people out there making the actual points.
Amarx00 1 year ago
@Amarx00 What was wrong with Westcott and Hort? Did you see the end of the video where I clarified that issue?
KeithTruth 1 year ago
@KeithTruth wrote: "What was wrong with Westcott and Hort?"
Research here: "Dr. Burgon was contemporary with Westcott and Hort. He was an advocate of the Textus Receptus and was the nemesis of Westcott and Hort's feeble arguments against it. He believed, unlike Westcott and Hort, in basing all conclusions on the solid foundation of facts rather than the sand of theory."
Before arguing in favor of W&H one should read Dean Burgon as he was in the middle of the controversy and defending it.
covenantervoice 1 year ago
@KeithTruth
First I have heard about that, so I'll check it out! Anywhere you suggest?
Amarx00 1 year ago
@Amarx00
Westcott and Hort were neo-Plationists. Hort was a student of F.D. Maurice,(aka, Frederick Denison) in fact, Maurice was his mentor. Maurice was a Unitarian and Univeralist. See he work by Waite, 'Heresies of Westcott and Hort'. For the historical background of the movement to get rid of the KJB and the TR (which Hort called 'vile)
see While Men Slept, A Biblical and Historical Account of the New Universal Christianty, by Kerby F. Fannin.
I have a video recommending the work.
edwardpf123 1 year ago
Keith, though I usually agree with you, this time I do not.
I wonder how you feel about the tract (by Bill Schnoebelen) you can find here: (add prefix world wide web and slashes) withoneaccord org assets images freedownloads Whatslurking
I think this message is valid and should be taken into consideration!! Please let me know your thoughts.
fluweel2 1 year ago
@fluweel2 Schnoebelen? You mean the man who claimed to be a vampire in the illuminati and who is now into messianic judaism? Don't be misled. Here is a refutation of his KJV Only arguments:
vintage (dot) aomin (dot) org / Schnoebelen (dot) html
KeithTruth 1 year ago
@KeithTruth Schnoebelen's word (Regardless how crazy his life story is) Is pretty accurate with masonry and Wicca. As an apologist who focuses on the occult.
Next KJO is Very Different from KJP. KJO is the believe that every other bible is satanic and is impossible or harder to get saved. But Most people who are KJO are actually KJP(King James preferred) who say it is the best translation in modern English (Due to divine reasons from God)
Onetruthrgv 1 year ago
Comment removed
fluweel2 1 year ago
I used to be on the KJV onlyism bandwagon.I thank you for this video and praise God for the truth.
GodLovesUs100 1 year ago
@GodLovesUs100 Just please do not jump on the NIV or NKJV bandwagon.
Cookie4XO 1 year ago
I can't speak for everyone, but a lot of bibles (not kjv) were published by the same company the produced the satanic bible and that doesn't sit with me at all. Many people that don't read kjv, claim to not understand it so they go to something easier...but didnt God speak in parables? The bible is a parable within parables. Marinade on that, because if you can't understand parables, then what is going on?
scmoG 1 year ago 2
@scmoG Are you are aware of what kind of person King James was and what he believed?
HoParoikos 1 year ago
@HoParoikos that's what a lot of people say/ask, but as a follower of Christ, I have utmost faith in God and His word .....not to mention that He has power over His own word and what is in it. Bash James all you may, but if God saw it fit, then so shall I. ")
scmoG 1 year ago
@HoParoikos I'm not a KJV onlyist, however, there a myths and false claims about King James, such as James having a Homosexual lifestyle, that are totally erroneous and have been soundly put to rest by many.
JP12akacoil 1 year ago
@scmoG I agree with you. Rupert Murdock owns the copyright for the satanic bible as well as the niv. There is something wrong with that picture. Alot of bibles also have missing scriptures and I have a problem with that as well.
qbee2336 1 year ago 2
@qbee2336 Perhaps those "missing Scriptures" were actually added.
tomopotamus 1 year ago
@tomopotamus If the scriptures were added, why would they be mentioned in other translations as footnotes? Why is the wording changed? Why do certain translations deny the trinity?
What about the fact that the copyright holder is the same fellow who owns Fox News and also the copyright to the Satanic Bible. I think there is more to it than meets the eye when it comes to new biblical translations and we have to beware.
qbee2336 1 year ago
@qbee2336 They're mentioned in footnotes because there are some LATE manuscripts that contain them. That way people can know. This is basic textual criticism.
The wording hasn't changed. The wording is put into modern English. You are aware that the KJV was written in English that was common at that time, right?
No translation denies the Trinity. You just heard that from some KJVO. I could even use the NWT and prove the Trinity.
tomopotamus 1 year ago
@tomopotamus Rupert Murdock doesn't own the copyright to any Bible. Zondervan, who publishes the NIV, doesn't publish the Satanic Bible either. You just heard that from a KJVO and have run with it without researching.
Go to Zondervan's site and search for it. You won't find it.
Even if RM owned the copyright to the NIV, which you're implying, he doesn't own the copyright to all modern Bible translations. For example, the ESV.
tomopotamus 1 year ago
@tomopotamus U r wrong. NIV is owned by Zondervan (check biblegateway site), Zondervan owned by Harper Collins, owned by Rupert Murdoch. On Amazon you'll see the last time the satanic bible was published, 1992, it was owned by Harper Collins. New Ager false prophet Rick warren is BFF/pastor of RM and publishes under Zondervan also. Anyone who thinks otherwise RESEARCH from biblegateway, Amazon, zondervan, and CNN sites. Zondervan also put out the TNIV, genderless bible. Imagine that.
Cookie4XO 1 year ago
@Cookie4XO I know the NIV is owned by Zondervan. Zondervan's ownership by Harper Collins doesn't mean that they own it since Zondervan is a subsidiarity of HarperCollins. That means that it's just a branch that sells specific things. Zondervan has it's own leadership and everything. Any person with half a brain would be able to see that Zondervan published the NIV BEFORE they were put under the HarperCollins umbrella.
tomopotamus 1 year ago
@tomopotamus That doesn't change the facts, the Zondervan site says the NIV version changes all the time, whenever they feel like they need to update it apparently? But regardless, that doesn't have any weight on the fact that its wording has been changed to esoteric and occult wording.
Cookie4XO 1 year ago
@tomopotamus The wording HAS changed. I don't have to get my information from any one. I know how to read and comprehend what is being stated and the fact is, the wording is quite different in certain english translations.
qbee2336 1 year ago
@qbee2336 No, it's not. Just because different words are used doesn't mean the wording/meaning is any different. You're just buying into the neo-Gnostic KJVO propaganda.
tomopotamus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tomopotamus I John5:7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. (NIV) 7For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. (NASB) 7 So we have these three witnesses 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and all three agree. (NLT) 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood and these three are in agreement. (Holman)
qbee2336 1 year ago
@tomopotamus 7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. KJV
qbee2336 1 year ago
@qbee2336 Oh the Comma Johannium. Do some research and you would see that NT scholars know when that verse was ADDED to the Scripture.
tomopotamus 1 year ago
@qbee2336 he is wrong. NIV is owned by Zondervan (check biblegateway site), Zondervan owned by Harper Collins, owned by Rupert Murdoch. On Amazon you'll see the last time the satanic bible was published, 1992, it was owned by Harper Collins. New Ager false prophet Rick warren is BFF/pastor of RM and publishes under Zondervan also. Anyone who thinks otherwise RESEARCH from biblegateway, Amazon, zondervan, and CNN sites. Zondervan also put out the TNIV, genderless bible. Imagine that.
Cookie4XO 1 year ago
@Cookie4XO The TNIV isn't genderless. You don't know what you're talking about about. Do you even know what caused the ruckus about that translations? In the NT letters, where it says "brothers" they put "brothers and sisters" or something similar. That's what many PARAPHRASES do in order to clarify some meaning.
tomopotamus 1 year ago
@tomopotamus If the roots of something are bad, that means the tree is bad, sometimes the sickness may take time to reach the branches...My heart aches for Christians that don't even ATTEMPT to think that some of these "modern" bible translations, pushed by one world religious "christians" could be misleading/deceptive on purpose. I'm no fear monger, or KJVO, but the sheep are truly asleep. The bible needed to be changed to include women bc we, women, thought God wasn't talking to us too? okay.
Cookie4XO 1 year ago
@tomopotamus The devil is in the details. You said they put "brothers and sisters" or something. Thats why Christians are so easily fooled they have no idea what's in these new bibles or why we need them. in the anti-christ TNIV "bible", Heb 2:6, "son of man" is changed to "human beings!". Since when was Jesus just a human being? This is blasphemy, right in someone's bible. This is new age, NWO, mystic talk. They thought Jesus was a human being, well apparently so do some Christians now. you?
Cookie4XO 1 year ago
@qbee2336 And you are right lol. there is more than meets the eye. I had a NKJV bible for 3 years and found out last year that it had an occult symbol on the front of it. why would someone put a "triquetra" on a bible? occultists have been using triquetra for years and even have jewelry made to look like the symbol. my soul and heart aches for people here arguing against these types of bibles. this is why the bible says even the "elect" will be fooled Matt 24:24. we must beware and be diligent
Cookie4XO 1 year ago
@Cookie4XO The triquetra has been used as a symbol for the trinity for centuries. It comes from the Irish culture.
You're being told incomplete half "truths".
tomopotamus 1 year ago
@tomopotamus Again, why would Christians be using the same symbols as the occult? I don't care what culture it came from. People in the occult, sadly, seem to be more educated on spirits than most Christians and they use amulets, symbols, signs, etc., to draw demonic spirits to them. So if someone deeply involved in the occult loves a triquetra bc it draws in demonic powers, it has no place on a bible. PERIOD. A symbol CANNOT lead you to Christ and satan. Or do you think otherwise?
Cookie4XO 1 year ago
@scmoG This argument that you're giving stems around the NIV. Zondervan publishes the NIV. Zondervan is a subsiderary of Harper Collins. In other words, it's a separate publishing branch under a larger umbrella. Harper Collins proper publishes the Satanic Bible. They also publish the KJV.
The KJV is Satanic I suppose?
Yes, Jesus spoke in parables. Strangely, those parables were in a language that the people could understand. Seventeenth century English isn't today's language.
tomopotamus 1 year ago
@tomopotamus then explain why the NIV takes out many scripture and changed a lot of words, even to confuse people about Satan? Im sure you can look that up around here somewhere. Now, God gave us the language of english and thus made His word suitable for our language. If language was such a big deal, we would have been born speaking hebrew or greek as native tongue.
scmoG 1 year ago
@scmoG The NIV takes out verses because they aren't original to the text. The NIV changes some words because the English language has changed. Conversation, for example, means something different today than it did in 1611.
The Greek and Hebrew are important because that's what the books were written in. If you want to catch all the nuances, then you need to read the original, just like with any translated text.
Indeed, God did have you and I born into places where English is spoken.
tomopotamus 1 year ago
@tomopotamus And there are Bible translations to suit us. We shouldn't limit ourselves to a four hundred year old translation written in Old English though. The English language has evolved and changed since then. The translations that we read need to reflect that, or else our ability to understand the Scripture is hindered unless we have a KJV dictionary nearby.
Based on your logic, God has prepared translations not only for the English language, but also all others.
tomopotamus 1 year ago
@tomopotamus What should we do then when two "sanctified" translations disagree?
Example: In these sorts of circles, the Luther 1545 is God's Word in German. But it disagrees with the KJV sometimes.
Rev 16:5:
KJV 1611: And I heard the Angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast iudged thus
LUT: Und ich hörte den Engel der Wasser sagen: HERR, du bist gerecht, der da ist und der da war, und heilig, daß du solches geurteilt hast,
tomopotamus 1 year ago
@tomopotamus There are also bible translations that seem to suit satan's agenda. example? I had a NKJV with a triquetra occult symbol on the front that I got from Barnes&Noble. the NIV as someone just defended says "As above, so below" if you research this term, it is a popular phrase used by high level satanist sex magician Aleister Crowley BEFORE the NIV. If you go to the av1611 org site you can see the problems with SOME of the newer versions that are hiding occult behind modernization.
Cookie4XO 1 year ago
@Cookie4XO The triquetra symbol was used as a symbol for the Trinity for centuries before Alistair Crowley was a twinkle in his forefather's eye.
tomopotamus 1 year ago
@tomopotamus And don't get me wrong, I'm not here to argue or fight for with anyone for one version over another. I'm just saying I haven't seen ONE modern version that is without occult or esoteric symbolism and/or wording. I believe that this will help usher in the one world religion anti-christ agenda as people will open their "holy"bibles and find the same phrases as new age books, and then believe that maybe "we are all the same". A lil change here, a lil change there.
Cookie4XO 1 year ago
@Cookie4XO Any crackpot can come up with occult "wording and symbols" in anything. The matter is if it's true or not. Chances are...it's not.
tomopotamus 1 year ago
@tomopotamus There is nothing to say for people defending adding occult phrases/terms added to the new holy bible. If you think that's okay, well may God have mercy on your ignorance.
Cookie4XO 1 year ago
@scmoG One site you can use as reference is the av1611 org site that talks about errors in many newer translations including the NIV. i think that many are not aware of the enemies agenda to make Jesus just a man, and to make the world follow one religion to usher in the anti-christ which is what many of these newer bibles are helping to do. It is that 1% in the modern translations that will mislead people.
Cookie4XO 1 year ago
@Cookie4XO Please, please, please tell me the "errors" and differences in the modern translations.
Did it ever occur to you that the new translations are based on older texts than the KJV? (Which is based on a Greek text that had been back-translated from Latin!)
tomopotamus 1 year ago
@tomopotamus I don't care WHAT they were based on. My point is once again Some new bible versions contain (1) famous occult/demonic symbols like triquetra (2) popular occult phrases coined by satanists such as Aleister Crowley "as above, so below" in reference to satan (3) make subtle changes to denounce Jesus' authority (4) use scriptures to refer to Jesus as just one of many gods, or a regular man. Whoever needs anything else, or loves these books, well you can't say someone didn't tell you.
Cookie4XO 1 year ago
@tomopotamus the only reason people can't understand the kjv, is more than likely due to the lack of the Holy Spirit or submission in letting It guide in reading.
scmoG 1 year ago
@scmoG Hogwash. The KJV was translated four hundred years ago. There is a lot of archaic speech in it, including words that have changed definition. That is why people don't like it anymore.
Languages change and evolve. Thus, translations of ancient texts need to change as well.
tomopotamus 1 year ago
@scmoG If that argument held true, you should be able to read the Bible in any language in the world.
TheotherPrometheus 1 year ago
@scmoG Thank God, you said lack of holy spirit. This is key! I am all for modernization if people are even simply not intelligent enough to understand the old versions, any of them, BUT when you have global bankers, clearly with anti-Christ agenda's controlling pretty much everything in America, do we really trust them to change our bible? Heck no. Anyway, anyone in tune w the Holy Spirit would hopefully not be here arguing for occult/new age bible/blasphemy filled bibles. *shrugs*
Cookie4XO 1 year ago
@tomopotamus This is a ridiculous argument as many publishers publish the KJV. Just because one, of many happens to be zondervan, that seems to just help in their deception for people fighting HARD FOR THE NIV.
Cookie4XO 1 year ago
What about the Tyndale translation? I never hear anyone debating this version vs. the KJV... yet in the Tyndale NT he uses congregation and assembly to describe God's Eclesia while the KJV uses church. Why does the KJV utilize church rather than assembly or congregation which is a direct translation of eclesia?
jmcclellan54321 1 year ago
And this accomplished what again??
vnubski 1 year ago
Personally, I think it's a good idea to be familiar with many different verisons of the Bible. Get familiar with words studies of Hebrew and Greek in Bible scripture. And if there is anything you are uncertain of or is confusing you, as God to make it clear.
PrincesseJen 1 year ago
James White looks and sounds like John Malkovich.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
O_O The Almighty James White. . WITH HAIR!!! O_O . . . . .And round glasses. . Dood he pwns them even at a young age BAHHAHA!
granjitsingh 1 year ago
i bought a 1611 at books a million its quite intresting. the translators even agree that they wernt infailable its one one of teh opening pages.
and most if not all dont read the 1611, they read one of the many translations that came after, the oxford 1675, cambridge 1628, which differ from there beloved 1611
briancostello1980 1 year ago
@briancostello1980 Of course, they don't care what the original KJV translators said. They'd still say that they were being guided by the Spirit. If they don't, and listen to the translators, their myth falls apart.
A thing I love about this silly movement is that the adherents tend to be vehemently anti-Calvinist. As fate would have it, the KJV translators were mostly Calvinists!
tomopotamus 1 year ago 2
@tomopotamus Yes, most of the KJV translators were Calvinists. Dr. Miles Smith, the editor of the KJV, was a staunch Calvinist.
theheat151 1 year ago
Is that Sam Gipp?
ALPHAandOMEGA44 1 year ago
The KJV Only position is silly. It shows much of their ignorance too. They will usually say that every language has a translation that God has preserved as the translation for that language. Of course, chances are they haven't taken the time to actually look at the other translations! For example, they will usually say that, for example, in German, the preserved translation is the Luther 1545; without realizing that in several places, it says something different than the 1611 KJV!
tomopotamus 1 year ago
@tomopotamus For example, Revelation 16:5
KJV 1611: And I heard the Angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast iudged thus
LUT: Und ich hörte den Engel der Wasser sagen: HERR, du bist gerecht, der da ist und der da war, und heilig, daß du solches geurteilt hast,
The Luther translation, which predates the KJV, agrees with the modern rendering of this verse, saying "and holy" instead of "will be".
What does the KJVO say to this?
tomopotamus 1 year ago
An excellent KJV Bible is:
Oxford University Press Worlds Classics - The Bible; Authorised KJV with Apocrypha.
It has an introduction (and notes) by Robert Carroll and Stephen Prickett. The intro discusses some these issues and the differences between the Old Testament and the Torah, as well as the Bibles influence on Western culture / language.
Dubwise78 1 year ago
omg, Dr. White had hair? lol. Good post bro Keith.
wizzy2k4 1 year ago