Did not St. Mark finish at 16:8, based on the Codex Sinaiticus, which is the oldest complete Greek manuscript ? Even the name Jesus is not mentioned. The name Jesus at that time did not exist.
Codex Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus are vile perversions of counterfeit manuscripts, and are not to be confused with the Byzantine / Antioch manuscripts penned by the Apostles and Prophets, and copied by God fearing Christians.
Acts:11:26: And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
Acts 3:26 From Son to servant in modern versions. Acts 3:26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, KJV Acts 3:26 To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus NKJV Acts 3:26 When God raised up his servant, Jesus Holy Bible, NLT Through the Blood of the Son of God, Jim
Read Rev 22:18-19, Prov 30:5-6, and Deu 4:2 , and then check out these verses in your modern day translations, and post your findings for us, so that everyone here will know what you found out. You need to see the pattern of corruption. Mat 17:21, Mat 18:11, Mat 23:14 Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26 Mark 15:28 Luke 17:36, Like 23:17 Jo 5:4 Acts 8:37, Acts 15:34, Acts 24:7, Acts 28:29 Rom 16:24 1John 5:7 Then read Ps 12:6-7, Ps 138:2, 2Pt 1:19-21, 2Tm 3:16 and tell us it all fits.
I agree with what you are saying about omitted verses, but is it correct to use Revelation 22:18...to make your argument? When it says "this book"...doesn't it mean the book of Revelation? The Bible is 66 books in one place, correct? I'm just wondering how you can apply what is said in the book of Revelation to the whole. I'm not trying to give you a hard time...only thinking about what a skeptic would say to me if I used the same cornerstone to back my argument.
Even if that were true, (which I do NOT believe to be the case) the book of revelation has been messed around with, Beyond that, there are 2 other admonitions against corrupting the word of God, and numerous statements that confront corruptors of the word of God.
Deu 4:2, Pro 30:5-6, 2Cor:2:17
Heb:10:7: Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
It really makes NO DIFFERENCE, even if your argument were true.
I'm not arguing...just asking, because I will be asked (and have been). Revelation has been messed around with?! Um...so this video trying to show the omissions and corruptions of other versions also applies to the 1611KJV? Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding something you are trying to say.
Like I said, I agree with what the video is saying ~ I just don't know why it should be taken to mean more than "this book"...the book of Revelation...no biggie really.
Sorry bro, not much sleep last night. And your are correct, skeptics like to minimize or expand. Other passages obviously show Gods distain for manipulation. In the case of Revelation however, we are actually dealing with the closure of ALL CANNON INSPIRED material, which is why I believe the context refers to the "book" in a collective and comprehensive sense, similar to the Christ quote of Heb 10:7, which is referring to Davids Psalm in Ps 40:7.
Christ qualifies the scriptuires in a comprehensive sense , or "the volume of the book", which would have included all the Kings, and Chronicles, the prophets leading up to the captivity and beyond through to the rebuilding of the temple.
Christ confirms the OT Cannon in these 2 passages.
2Sam:3:10: To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beer-sheba.
All three incidents are an improvement on what proceeded. Given the world language of world commerce and trade IS ENGLISH, God simplified accessing the ENTIRE council of GODS WORD in completing an authoritative volume of work, complete with chapter and verse markings to safeguard against corruption.
none of this changes the fact there are mistranslations provable ones from textus receptus. But based on what you saying we should be reading the apocrypha and calling Jesus Iesus since thats what is in the Authorized KJV. KJV its a foolish argument based on ppl's misconceptions.Not to mention the kjv has greek alternates listed in it to.
I have on numerous occasions detailed those items, go back and read my posts. It's been rehashed so many times. The Apocrypha was placed exactly where it was suppose to be, namely, in neither testament.
I actually have a copy. Outside of that the only changes is the spelling of the Old English. You can believe what you want bro, you can spend your whole life not trusting in a final English authority.
It's a free world, knock yourself out. I know whom I have believed.
so your response to the proven fact that other english translations are more true to the greek is nuh uh? All you do with the kjv only nonsense is cause division amongst Christians. There is nothing to back your argument just scripture that actually backs my position not yours.You are the one not trusting God's word by questioning translations striaght from the greek and hebrew texts.If you want i can go through the hundreds of other changes but I don't think youd want to go through all that.
There you have it folks. Another party who cannot trust God to give him the word infallibly in English wandering his whole life long wondering what God coulda, shoulda, and woulda said.
1Cor:14:33: For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Rom:1:22: Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
there are 419 words in the actual authorized kjv that are no longer in the english language and hundreds upon hundreds of mistranslations. There are no missing verses it's called they are not in the ancient manuscripts used.
Says any dictionary and the preface to the kjv saying it wil need to change as language does. We could also go over the hundreds of mistranslations after we went over the 419 words.
and i forgot to say the supposed missing verses that only appear in half ancient manuscripts if not less are shown down at the bottom. They did not add or take away they just translated the greek documents that predate textus receptus.
i agree the kjv is a great bible , but its got flaws just like any other translation ,even the greek translations dont always match up. And that thing about scholars is an assumption that can't really be backed up , the modern day scholars have older transcripts available and less mistranslations.If we were gonna say any version only it should be a greek and hebrew bible where true context is much more clear.I however question their honesty for adding God save the king when that appears no where
The problem that I have with that line of reasoning, is that It goes against what the what scriptures teach.
If God promised his word infallible, Ps 12:6-7, 138:2, and COMMANDS his people to take the sword of the spirit Eph6:17, Heb4:12 and search them Jo5:39.
And then proclaims that the gospel will be preached to EVERY CREATURE which is under heaven Col:1:23, and then further declares that I will be judged by by that standard, Jn:12:48.
but the thing is can you have blind trust when the mistranslations can't be refuted ? I'm not questioning God's message i believe it is complete and pure, i was just saying that there is no perfect english translation.
The devil refuted Gods ability to come good on his word in Gen 3 bro and has never stopped. We either have an infallible word in the English to accommodate the prior mentioned declarations, or God is a liar, and we are ALL LOST.
Rom1:22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Jer17:5Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
Ps118:8It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
I also disagree with your assertion on a translation. Every scriptural reference in the Bible relative to a translation, was an IMPROVEMENT on what proceeded it.
Col:1:13: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
Heb:11:5: By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
I agree, and that's why I reject your man-centered philosophy of King James onlyism. Thanks for the enlightening discussion. Don't bother to keep trying to get me to respond, I am done here. My honest wishes for God's blessings on you.
Well I hope that you are a man of your word, and stop posting like you said you were going to do 3 posts ago.
But then again, I shouldn't expect that a man that denies an infallible word, (singular) in English, would ever keep his word anyway, and you proved that to certainly be the case.
So long, and don't break your back carrying all those perversions of the gospel trail. Don't get to confused along the way which book to use brother.
1Cor:14:33: For God is not the author of confusion
There is no need to be obnoxious and hateful about it, but you could at least be honest. I did NOT ask about denominational affiliation, I could care less about that. I am interested in which view your overall philosophy better aligns with. Don't just spout Bible verses at me, which I accept as much as you do. If you do not wish to have the honesty to answer my question, then that's ok. Rational discussion is typically not the strong suit of KJV only-ers, but I had hoped for better with you.
Listen friend, If be anyone is being obnoxious, it's you.
This is what the scripture teaches on worldly philosophy.
Col:2:8: Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9: For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10: And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
I'm complete in Christ's work, and Word, that is my philosophy.
I would appreciate it, my friend, if you would answer my question below. Namely: "Would you identify more with an Arminian or Calvinist theology? In other words, to greatly simplify the question, do you believe a true believer can lose their salvation?"
Right, so why should we not read the Great Bible today? After all, it was authorized by English kings first. And my understanding was that the Puritans, at least the ones who were part of the founding of the US, used primarily the Geneva rather than the KJV; wikipedia says merely "the church" disliked the Geneva because it was "too Calvinist," whatever that means.
Well if you remember, King Saul proceeded David. The first Adam failed, then second Adam did not.
God hated Esau (the first born) but loved Jacob.
Ruben was denied first born and heir status and it was given to Joseph who born to Rachel who was the wife Jacob spoke for, but was denied when given Leah, and I could go on and on.
Ultimately, the Great Bible was rejected, and never made the grade.
Ultimately I think that your inventing a crisis that does not exist brother. I rest confident with my King Jimmie. You can take whatever you think is infallible (If an infallible document even exists in your eyes), and believe that.
I really do not personally care what you embrace in the final analysis. You do not have to answer to me about your position. All I know is that God tells me to contend for the faith Jude 1:3, take the Sword of the Spirit, Eph 6:17.
Cain came first, then Abel, and then God replaced Abel with Seth. First tables of stone were smashed at the foot of the mount, the second tables were left in the Ark.
The first priestly order was Levitical, which was replaced by the order of Melchizedek. The Law was given by Moses in the Old Testament, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ in the New testament.
Why does it not make sense to say first came the KJV, but it was found wanting, so then came the NASB? Or first the Byzantine texts were accepted, but they were found wanting, so then came the Alexandrian? Notice you've shifted your ground an awful lot here: first the KJV was the best because it was first, now the KJV is best because it was the second. I agree that I don't have to convince you, but I pity your fear of other Bible versions. God is stronger than that. God's blessings to you.
I NEVER said EVER that the KJV was found wanting at ANY give time. What YOU haven't told us, is what your final authority is in the English brother. If God COMMANDS YOU to take the sword of the spirit Eph:6:17, and to earnestly contend for the faith, Jude:1:3:.
And If the gospel is to be preached to the entire world Col:1:23:, Mt:24:14:, and the world language of trade and commerce is English.
At least I have a final authority, YOU have offered NOTHING.
God also has to supply us an infallible document that he states he will judge us by Jn:12:48. You come on this blog and offer NO AUTHORITY by which God could complete the claims he makes relative to his book for the believer.
Rom:10:17: So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
I guess you don't have any faith, because you still have not offered us an infallible English document, and faith comes from the book brother.
NASB, or any NEW translation, was not authorized by a King. We have already gone through this argument, go back and read your Bible History starting with Moses, and the need for a King figure relative to the inspiration and preservation of scripture.
Deut:33:5: , Prov:25:1: , and read the history of the Kings, and Chronicles.
Your king analogy is a valiant attempt but it makes no sense. Not only do 17th century kings of England no have authority over 21st century Americans, but what about the poor unfortunate people groups who have never had kings? Does this mean they have no valid Bible in their own languages?
I am respectfully closing my comments here. It is apparent that you have your mind made up, and any evidence that supports your view, no matter how inconsistent or shifting, will be brought out in support when convenient, or dropped when necessary. My faith is in God and His word, not in any man-made translation - since every work of translation is man-made, as the KJV translators themselves acknowledged. I honestly appreciate your zeal for the Bible, and wish you the best.
That's right. I have a FINAL AUTHORITY, and YOU could not supply one.
The King analogy makes no difference even though it is biblically sound, and chronicled as a significant pattern traced from Moses, to Christ as disclosed.
YOU were predisposed BEFORE this conversation even started, and YOU STILL have NO FINAL AUTHORITY other than your own opinion of what the Bible coulda, shoulda, and woulda said.
Rom:10:17: So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
I said I was done, and I am. I would gently point out that you might want to read a bit more widely to correct your understanding of the facts. But I do want to ask one question, purely out of curiosity: would you identify more with an Arminian or Calvinist theology? In other words, to greatly simplify the question, do you believe a true believer can lose their salvation?
I pity your acceptance of ALL versions, especially the Alexandrian. God gets what he wants done right the first time. He may permit, as already detailed on a number of fronts a progressive document. But it is the end product that matters.
If you are a serious student of recorded scriptural patterns as qualified biblically, you will note that God used many many means by which to come to an end product, and some, are not even fully disclosed.
You are right, every OT book testified of Christ. I thank God for that provision. I also agree that the symbolism of Kings is important, and Jesus is the King of Kings. But are you seriously trying to make the argument that because the KJV was commissioned by an English King, it's the only one authorized by God? Earlier kings, such as Henry VIII and Edward VI) clearly authorized earlier versions, such as Coverdale's Great Bible - why do those earlier authorizations not count?
The Great Bible was the first "authorized version" issued by the Church of England in the reign of King Henry VIII.[2] In January 1604, King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans. The Puritans were a faction within the Church of England.
Moses is referred to as a King, and the Kings under the Law of Moses were commanded to write him a copy of the Law.
Furthermore, in 1st and 2nd Kings / Chronicles, the history of the Kings is recorded for our learning. Solomons writing gets scripturally canonized in Proverbs 25:1 during the kingship of Hezekiah.
Kings were always in close proximity to prophets, and were commanded under Deut 17:18 to write him a copy of the Law.
Then Christ as King of Kings, gives the New Testament Saint the Old Testament canon qualifications.
Lk:24:44: And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Jn:5:39: Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
One more thing: let me make the statement that God has made our job easy with the Geneva Bible translated into one language, complete with chapter and verse markings to guard against corruption.
What is wrong with that statement? That is, once you remove the philosophical belief (not supported in the Biblical text itself, by the way) that the KJV is THE authoritative reference to compare all other Bible translations against? I'm not being argumentative, I just want the truth to come out.
Well the number system was imposed by God under the Old Testament:
Acts:13:33: God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
And then reinstated as a security tool by the King James translators. Revelation 22:18-19, does not restrict Gods ability to offer an infallible translation with verse markings and italicized words to complete a secured word in English.
No, the numbering system was not "reinstated" by the KJV translators; the KJV was not even the first version in English to use them. The Geneva Bible of 1581 (youtube will not allow me to embed URLs, but you can find an image of the Geneva pages easily enough, just google "geneva bible image") clearly shows versification and numbering that matches the KJV's.
You're right, Rev 22:18 does not restrict verse markings; but it does restrict the adding of words and phrases, such as 1 John 5:7.
I would respectfully disagree with both of your assertions. The number system was in place in the Old Testament as clarified in Acts:13:33.
When the number system is implemented is really irrelevant,( straining at a nat ). In Daniel 5:1-31, God changes a word in mid-stream while translating from an original document and gives it orally to Belshazzar in Syriack Chaldean.
Upharsin, was changed to Peres when that passage was re-interpreted. Bottom line, is that God has the ability to change words IN MID-STREAM when translating into another language.
The restriction in Rev 22:18-19 is in relation to MAN CHANGING THE WORDS, not God. The KJV translators did nothing less than what God had previously established in Daniel 5:1-31.
That passage was later translated into Hebrew and then English. The KJV translators did nothing untoward with our italics, and numerics.
And please don't think I'm saying the KJV is not a good Bible version - it is. I'm just saying that it does not make any sense to me to hold it up as the single standard that all other versions are compared against. God bless you brother.
I do not hold anyone to anything. We live in a free world, with freedom of expression and will. I do my very best to convince people that God has made our job easy with our KJV translated in one language, complete with chapter and verse markings to guard against corruption.
No other English Bible measures up to the KJV when investigating the internal evidence of the scripture, and it's retaining EVERY VERSE in chronological or, with the honesty of the italics.
I appreciate that. We hear a lot about losing verses; we hear less about the perils of adding them. The Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7-8 is but one example: the evidence shows that it was added long after the fact. Revelation 22:18-19 is always quoted by KJV-onlyists, but it seems to me they are reading verse 19 and ignoring verse 18. The Comma is certainly an accurate rendition of what the Bible teaches; but all the same, it's not in any original Greek texts before the 16th century.
By the way, you might want to check out what the TR contains. It purely contains the New Testament. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, the same as modern Bible versions, except without recent revisions.
Relating to Revelation 22:18-19, maybe a better question is why the King James translators wanted to ADD 1 John 5:7 to the Bible? Weren't they concerned about violating that passage in Revelation?
1 John 5:7 may be the "clearest verse that conveys the Godhead", but since it was not originally in the Bible, it's still a violation of the Revelation passage. I recommend you read an actual believing scholar such as Dan Wallace or Bruce Metzger.
Saith who? Saith the Greek Lexicon which is non-authoritative written by Scholars. None of the words in 1Jo 5:7 are italicized.
The KJV translators ALWAYS italicized text that was added to complete the idiom of the language, and to make a full and accurate translation into the English.
The KJV translators, were the only ones who were honest. Tell me, what is your final authority, because God promised to preserve his words infallibly.
I was replying to your hyperbole about "why would you want to remove that verse." I understand that the translators of the KJV thought the verse was authentic.
But that's not the main point. God has indeed preserved His Word. The question is, where? You are assuming, without proof, that it's the KJV that's authoritative. How are you authorized to make the decision that a Bible translation created 1600 years after the original is authoritative? What did English speakers do before 1611?
Hey Brother, the TR was the authorized body of text in Hebrew and Greek. The KJV translators new Greek and Hebrew better than anyone that will ever post on this or your blog.
Ultimately, you are going to have that TR text translated into English for any English party to understand what was written in Greek, and Hebrew.
We had the best of the best with the KJV translators, and I fully trust the translation.
Don't misunderstand: I am not at all questioning the competence or honesty of the translators. I am sure their proficiency in Greek was far above my own, and I don't even know Hebrew. My NT-related question is the source of the TR, put together quickly by Erasmus. I am not faulting Erasmus: he was pressured by his publisher to make it quickly, and he did his best. The TR is considered a decent, but not authoritative, text by most believing scholars today. (I am counting only Christians here.)
Ultimately God promised to preserve his word, and further declares that the gospel will be preached to every creatures, and furthermore commands us to take the sword of the spirit which is the word of God, and then tells us that we will be judged by the book.
Somewhere, to the English speaking public, which is the world language of commerce, God will have to come good on his expectations, and produce an authoritative book to hold his subjects to account in areas concerning Gods word.
I agree with you completely. But my question is, why the KJV? Why not the many English versions produced before the KJV? Many of the founders of this country thought the Geneva Bible better. Even the Douay-Rheims was written before 1611, and that didn't involve Greek at all, but Latin, which was the "world language of commerce" for 1000 years before.
I truly appreciate your zeal for God's truth; but I just ask that you get all the facts before making a decision. Blessings, brother.
Eccl:8:4: Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?
King James, was the ONLY English King, who AUTHORIZED the translation from the Hebrew and Greek into Shakespearean English during the time of the Renaissance.
The scriptures correlated a profound connection to Kings relative to the inspiration, and preservation of Scriptures.
Due 33:4: Moses commanded us a law, even the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob.
5: And he was king in Jeshurun, when the heads of the people and the tribes of Israel were gathered together.
Deut:17:18: And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:
Prov:25:1: These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out.
Correction : Was the ONLY approved version authorized by a King.
The Great Bible was the first "authorized version" issued by the Church of England in the reign of King Henry VIII.[2] In January 1604, King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans. The Puritans were a faction within the Church of England.
Your doing OK John, all I can tell you, is that you will always be confused until you have a final authority (outside of a Lexicon in a real Bible)
The word Hell for example, is used in an entirely different context than the limited definition given in any Lexicon.
That is true for many, many words in the Bible. Ultimately, the Bible has to define the words within the context that the Bible gives, or a mans definition of the word in a Lexicon becomes the final authority over the Bible.
I'm going to have to call it quits for tonight young man.
Go back over those verse omissions on the this video, then read Rev 22:18-19, Deu 4:2, and Pro 30:5-6
Then cross examine those verses with your modern day translations, and you will draw, but ONE conclusion, namely, that modern day translations cannot be trusted by virtue of blatant violations of scriptural canonization rules that were establish by God himself.
We will talk in circles, and you will ALL WAYS have a measure of confusion as long as you use a Lexicon, or multiple versions to argue something, that the KJV translators have completed done admirably.
The Devil loves it.
You need to come to an understanding of conviction of Gods ability to supply you an infallible document without reservation in it's entirety, or you will die confused.
I am really trying here sir, but the protestant religion whom despise the Catholic ways is nothing more then text purchased from King James himself from the sect of CATHOLICISM? In Latin nonetheless? Which was translated to begin with?
Sadly sir, the only text that makes sense to me is in it's "virgin" (lol) form? Not it's translated one?
You are ***NOT using the TR, you are using a Lexicon that may not even be from the original TR manuscript, and you are accepting the definitions supplied in that Lexicon over the actual Bible text.
So then, the Lexicon and the definitions that supplied are your authority instead of the Bible text.
Sir, the Lexicon is the actual word used in original text which was written in Greek and Hebrew...not English?
These words in English mean what they meant in ancient times in Greek and Hebrew, in it's original form, the original form of the Bible.
Sir the KJV was purchased text from the Catholic church in Vulgate Latin which was translated from Aramaic Greek and Hebrew, not English you must accept these words as to what they meant in ancient times? These words have not changed over centuries?
Too much confusion for me my friend, and that is NOT what my Greek Lexicon reads.
My Lexicon does not distinguish the male gender as being a virgin, it only uses the female gender to identify that word, because that word has been redefined by another party and inserted into the Greek Lexicon.
The whole point of my argument is that you just used 3 sources, to make your case, and it is not agreeing with my TR Greek, so who is right?
The Bible is right, those virgins are men in the male gender.
That's right John. So that Lexicon cannot be trusted as authoritative because it does not recognize the male gender in it's use.
Remember, a Lexicon is a general definition of a word, but by no means an exhaustive definition.
That is where the Bible has to be given preeminence in broadening a definition that is limited in any Lexicon. When we do that, we give the Bible the place of authority it deserves, and we stop relying on a mans limited definition of a word in a Lexicon over the Bible.
So where does the KJV take place over the New Testament...or say the old testament which doesn't even mention Jesus, but Joseph? The parallel of those two is strikingly similar?
Joseph Jesus
Began work at 30 Began work at 30
sold for 20 pieces silver 30 pieces of silver
sold by Judas Sold by Judah
so on and so on? The parallels go on and on? Plus the OT was written well before either the NT or KJV?
John, you make a good point. The Bible is filled with typology of Biblical events that later get fulfilled.
The account you mention is Joseph, is just one of them. We need to bridge to the version issue, so that you can see the pattern of corruption that exists in the modern day translations, so that we can go on to qualify what should be used as a FINAL AUTHORITY, which can be trusted without reservation.
Rom 10:17, Jo 17:17, 2Tm:3:15-16:, 2Pt 1:1-21, Mt:5:18, Mt:24:35:
That was my point about using a Lexicon as an authority. It's NO AUTHORITY at all, many people use it as one, but the word definitions are by no means biblically exhaustive.
The Bible is the only true authority because it defines by context and use what the meaning of the word is within each passage.
The Bible is the best Biblical dictionary your going to find. did you go through all those verses and cross examine them with the modern day translations.
Hey John, Read Rev 22:18-19, Prov 30:5-6, and Deu 4:2 , and then check out these verses in your modern day translations, and post your findings for us, so that everyone here will know what you found out.
It's the English dictionary that gives the word a number one definition in the third person...or as not have had done something? (Ex...his work habits were virgin.)
In order to move ahead, we have to eliminate ALL other sources of "extra biblical" sources, and determine that God gave us a book that is infallible, which will define how GOD chooses to use, and define a word.
God is not the author of confusion. Did you notice that the other translations REMOVED COMPLETE VERSES?
Just confirm, and then post you feelings about your findings, and then we can move ahead.
Tim, in my opinion the KJV is one of the most unreliable source?
(God's word is authoritative, no question about it.)
That said, King James paid for his ENGLISH translations because at that time all bibles were found to be in Catholicism text, which was Hebrew...aka the old testament.
James bought his text from the Catholic church and what was known as the "vulgate" latin which was translated from Aramaic Greek and Hebrew? So you must find the Greek and Hebrew as authoritative?
I simply refuse to argue a point with no final authority. You have yet to confirm your findings on the verse omissions that were supplied in the video, and you conclusions based on those omissions.
If you embrace ANY translation as authoritative after the scripture clearly forbids adding or removing text,
We most certainly have authority when you sir can explain the reference I made in Luke and Isaiah? This has been the one scripture that has never been answered or proven to me?
I'm not adding or removing text sir...just citing what the KJV is written in...and the words in which it is written in, I have explained what those words are defined as.
If you could please explain Luke and Isaiah?
I confirm that phrases were removed in such bibles as the NWT and the AS and so forth...however it is spot on match for the most part to the New testament.
The KJV was provided in English...for the world...and was translated from Aramaic Greek and Hebrew.
Could you just please explain to me those versus which I quoted?
The KJV sir comes from Aramaic Greek and Hebrew sir? Would you agree to this?
Out of all bibles, the KJV makes sense, but you cannot say that Hebrew and Greek are not authoritative when that is the language in which it was written in?
No, I would not agree with your train of thought. The TR is authoritative, but you are using the TR, you are using a Lexicon that has defined the words in English, and your NOT using the actually TR with text within the context of the written document, to determine the a truly Biblical definition.
Eph:4:14: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
Second...I would like to touch on the word "hell" and it's root meaning and how this word is mistranslated in many bibles.
The Hebrew word "Sheol" and the Greek words "hades" and "Gehenna" are a physical burial ground of ancient of the Israelites. It was located in the slums of Bethlehem on the outskirts of town and often burned with fire, purposely cremating the bodies.
The original-language words have been obscured. They simply mean grave...not hell.
All the written words of Sheol, Haides, and Gehenna all are translated within different bibles such as the KJV, The American Standard, and the New testament all as the same meaning which none of them have?
This is what is so tough for me to move forward, because it cannot be disproved.
I am very aware of versus noting "hell" but you also have biblical versus which also states the mind cannot live without the body or soul?
Ps. 9:17 KJV: "the wicked shall be turned into *hell* and all the nations that forgot God."
In all other bibles but the KJV...the words which replace hell are DY/"death"...TEV/"the place of death" and "Sheol" (which literally translates to "grave")is found in all other versions such as AS, RS, NE, JB, and NW.
This is just an example of how other phrases and versus have been changed in other variations of the bible?
Eccl 9:5, 10 " the living are conscious that they will die, but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all....All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in SHEOL the place which you are going."
Remember that "sheol" literally translates to "grave"....if they are conscious of nothing, they obviously feel no pain?)
Sheol can be found in AS RS NE JB....KJV is word "hell" and the phrase "world of the dead" can be found in TEV
Ps. 146:4: "His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground, in that day his *thoughts* do perish." This word is also mistranslated in other bibles such as JB which is replaced by "schemes" and the word "plans" is used in the RS and TEV?
I have found many bibles with different meanings Tim...mostly mistranslated from it's original text? Very confusing indeed, and for this reason can be argued or brought into question.
Very fine there John. The main point that I wanted to address relative to the videos is that the modern day translations ALL remove complete verses, and are not reliable.
The KJV, is the ONLY book that I actually call a Bible. In addition, a Greek, or a Hebrew Lexicon is NOT authoritative. The scripture IS. The problem with accepting a Greek or Hebrew Lexicon is that, ultimately people resort to the Lexicon as authoritative instead of permitting the Bible to define the word, and how it is used.
Here is my favorite. God gives no place to argue for the original, because it was a hand scribed document on a wall in a unknown unrevealed language, and then interpreted in Syriac to the King, and then scribed into the Hebrew in the Old Testament.
My favorite part, is where God decides to change a word mid stream within that verbal that translation, and then records it in written form.
The original autographs have long since been gone. God never promised to preserve the original manuscripts. He promised to preserve his word Psalm 12: 6-7.
The first 11 Chapters of Genesis may very well have been a translation. A one world language existed until Genesis 10-11. Every account where discourse takes effect is not qualified as in the Hebrew.
If Adam, Eve, Noah, or anyone else for that matter did not speak Hebrew, then the first document ever given by Moses was a translation.
When you go to your modern day perversions, and check out the verses that were on the video and cross examine them, and then look at the internal evidence of the scripture relative to adding or removing text, Due 4:2, Pro 30:5-6, and Rev 22: 18-19. One book stands alone in the English. One book can account for all the verses chronologically, one book exalts on every occasion Christs blood, deity, and Godhood. One books text is not copyright.
From a scriptural standpoint, the word translation is used very sparingly. In every incident of the words use, an improvement took effect on that which preceded it.
England was a world superpower where the sun never set on it's empire. English, is the world language of commerce for a reason. The dilemma facing the world was the simplification of language in relation to the Bible.
The KJV was not compiled from the same manuscripts as the modern perversions. Two separate bodies of manuscripts were used. The TR, or received Antioch/Byzantine text, is what our KJV was translated from. The Alexandrian library texts known as the Vaticanis and Sinaiticus manuscripts, were used in the modern perversions which explains why there is so much discrepancy.
Ultimately, all the versions used chapter and verse markings, but only the King James retained a complete chronological order.
I don't think you're being honest and frank with your audience. First, your censoring debate. Second, you're not presenting modern textual critics approach or reasoning. Third, you're using the KJV as your standard and not mss/witness evidence. Fourth, you're calling these 'omissions' but not clarifying from what. A textual critic would counteract and say they are additions. Fifth, are you claiming the KJV is an improvement on the original autographs?
Honesty is the very thing lacking in the modern translation, not a single naysayer has honestly come on this video, and posted a single reason why the verses mentioned in this video do not appear in their modern perversions.
The censoring I did had nothing to do with any formal discussion that offered any disclosure on items mentioned during any discourse posted on this video, but rather mudslinging, and name calling.
That party now has the liberty to come back on, and comment with the understanding of what is tastefully to maintain a measure of professionalism.
If you actually watched, and listened to the video, and then read through all the video notes, plenty of discussion was offered on manuscript and internal evidence of the scripture including the outright verse omissions that ARE NOT in large part in modern perversions.
Tim, you might consider taking the block off of Barry's accounts as he is primarily the only one offering a debate against the KJV. Kind of difficult to debate something when everyone is in agreement with your stance.
Removed Andy. I thought that when you clicked on block, that you block that message, but apparently you actually block the person from ever posting. Got it figured out, and corrected on the other site video also.
I'm not running for political office. I don't have constituents. The word "crap", is the least of my worries when analyzing the blasphemy of your apparent distrust of the Almighty's ability to preserve his word in an authoritative volume of work that everyone calls the Bible.
Have you ever thought how offensive it is for the Almighty having to listen to a sustained barrage of attacks targeting Gods ability to preserve an infallible book ?
If it offends you that much, then stop reposting it.
If blaspheming Gods ability to preserve his own word is not categorized as a act of arrogance, then I don't know what is.
I'm doing my job, and defending the faith, and because you don't like the KJV word dung. I give the same word in modern English, and now you have a problem with that.
Grow up, during your tenure as a Christian, your going to encounter far more offensive language than what has been posted on this forum today.
And I'm not not posting your name calling rants here.
Yes, the modern versions don't seem to know what the word 'dung' means and translate it as 'rubbish' which it isn't. So much for being 'clearer' than the AV1611.
That response was in relation to a comment made by freesundayschoolless about the word crap, which I removed.
He can blaspheme Gods ability to preserve his word, but has no problem taking issue about a word translated in modern English from the KJV word "dung".
Now that is hypocrisy, and God does use the words Dung , and piss. I guess now you'll charge God of using profanity, give me a break.
I guess I could have used the biblical word dung, but that translation may not have been good enough for you because the KJV translators used it.
So I dumbed it down for you because you said that you want things easy to be understood in todays English.
I'm never embarrassed to point out a mans foolishness, because all you have been offering is the same perverse corruptive garbage that undermines Gods promise to preserve his word.
I think you need to go back to ***sunday school with the KJV brother, even if you have to pay for it.
After having answered the same question 20 times in 15 ways, it does become futile as you stated. If you don't like my stuff, you can ditch me, and pick on some other KJV defender.
"Neither did the KJV translators emphasize Aramaic, and I don't need a lesson in Greek, God gave me his word infallibly in the English. You need a lesson the KJV English, and start trusting Ps 12:6-7."
No Greek necessary to understand that Ps 12 speaks of preserving the poor in the midst of evil men.
I can read English and here is the proof that I can do so using the KJV.
The problem is, when I answer, you don't accept it and keep rehashing over the same old stuff, so I'm moving on. It's a free country brother, you can believe what you want. I make no apologies for believing and defending the authorized KJV.
If you want to carry 14 bibles, the Septuagint, and every Scholar footnote under the sun, knock yourself out.
If you want to make some new comments with new remarks, I'll gladly unblock you from posting on our channel.
No, but the Bible in it's context will qualify the remarks, and I certainly don't need a Scholar twisting my brain on what God shoulda, coulda, and woulda said.
It was certainly six grade Old English, and the difficult stuff amounts to a molehill in comparison to the confusion that modern day perversions give.
"I" use the NIV in evangelism because "I" want people to understand the Gospel the first time "I" read it to them.
Yes, that is not good. As a Calvinist, I quickly see the problem. It is God who chooses. It is God who gives them faith and repentance. It is God who draws all men to Himself.
Thanks for keeping me doctrinally sound! I will be more careful next time.
You can reply over there as long as you either bring up a new topic, or provide some biblical proof on the LLX quoted by Jesus Christ.
We have already received the comment from you on enough occasions to qualify your feelings on the subject, it's now time to produce the biblical proof , thats all.
Hey know body seemed confused for about 300 years, I don't buy the argument, that 6th grade English is that hard to understand, especially if you are as learned in the book to qualify the language as you imply.
Yeah thats right, God says , and take a pocket PC with you so that you can confuse the next Christian with as many versions that you can on the first day he gets saved.
Did not St. Mark finish at 16:8, based on the Codex Sinaiticus, which is the oldest complete Greek manuscript ? Even the name Jesus is not mentioned. The name Jesus at that time did not exist.
truthhitmanisback 2 years ago
Codex Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus are vile perversions of counterfeit manuscripts, and are not to be confused with the Byzantine / Antioch manuscripts penned by the Apostles and Prophets, and copied by God fearing Christians.
Acts:11:26: And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
kjvonly01 2 years ago
Not according to Gods book. "Jesus", is a Greek to English translation, but Paul clearly refers to Christ, as the God of the Hebrew Old Testament.
Eph 3:9, 1Cor 10:4, Col 1:12-18, among many other verses. I know 9 year olds with more common sense than you credit them.
Mt:18:3: And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
kjvonly01 2 years ago
Good job, Brother Tim!
Psalm2verse12 2 years ago
JimQualls 3 years ago
kjvonly01 3 years ago
I agree with what you are saying about omitted verses, but is it correct to use Revelation 22:18...to make your argument? When it says "this book"...doesn't it mean the book of Revelation? The Bible is 66 books in one place, correct? I'm just wondering how you can apply what is said in the book of Revelation to the whole. I'm not trying to give you a hard time...only thinking about what a skeptic would say to me if I used the same cornerstone to back my argument.
mizbayakh 3 years ago
Even if that were true, (which I do NOT believe to be the case) the book of revelation has been messed around with, Beyond that, there are 2 other admonitions against corrupting the word of God, and numerous statements that confront corruptors of the word of God.
Deu 4:2, Pro 30:5-6, 2Cor:2:17
Heb:10:7: Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
It really makes NO DIFFERENCE, even if your argument were true.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
I'm not arguing...just asking, because I will be asked (and have been). Revelation has been messed around with?! Um...so this video trying to show the omissions and corruptions of other versions also applies to the 1611KJV? Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding something you are trying to say.
Like I said, I agree with what the video is saying ~ I just don't know why it should be taken to mean more than "this book"...the book of Revelation...no biggie really.
mizbayakh 3 years ago
Sorry bro, not much sleep last night. And your are correct, skeptics like to minimize or expand. Other passages obviously show Gods distain for manipulation. In the case of Revelation however, we are actually dealing with the closure of ALL CANNON INSPIRED material, which is why I believe the context refers to the "book" in a collective and comprehensive sense, similar to the Christ quote of Heb 10:7, which is referring to Davids Psalm in Ps 40:7.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Christ qualifies the scriptuires in a comprehensive sense , or "the volume of the book", which would have included all the Kings, and Chronicles, the prophets leading up to the captivity and beyond through to the rebuilding of the temple.
Christ confirms the OT Cannon in these 2 passages.
Lk:24:44: Law, Prophets, Psalms and then
Mt:23:35: ( Abel, (Genesis), to Zachariah
(2Chron 24:20-22 )
The Jewish OT closes with 2 Chron instead of Malachi.
The same book, different arrangement.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Thanks...and it's "sis" :) ~ think "Ms.Bye-ahk" lol
mizbayakh 3 years ago
Sorry for being a crusty old hoot, and God bless thee.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
It's all good...enjoying your vids. Thanks!
mizbayakh 3 years ago
2Sam:3:10: To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beer-sheba.
All three incidents are an improvement on what proceeded. Given the world language of world commerce and trade IS ENGLISH, God simplified accessing the ENTIRE council of GODS WORD in completing an authoritative volume of work, complete with chapter and verse markings to safeguard against corruption.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
none of this changes the fact there are mistranslations provable ones from textus receptus. But based on what you saying we should be reading the apocrypha and calling Jesus Iesus since thats what is in the Authorized KJV. KJV its a foolish argument based on ppl's misconceptions.Not to mention the kjv has greek alternates listed in it to.
Gutcheckcoming 3 years ago
I have on numerous occasions detailed those items, go back and read my posts. It's been rehashed so many times. The Apocrypha was placed exactly where it was suppose to be, namely, in neither testament.
I actually have a copy. Outside of that the only changes is the spelling of the Old English. You can believe what you want bro, you can spend your whole life not trusting in a final English authority.
It's a free world, knock yourself out. I know whom I have believed.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
so your response to the proven fact that other english translations are more true to the greek is nuh uh? All you do with the kjv only nonsense is cause division amongst Christians. There is nothing to back your argument just scripture that actually backs my position not yours.You are the one not trusting God's word by questioning translations striaght from the greek and hebrew texts.If you want i can go through the hundreds of other changes but I don't think youd want to go through all that.
Gutcheckcoming 3 years ago
You have proved ABSOLUTELY NOTHING other than your disbelief that God can preserve his word infallibly to the English body of people.
Your "winning position" is contrary to the doctrines that the Bible teaches bro, (no victory there).
Rom:16:17: Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
I do not need Greek , or Hebrew. I have it infallibly in English. To obey Gods charge I need to avoid you.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
There you have it folks. Another party who cannot trust God to give him the word infallibly in English wandering his whole life long wondering what God coulda, shoulda, and woulda said.
1Cor:14:33: For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Rom:1:22: Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
kjvonly01 3 years ago
there are 419 words in the actual authorized kjv that are no longer in the english language and hundreds upon hundreds of mistranslations. There are no missing verses it's called they are not in the ancient manuscripts used.
Gutcheckcoming 3 years ago
Saith who?
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Says any dictionary and the preface to the kjv saying it wil need to change as language does. We could also go over the hundreds of mistranslations after we went over the 419 words.
Gutcheckcoming 3 years ago
and i forgot to say the supposed missing verses that only appear in half ancient manuscripts if not less are shown down at the bottom. They did not add or take away they just translated the greek documents that predate textus receptus.
Gutcheckcoming 3 years ago
Thanks bro, the translators were indeed honest, and realistic, no modern day scholar remotely compares with the KJV translators.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
i agree the kjv is a great bible , but its got flaws just like any other translation ,even the greek translations dont always match up. And that thing about scholars is an assumption that can't really be backed up , the modern day scholars have older transcripts available and less mistranslations.If we were gonna say any version only it should be a greek and hebrew bible where true context is much more clear.I however question their honesty for adding God save the king when that appears no where
Gutcheckcoming 3 years ago
The problem that I have with that line of reasoning, is that It goes against what the what scriptures teach.
If God promised his word infallible, Ps 12:6-7, 138:2, and COMMANDS his people to take the sword of the spirit Eph6:17, Heb4:12 and search them Jo5:39.
And then proclaims that the gospel will be preached to EVERY CREATURE which is under heaven Col:1:23, and then further declares that I will be judged by by that standard, Jn:12:48.
Then God has to produce a book, or can't save me.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
but the thing is can you have blind trust when the mistranslations can't be refuted ? I'm not questioning God's message i believe it is complete and pure, i was just saying that there is no perfect english translation.
Gutcheckcoming 3 years ago
The devil refuted Gods ability to come good on his word in Gen 3 bro and has never stopped. We either have an infallible word in the English to accommodate the prior mentioned declarations, or God is a liar, and we are ALL LOST.
Rom1:22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Jer17:5Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
Ps118:8It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
I also disagree with your assertion on a translation. Every scriptural reference in the Bible relative to a translation, was an IMPROVEMENT on what proceeded it.
Col:1:13: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
Heb:11:5: By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
kjvonly01, nice to see someone standing up for God's Word.
All of this digging through everything under the sun to one day find out what an Almighty God said must be a bummer.
1st cor 1:25, Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
PowerNDblood 3 years ago
Amen bro.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
I agree, and that's why I reject your man-centered philosophy of King James onlyism. Thanks for the enlightening discussion. Don't bother to keep trying to get me to respond, I am done here. My honest wishes for God's blessings on you.
gbisaga 3 years ago
Well I hope that you are a man of your word, and stop posting like you said you were going to do 3 posts ago.
But then again, I shouldn't expect that a man that denies an infallible word, (singular) in English, would ever keep his word anyway, and you proved that to certainly be the case.
So long, and don't break your back carrying all those perversions of the gospel trail. Don't get to confused along the way which book to use brother.
1Cor:14:33: For God is not the author of confusion
LOL
kjvonly01 3 years ago
There is no need to be obnoxious and hateful about it, but you could at least be honest. I did NOT ask about denominational affiliation, I could care less about that. I am interested in which view your overall philosophy better aligns with. Don't just spout Bible verses at me, which I accept as much as you do. If you do not wish to have the honesty to answer my question, then that's ok. Rational discussion is typically not the strong suit of KJV only-ers, but I had hoped for better with you.
gbisaga 3 years ago
Listen friend, If be anyone is being obnoxious, it's you.
This is what the scripture teaches on worldly philosophy.
Col:2:8: Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9: For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10: And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
I'm complete in Christ's work, and Word, that is my philosophy.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
I would appreciate it, my friend, if you would answer my question below. Namely: "Would you identify more with an Arminian or Calvinist theology? In other words, to greatly simplify the question, do you believe a true believer can lose their salvation?"
gbisaga 3 years ago
I answered your question, but you were not listening. I am neither, and refuse to lump myself with your sly attempts of denominational affiliation.
Jn:14:6: Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
I identify WITH CHRIST AND HIS BLOOD.
Christ kicked out ALL denominations. And I already told you, that I am sealed, and gave you the references.
Look them up.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Right, so why should we not read the Great Bible today? After all, it was authorized by English kings first. And my understanding was that the Puritans, at least the ones who were part of the founding of the US, used primarily the Geneva rather than the KJV; wikipedia says merely "the church" disliked the Geneva because it was "too Calvinist," whatever that means.
gbisaga 3 years ago
Well if you remember, King Saul proceeded David. The first Adam failed, then second Adam did not.
God hated Esau (the first born) but loved Jacob.
Ruben was denied first born and heir status and it was given to Joseph who born to Rachel who was the wife Jacob spoke for, but was denied when given Leah, and I could go on and on.
Ultimately, the Great Bible was rejected, and never made the grade.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Ultimately I think that your inventing a crisis that does not exist brother. I rest confident with my King Jimmie. You can take whatever you think is infallible (If an infallible document even exists in your eyes), and believe that.
I really do not personally care what you embrace in the final analysis. You do not have to answer to me about your position. All I know is that God tells me to contend for the faith Jude 1:3, take the Sword of the Spirit, Eph 6:17.
So God has to provide it.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Cain came first, then Abel, and then God replaced Abel with Seth. First tables of stone were smashed at the foot of the mount, the second tables were left in the Ark.
The first priestly order was Levitical, which was replaced by the order of Melchizedek. The Law was given by Moses in the Old Testament, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ in the New testament.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Why does it not make sense to say first came the KJV, but it was found wanting, so then came the NASB? Or first the Byzantine texts were accepted, but they were found wanting, so then came the Alexandrian? Notice you've shifted your ground an awful lot here: first the KJV was the best because it was first, now the KJV is best because it was the second. I agree that I don't have to convince you, but I pity your fear of other Bible versions. God is stronger than that. God's blessings to you.
gbisaga 3 years ago
I NEVER said EVER that the KJV was found wanting at ANY give time. What YOU haven't told us, is what your final authority is in the English brother. If God COMMANDS YOU to take the sword of the spirit Eph:6:17, and to earnestly contend for the faith, Jude:1:3:.
And If the gospel is to be preached to the entire world Col:1:23:, Mt:24:14:, and the world language of trade and commerce is English.
At least I have a final authority, YOU have offered NOTHING.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
God also has to supply us an infallible document that he states he will judge us by Jn:12:48. You come on this blog and offer NO AUTHORITY by which God could complete the claims he makes relative to his book for the believer.
Rom:10:17: So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
I guess you don't have any faith, because you still have not offered us an infallible English document, and faith comes from the book brother.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
NASB, or any NEW translation, was not authorized by a King. We have already gone through this argument, go back and read your Bible History starting with Moses, and the need for a King figure relative to the inspiration and preservation of scripture.
Deut:33:5: , Prov:25:1: , and read the history of the Kings, and Chronicles.
Your talking in circles my friend.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Your king analogy is a valiant attempt but it makes no sense. Not only do 17th century kings of England no have authority over 21st century Americans, but what about the poor unfortunate people groups who have never had kings? Does this mean they have no valid Bible in their own languages?
gbisaga 3 years ago
I am respectfully closing my comments here. It is apparent that you have your mind made up, and any evidence that supports your view, no matter how inconsistent or shifting, will be brought out in support when convenient, or dropped when necessary. My faith is in God and His word, not in any man-made translation - since every work of translation is man-made, as the KJV translators themselves acknowledged. I honestly appreciate your zeal for the Bible, and wish you the best.
gbisaga 3 years ago
That's right. I have a FINAL AUTHORITY, and YOU could not supply one.
The King analogy makes no difference even though it is biblically sound, and chronicled as a significant pattern traced from Moses, to Christ as disclosed.
YOU were predisposed BEFORE this conversation even started, and YOU STILL have NO FINAL AUTHORITY other than your own opinion of what the Bible coulda, shoulda, and woulda said.
Rom:10:17: So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
There you have it folks, a Bible corrector, with NO FINAL AUTHORITY THAT HE CAN GO PUBLIC WITH.LOL....
Pick your poison.
Gen:3:1: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said,
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Please stop embarrassing yourself. The KJV has been the body of text which has been used to translate into hundreds of languages.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
I said I was done, and I am. I would gently point out that you might want to read a bit more widely to correct your understanding of the facts. But I do want to ask one question, purely out of curiosity: would you identify more with an Arminian or Calvinist theology? In other words, to greatly simplify the question, do you believe a true believer can lose their salvation?
gbisaga 3 years ago
This man has to carry a bag full of perversions, and has no final authority in the English language that he can rest confident in, go public with.
Do I use a wooden dagger, or the Sword of the Spirit. Now thats being a good soldier of Jesus Christ.
NEWS PAPER HEADLINE.
MAN DIES ATTEMPTING TO GO UP A HILL WITH A BIG OF BIBLES ON A MISSIONARY JOURNEY.
No wonder why the unsaved laugh at us, they see all the confusion. 1Cor 14:33
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Christ stated Heb:10:7:, in "the volume", (singular) of "THE BOOK", (singular), it is written of me.
Eph 6:17 The Sword, (singular) of the Spirit.
Jude 1:3 contend for "the" faith, (singular).
Heb 4:12 sharper than any two edged "sword", (singular).
2Pt:1:19 "We", (everyone) have also "a", (singular) more sure "word", (singular) of prophecy;
And I am sealed.
Eph 1:11-13, Eph 4:30, Jn:10:28-29, Jo 6:37,
kjvonly01 3 years ago
I pity your acceptance of ALL versions, especially the Alexandrian. God gets what he wants done right the first time. He may permit, as already detailed on a number of fronts a progressive document. But it is the end product that matters.
If you are a serious student of recorded scriptural patterns as qualified biblically, you will note that God used many many means by which to come to an end product, and some, are not even fully disclosed.
So what is YOUR FINAL AUTHORITY ?
kjvonly01 3 years ago
You are right, every OT book testified of Christ. I thank God for that provision. I also agree that the symbolism of Kings is important, and Jesus is the King of Kings. But are you seriously trying to make the argument that because the KJV was commissioned by an English King, it's the only one authorized by God? Earlier kings, such as Henry VIII and Edward VI) clearly authorized earlier versions, such as Coverdale's Great Bible - why do those earlier authorizations not count?
gbisaga 3 years ago
The Great Bible was the first "authorized version" issued by the Church of England in the reign of King Henry VIII.[2] In January 1604, King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans. The Puritans were a faction within the Church of England.
That was from Wiki:
God used James brother.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Moses is referred to as a King, and the Kings under the Law of Moses were commanded to write him a copy of the Law.
Furthermore, in 1st and 2nd Kings / Chronicles, the history of the Kings is recorded for our learning. Solomons writing gets scripturally canonized in Proverbs 25:1 during the kingship of Hezekiah.
Kings were always in close proximity to prophets, and were commanded under Deut 17:18 to write him a copy of the Law.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Then Christ as King of Kings, gives the New Testament Saint the Old Testament canon qualifications.
Lk:24:44: And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Jn:5:39: Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Every OT book, testified of Christ.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
One more thing: let me make the statement that God has made our job easy with the Geneva Bible translated into one language, complete with chapter and verse markings to guard against corruption.
What is wrong with that statement? That is, once you remove the philosophical belief (not supported in the Biblical text itself, by the way) that the KJV is THE authoritative reference to compare all other Bible translations against? I'm not being argumentative, I just want the truth to come out.
gbisaga 3 years ago
Well the number system was imposed by God under the Old Testament:
Acts:13:33: God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
And then reinstated as a security tool by the King James translators. Revelation 22:18-19, does not restrict Gods ability to offer an infallible translation with verse markings and italicized words to complete a secured word in English.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
No, the numbering system was not "reinstated" by the KJV translators; the KJV was not even the first version in English to use them. The Geneva Bible of 1581 (youtube will not allow me to embed URLs, but you can find an image of the Geneva pages easily enough, just google "geneva bible image") clearly shows versification and numbering that matches the KJV's.
You're right, Rev 22:18 does not restrict verse markings; but it does restrict the adding of words and phrases, such as 1 John 5:7.
gbisaga 3 years ago
I would respectfully disagree with both of your assertions. The number system was in place in the Old Testament as clarified in Acts:13:33.
When the number system is implemented is really irrelevant,( straining at a nat ). In Daniel 5:1-31, God changes a word in mid-stream while translating from an original document and gives it orally to Belshazzar in Syriack Chaldean.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Dan 5:24: Then was the part of the hand sent from him; and this writing was written.
25: And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.
26: This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.
27: TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.
28: PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Upharsin, was changed to Peres when that passage was re-interpreted. Bottom line, is that God has the ability to change words IN MID-STREAM when translating into another language.
The restriction in Rev 22:18-19 is in relation to MAN CHANGING THE WORDS, not God. The KJV translators did nothing less than what God had previously established in Daniel 5:1-31.
That passage was later translated into Hebrew and then English. The KJV translators did nothing untoward with our italics, and numerics.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
And please don't think I'm saying the KJV is not a good Bible version - it is. I'm just saying that it does not make any sense to me to hold it up as the single standard that all other versions are compared against. God bless you brother.
gbisaga 3 years ago
I do not hold anyone to anything. We live in a free world, with freedom of expression and will. I do my very best to convince people that God has made our job easy with our KJV translated in one language, complete with chapter and verse markings to guard against corruption.
No other English Bible measures up to the KJV when investigating the internal evidence of the scripture, and it's retaining EVERY VERSE in chronological or, with the honesty of the italics.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
I appreciate that. We hear a lot about losing verses; we hear less about the perils of adding them. The Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7-8 is but one example: the evidence shows that it was added long after the fact. Revelation 22:18-19 is always quoted by KJV-onlyists, but it seems to me they are reading verse 19 and ignoring verse 18. The Comma is certainly an accurate rendition of what the Bible teaches; but all the same, it's not in any original Greek texts before the 16th century.
gbisaga 3 years ago
By the way, you might want to check out what the TR contains. It purely contains the New Testament. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, the same as modern Bible versions, except without recent revisions.
gbisaga 3 years ago
Relating to Revelation 22:18-19, maybe a better question is why the King James translators wanted to ADD 1 John 5:7 to the Bible? Weren't they concerned about violating that passage in Revelation?
1 John 5:7 may be the "clearest verse that conveys the Godhead", but since it was not originally in the Bible, it's still a violation of the Revelation passage. I recommend you read an actual believing scholar such as Dan Wallace or Bruce Metzger.
gbisaga 3 years ago
Saith who? Saith the Greek Lexicon which is non-authoritative written by Scholars. None of the words in 1Jo 5:7 are italicized.
The KJV translators ALWAYS italicized text that was added to complete the idiom of the language, and to make a full and accurate translation into the English.
The KJV translators, were the only ones who were honest. Tell me, what is your final authority, because God promised to preserve his words infallibly.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
I was replying to your hyperbole about "why would you want to remove that verse." I understand that the translators of the KJV thought the verse was authentic.
But that's not the main point. God has indeed preserved His Word. The question is, where? You are assuming, without proof, that it's the KJV that's authoritative. How are you authorized to make the decision that a Bible translation created 1600 years after the original is authoritative? What did English speakers do before 1611?
gbisaga 3 years ago
Hey Brother, the TR was the authorized body of text in Hebrew and Greek. The KJV translators new Greek and Hebrew better than anyone that will ever post on this or your blog.
Ultimately, you are going to have that TR text translated into English for any English party to understand what was written in Greek, and Hebrew.
We had the best of the best with the KJV translators, and I fully trust the translation.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Don't misunderstand: I am not at all questioning the competence or honesty of the translators. I am sure their proficiency in Greek was far above my own, and I don't even know Hebrew. My NT-related question is the source of the TR, put together quickly by Erasmus. I am not faulting Erasmus: he was pressured by his publisher to make it quickly, and he did his best. The TR is considered a decent, but not authoritative, text by most believing scholars today. (I am counting only Christians here.)
gbisaga 3 years ago
Ultimately God promised to preserve his word, and further declares that the gospel will be preached to every creatures, and furthermore commands us to take the sword of the spirit which is the word of God, and then tells us that we will be judged by the book.
Somewhere, to the English speaking public, which is the world language of commerce, God will have to come good on his expectations, and produce an authoritative book to hold his subjects to account in areas concerning Gods word.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
I agree with you completely. But my question is, why the KJV? Why not the many English versions produced before the KJV? Many of the founders of this country thought the Geneva Bible better. Even the Douay-Rheims was written before 1611, and that didn't involve Greek at all, but Latin, which was the "world language of commerce" for 1000 years before.
I truly appreciate your zeal for God's truth; but I just ask that you get all the facts before making a decision. Blessings, brother.
gbisaga 3 years ago
Eccl:8:4: Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?
King James, was the ONLY English King, who AUTHORIZED the translation from the Hebrew and Greek into Shakespearean English during the time of the Renaissance.
The scriptures correlated a profound connection to Kings relative to the inspiration, and preservation of Scriptures.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Due 33:4: Moses commanded us a law, even the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob.
5: And he was king in Jeshurun, when the heads of the people and the tribes of Israel were gathered together.
Deut:17:18: And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:
Prov:25:1: These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Correction : Was the ONLY approved version authorized by a King.
The Great Bible was the first "authorized version" issued by the Church of England in the reign of King Henry VIII.[2] In January 1604, King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans. The Puritans were a faction within the Church of England.
But it fell short of the mark.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Your doing OK John, all I can tell you, is that you will always be confused until you have a final authority (outside of a Lexicon in a real Bible)
The word Hell for example, is used in an entirely different context than the limited definition given in any Lexicon.
That is true for many, many words in the Bible. Ultimately, the Bible has to define the words within the context that the Bible gives, or a mans definition of the word in a Lexicon becomes the final authority over the Bible.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
I'm going to have to call it quits for tonight young man.
Go back over those verse omissions on the this video, then read Rev 22:18-19, Deu 4:2, and Pro 30:5-6
Then cross examine those verses with your modern day translations, and you will draw, but ONE conclusion, namely, that modern day translations cannot be trusted by virtue of blatant violations of scriptural canonization rules that were establish by God himself.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
We will talk in circles, and you will ALL WAYS have a measure of confusion as long as you use a Lexicon, or multiple versions to argue something, that the KJV translators have completed done admirably.
The Devil loves it.
You need to come to an understanding of conviction of Gods ability to supply you an infallible document without reservation in it's entirety, or you will die confused.
I came to that understanding 23 years ago.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
I am really trying here sir, but the protestant religion whom despise the Catholic ways is nothing more then text purchased from King James himself from the sect of CATHOLICISM? In Latin nonetheless? Which was translated to begin with?
Sadly sir, the only text that makes sense to me is in it's "virgin" (lol) form? Not it's translated one?
I'm really trying here.
johnhart30 3 years ago
Ok John, we will wait for you tomorrow, and thanks for the chat.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
*correction
You are ***NOT using the TR, you are using a Lexicon that may not even be from the original TR manuscript, and you are accepting the definitions supplied in that Lexicon over the actual Bible text.
So then, the Lexicon and the definitions that supplied are your authority instead of the Bible text.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Sir, the Lexicon is the actual word used in original text which was written in Greek and Hebrew...not English?
These words in English mean what they meant in ancient times in Greek and Hebrew, in it's original form, the original form of the Bible.
Sir the KJV was purchased text from the Catholic church in Vulgate Latin which was translated from Aramaic Greek and Hebrew, not English you must accept these words as to what they meant in ancient times? These words have not changed over centuries?
johnhart30 3 years ago
Go and look at the word virgin in that Lexicon, and report what it says.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Specifically, look up virgin in Rv:14:4: and post it word for word for us.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
They were not defiled like women...they were virgins...KJV
They are not the ones who defiled themselves with women. In fact they are like virgins...NWT
johnhart30 3 years ago
I agree with this text sir, I just cannot explain Luke and Isaiah?
johnhart30 3 years ago
Too much confusion for me my friend, and that is NOT what my Greek Lexicon reads.
My Lexicon does not distinguish the male gender as being a virgin, it only uses the female gender to identify that word, because that word has been redefined by another party and inserted into the Greek Lexicon.
The whole point of my argument is that you just used 3 sources, to make your case, and it is not agreeing with my TR Greek, so who is right?
The Bible is right, those virgins are men in the male gender.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Sorry, I forgot to place the word woman in front of that..."a women whom is pure without sexual union"
johnhart30 3 years ago
That's right John. So that Lexicon cannot be trusted as authoritative because it does not recognize the male gender in it's use.
Remember, a Lexicon is a general definition of a word, but by no means an exhaustive definition.
That is where the Bible has to be given preeminence in broadening a definition that is limited in any Lexicon. When we do that, we give the Bible the place of authority it deserves, and we stop relying on a mans limited definition of a word in a Lexicon over the Bible.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
So where does the KJV take place over the New Testament...or say the old testament which doesn't even mention Jesus, but Joseph? The parallel of those two is strikingly similar?
Joseph Jesus
Began work at 30 Began work at 30
sold for 20 pieces silver 30 pieces of silver
sold by Judas Sold by Judah
so on and so on? The parallels go on and on? Plus the OT was written well before either the NT or KJV?
johnhart30 3 years ago
John, you make a good point. The Bible is filled with typology of Biblical events that later get fulfilled.
The account you mention is Joseph, is just one of them. We need to bridge to the version issue, so that you can see the pattern of corruption that exists in the modern day translations, so that we can go on to qualify what should be used as a FINAL AUTHORITY, which can be trusted without reservation.
Rom 10:17, Jo 17:17, 2Tm:3:15-16:, 2Pt 1:1-21, Mt:5:18, Mt:24:35:
kjvonly01 3 years ago
In Aramaic Greek...it does not define sexual orientation? Interesting...I just found out that information.....Hebrew seems not to mention it either?
johnhart30 3 years ago
That was my point about using a Lexicon as an authority. It's NO AUTHORITY at all, many people use it as one, but the word definitions are by no means biblically exhaustive.
The Bible is the only true authority because it defines by context and use what the meaning of the word is within each passage.
The Bible is the best Biblical dictionary your going to find. did you go through all those verses and cross examine them with the modern day translations.
It's important that you see corruption.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Hey John, Read Rev 22:18-19, Prov 30:5-6, and Deu 4:2 , and then check out these verses in your modern day translations, and post your findings for us, so that everyone here will know what you found out.
You need to see the pattern of corruption.
Mat 17:21, Mat 18:11, Mat 23:14
Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36, Like 23:17
Jo 5:4
Acts 8:37, Acts 15:34, Acts 24:7, Acts 28:29
Roman 16:24
1John 5:7
kjvonly01 3 years ago
it means...."pure without sexual union"
It's the English dictionary that gives the word a number one definition in the third person...or as not have had done something? (Ex...his work habits were virgin.)
johnhart30 3 years ago
In order to move ahead, we have to eliminate ALL other sources of "extra biblical" sources, and determine that God gave us a book that is infallible, which will define how GOD chooses to use, and define a word.
God is not the author of confusion. Did you notice that the other translations REMOVED COMPLETE VERSES?
Just confirm, and then post you feelings about your findings, and then we can move ahead.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Tim, in my opinion the KJV is one of the most unreliable source?
(God's word is authoritative, no question about it.)
That said, King James paid for his ENGLISH translations because at that time all bibles were found to be in Catholicism text, which was Hebrew...aka the old testament.
James bought his text from the Catholic church and what was known as the "vulgate" latin which was translated from Aramaic Greek and Hebrew? So you must find the Greek and Hebrew as authoritative?
johnhart30 3 years ago
please explain in the KJV how these quotes are a mistranslation of a mistranslation?
The KJV misquotes itself...compare Luke Ch.3 verse 16-19 against Isaiah Ch. 61 verse 1-3....please explain this?
johnhart30 3 years ago
It contradicts itself in what is supposed to be a direct reading from scripture in the temple?
johnhart30 3 years ago
That scripture sir was in Hebrew...which is authoritative as it was the language spoken by the people of those times.
johnhart30 3 years ago
Then we have come to the end of the road young man. There has to be a final authority, and it is not a Hebrew or Greek lexicon.
Ps:12:6: The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7: Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Rom:10:17: So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
I simply refuse to argue a point with no final authority. You have yet to confirm your findings on the verse omissions that were supplied in the video, and you conclusions based on those omissions.
If you embrace ANY translation as authoritative after the scripture clearly forbids adding or removing text,
(Rev 22:18-21, Deu 4:2, Pro 30:5-6 )
Then there is simply nothing to discuss because we have no final authority.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
We most certainly have authority when you sir can explain the reference I made in Luke and Isaiah? This has been the one scripture that has never been answered or proven to me?
If this can be explained, then we have authority.
johnhart30 3 years ago
I'm not adding or removing text sir...just citing what the KJV is written in...and the words in which it is written in, I have explained what those words are defined as.
If you could please explain Luke and Isaiah?
I confirm that phrases were removed in such bibles as the NWT and the AS and so forth...however it is spot on match for the most part to the New testament.
The KJV was provided in English...for the world...and was translated from Aramaic Greek and Hebrew.
johnhart30 3 years ago
Could you just please explain to me those versus which I quoted?
The KJV sir comes from Aramaic Greek and Hebrew sir? Would you agree to this?
Out of all bibles, the KJV makes sense, but you cannot say that Hebrew and Greek are not authoritative when that is the language in which it was written in?
johnhart30 3 years ago
No, I would not agree with your train of thought. The TR is authoritative, but you are using the TR, you are using a Lexicon that has defined the words in English, and your NOT using the actually TR with text within the context of the written document, to determine the a truly Biblical definition.
Eph:4:14: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Ok Tim...before we carry on with these scriptures of this video, which I agree are true..just worded differently in some bibles such as the NWT.
First, I would like to take part in "demonic possession" This is an arbitrary argument, not a cognitive one sir.
I am in the field of psychology, and an invisible force cannot possess an individual.
Fact is...1% of our total population is defined as crazy. Some may attribute this to "possession" but it remains schizophrenia.
Cont....
johnhart30 3 years ago
Second...I would like to touch on the word "hell" and it's root meaning and how this word is mistranslated in many bibles.
The Hebrew word "Sheol" and the Greek words "hades" and "Gehenna" are a physical burial ground of ancient of the Israelites. It was located in the slums of Bethlehem on the outskirts of town and often burned with fire, purposely cremating the bodies.
The original-language words have been obscured. They simply mean grave...not hell.
cont...
johnhart30 3 years ago
All the written words of Sheol, Haides, and Gehenna all are translated within different bibles such as the KJV, The American Standard, and the New testament all as the same meaning which none of them have?
This is what is so tough for me to move forward, because it cannot be disproved.
I am very aware of versus noting "hell" but you also have biblical versus which also states the mind cannot live without the body or soul?
cont...
johnhart30 3 years ago
Ps. 9:17 KJV: "the wicked shall be turned into *hell* and all the nations that forgot God."
In all other bibles but the KJV...the words which replace hell are DY/"death"...TEV/"the place of death" and "Sheol" (which literally translates to "grave")is found in all other versions such as AS, RS, NE, JB, and NW.
This is just an example of how other phrases and versus have been changed in other variations of the bible?
johnhart30 3 years ago
Eccl 9:5, 10 " the living are conscious that they will die, but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all....All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in SHEOL the place which you are going."
Remember that "sheol" literally translates to "grave"....if they are conscious of nothing, they obviously feel no pain?)
johnhart30 3 years ago
Sheol can be found in AS RS NE JB....KJV is word "hell" and the phrase "world of the dead" can be found in TEV
Ps. 146:4: "His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground, in that day his *thoughts* do perish." This word is also mistranslated in other bibles such as JB which is replaced by "schemes" and the word "plans" is used in the RS and TEV?
johnhart30 3 years ago
I have found many bibles with different meanings Tim...mostly mistranslated from it's original text? Very confusing indeed, and for this reason can be argued or brought into question.
johnhart30 3 years ago
Very fine there John. The main point that I wanted to address relative to the videos is that the modern day translations ALL remove complete verses, and are not reliable.
The KJV, is the ONLY book that I actually call a Bible. In addition, a Greek, or a Hebrew Lexicon is NOT authoritative. The scripture IS. The problem with accepting a Greek or Hebrew Lexicon is that, ultimately people resort to the Lexicon as authoritative instead of permitting the Bible to define the word, and how it is used.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Here is my favorite. God gives no place to argue for the original, because it was a hand scribed document on a wall in a unknown unrevealed language, and then interpreted in Syriac to the King, and then scribed into the Hebrew in the Old Testament.
My favorite part, is where God decides to change a word mid stream within that verbal that translation, and then records it in written form.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Here it is...
Daniel 5:24: Then was the part of the hand sent from him; and this writing was written.
25: And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.
26: This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.
27: TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.
28: PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Did you see where God changes the word UPHARSIN into PERES in mid stream of Daniels oral interpretation which was later recorded in Hebrew.
I just love that one, It really messes up the Scholar.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
There are many translations within the scripture.
Genesis 40:1-23 , Joseph interprets a dream in Egyptian, but the document is recorded in Hebrew.
Again in Genesis 42:23: And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter.
Another
Ezra 6:7: B ) and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue.
Then translated into the Hebrew Old Testament.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
The original autographs have long since been gone. God never promised to preserve the original manuscripts. He promised to preserve his word Psalm 12: 6-7.
The first 11 Chapters of Genesis may very well have been a translation. A one world language existed until Genesis 10-11. Every account where discourse takes effect is not qualified as in the Hebrew.
If Adam, Eve, Noah, or anyone else for that matter did not speak Hebrew, then the first document ever given by Moses was a translation.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
When you go to your modern day perversions, and check out the verses that were on the video and cross examine them, and then look at the internal evidence of the scripture relative to adding or removing text, Due 4:2, Pro 30:5-6, and Rev 22: 18-19. One book stands alone in the English. One book can account for all the verses chronologically, one book exalts on every occasion Christs blood, deity, and Godhood. One books text is not copyright.
Ultimately, there has to be a final authority.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
From a scriptural standpoint, the word translation is used very sparingly. In every incident of the words use, an improvement took effect on that which preceded it.
2Sam:3:10: David is a definite improvement.
Col 1:13 a definite improvement.
Heb 11:5 a definite improvement.
England was a world superpower where the sun never set on it's empire. English, is the world language of commerce for a reason. The dilemma facing the world was the simplification of language in relation to the Bible.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
The KJV was not compiled from the same manuscripts as the modern perversions. Two separate bodies of manuscripts were used. The TR, or received Antioch/Byzantine text, is what our KJV was translated from. The Alexandrian library texts known as the Vaticanis and Sinaiticus manuscripts, were used in the modern perversions which explains why there is so much discrepancy.
Ultimately, all the versions used chapter and verse markings, but only the King James retained a complete chronological order.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
I don't think you're being honest and frank with your audience. First, your censoring debate. Second, you're not presenting modern textual critics approach or reasoning. Third, you're using the KJV as your standard and not mss/witness evidence. Fourth, you're calling these 'omissions' but not clarifying from what. A textual critic would counteract and say they are additions. Fifth, are you claiming the KJV is an improvement on the original autographs?
boboe511 3 years ago
Honesty is the very thing lacking in the modern translation, not a single naysayer has honestly come on this video, and posted a single reason why the verses mentioned in this video do not appear in their modern perversions.
The censoring I did had nothing to do with any formal discussion that offered any disclosure on items mentioned during any discourse posted on this video, but rather mudslinging, and name calling.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
That party now has the liberty to come back on, and comment with the understanding of what is tastefully to maintain a measure of professionalism.
If you actually watched, and listened to the video, and then read through all the video notes, plenty of discussion was offered on manuscript and internal evidence of the scripture including the outright verse omissions that ARE NOT in large part in modern perversions.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Prov 2:1: My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee;
2: So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding;
3: Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;
4: If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;
5: Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Tim, you might consider taking the block off of Barry's accounts as he is primarily the only one offering a debate against the KJV. Kind of difficult to debate something when everyone is in agreement with your stance.
Just a thought brohter.
Andy
nov251968aab 3 years ago
Removed Andy. I thought that when you clicked on block, that you block that message, but apparently you actually block the person from ever posting. Got it figured out, and corrected on the other site video also.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
I'm not running for political office. I don't have constituents. The word "crap", is the least of my worries when analyzing the blasphemy of your apparent distrust of the Almighty's ability to preserve his word in an authoritative volume of work that everyone calls the Bible.
Have you ever thought how offensive it is for the Almighty having to listen to a sustained barrage of attacks targeting Gods ability to preserve an infallible book ?
If it offends you that much, then stop reposting it.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
If blaspheming Gods ability to preserve his own word is not categorized as a act of arrogance, then I don't know what is.
I'm doing my job, and defending the faith, and because you don't like the KJV word dung. I give the same word in modern English, and now you have a problem with that.
Grow up, during your tenure as a Christian, your going to encounter far more offensive language than what has been posted on this forum today.
And I'm not not posting your name calling rants here.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
This post was in response to a name calling rant, that I am not posting.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Yes, the modern versions don't seem to know what the word 'dung' means and translate it as 'rubbish' which it isn't. So much for being 'clearer' than the AV1611.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
That response was in relation to a comment made by freesundayschoolless about the word crap, which I removed.
He can blaspheme Gods ability to preserve his word, but has no problem taking issue about a word translated in modern English from the KJV word "dung".
Now that is hypocrisy, and God does use the words Dung , and piss. I guess now you'll charge God of using profanity, give me a break.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
You were probably muttering more foul language under your breath in the last 2 hours than anything discussed on this forum.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
I guess I could have used the biblical word dung, but that translation may not have been good enough for you because the KJV translators used it.
So I dumbed it down for you because you said that you want things easy to be understood in todays English.
I'm never embarrassed to point out a mans foolishness, because all you have been offering is the same perverse corruptive garbage that undermines Gods promise to preserve his word.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Mal:2:3: Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Same old stuff, just reworded. If it looks like crap, and smells like crap, it is probably more crap.
Bring up something new or we are done.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
***corrected post
freesundayschoolless
I think you need to go back to ***sunday school with the KJV brother, even if you have to pay for it.
After having answered the same question 20 times in 15 ways, it does become futile as you stated. If you don't like my stuff, you can ditch me, and pick on some other KJV defender.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
"Neither did the KJV translators emphasize Aramaic, and I don't need a lesson in Greek, God gave me his word infallibly in the English. You need a lesson the KJV English, and start trusting Ps 12:6-7."
No Greek necessary to understand that Ps 12 speaks of preserving the poor in the midst of evil men.
I can read English and here is the proof that I can do so using the KJV.
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
Your ability to block my posts is your choice.
The fact that you need to block my posts (and I am being nice) is that you cannot answer them.
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
The problem is, when I answer, you don't accept it and keep rehashing over the same old stuff, so I'm moving on. It's a free country brother, you can believe what you want. I make no apologies for believing and defending the authorized KJV.
If you want to carry 14 bibles, the Septuagint, and every Scholar footnote under the sun, knock yourself out.
If you want to make some new comments with new remarks, I'll gladly unblock you from posting on our channel.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Here is a list of KJV vocabulary you claim is 6th grade level (compiled by Edmonds/Bell, 1856).
almug, algum, chode, charashim, chapt, earing, gat, habergeon, hosen, kab, ligure, nard, neesed, pate, pilled, ring-straked, stacte, strake, occurrent, purtenance, bruit, cracknels, nusings, mufflers, ephrata, aceldama, quarternion, pityful, wot, trow.
I know of no 6th grade vocabulary list with those terms. In fact, you probably could not give me a definition of each term off the top of your head.
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
No, but the Bible in it's context will qualify the remarks, and I certainly don't need a Scholar twisting my brain on what God shoulda, coulda, and woulda said.
It was certainly six grade Old English, and the difficult stuff amounts to a molehill in comparison to the confusion that modern day perversions give.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
First, most of those words can be understood in context. Second, if not, there is always the (gasp!) a dictionary.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
"...accessible to anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord."
No argument here. Looking forward to it.
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
"You can reply over there as long as you either bring up a new topic, or provide some biblical proof on the LLX quoted by Jesus Christ."
I sent you an explanation. Let the people over there decide for themselves.
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
Feel at liberty to post, I'm just doing a bit of moderation, no problem at all there, and thank you for an honest effort.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
"I" use the NIV in evangelism because "I" want people to understand the Gospel the first time "I" read it to them.
Yes, that is not good. As a Calvinist, I quickly see the problem. It is God who chooses. It is God who gives them faith and repentance. It is God who draws all men to Himself.
Thanks for keeping me doctrinally sound! I will be more careful next time.
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
I will also be doing a video, on the unlimited blood atonement of the blood of Jesus Christ accessible to anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
I also appreciate you demeanor on this post.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
I had to jump over here since you are blocking my comments on your first video.
The only confusion comes when I used the KJV:
"Ye must be born again."
"But God commendeth his love toward us"
"For whosoever shall call upon the name"
Remember, God is not the author of confusion...
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
You can reply over there as long as you either bring up a new topic, or provide some biblical proof on the LLX quoted by Jesus Christ.
We have already received the comment from you on enough occasions to qualify your feelings on the subject, it's now time to produce the biblical proof , thats all.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Hey know body seemed confused for about 300 years, I don't buy the argument, that 6th grade English is that hard to understand, especially if you are as learned in the book to qualify the language as you imply.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
What is confusing about those verses?
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Yeah thats right, God says , and take a pocket PC with you so that you can confuse the next Christian with as many versions that you can on the first day he gets saved.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
*correction
Did anyone see the use of the word "I" in his remarks.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Hey did anyone catch that guys language, it comes right out of your own mouth. Here is your quote:
"I" use the NIV in evangelism because "I" want people to understand the Gospel the first time "I" read it to them.
Did anyone the use of the word "I" in his remarks.
Rom:10:17: So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by "the word of God".(in the sin